At the center of a black hole is it the same time as the moment of its formation?

[Ramo]

Well, weird **** that I understand very poorly happens during inflation... So not that.

But from what I recall, angular momentum becomes a conserved current (i.e. the Lagrangian is invariant under rotations) if the metric is flat at infinity.

[KrazyHorse]

Ah. I get it. That makes sense.

[Kuciwalker]

Explain it to me then

[KrazyHorse]

No. I'm trying to watch a hockey game and work on a talk I have to give in 3 days. I don't have time to explain Noether's theorem to you.

[Lancer]

When you flush in the southern hemishere the toilet swirls the other way. So it is with the universe.

[Ramo]

Noether is awesome. Girls doing math 100 years ago.

[MattBowron]

KH, so you're studying supersymmetry? isn't that looking for what's called "sparticles" objects that are heavier in weight to the current elementary force particles?

And Higgs boson is like a TeV mass particle that causes the effect of mass and thus something similar to a gravitational force as Hawking stated that anything that had mass had gravity?

I wonder, sorry if this is another threadjack, but what do you think about the possibilities of Einstein-Rosen-bridges (aka wormholes)?

[Kuciwalker]

Hm, we used the Lasker–Noether theorem in my computer algebra course last semester...

[Ramo]

It relates conservations to symmetries (so groups are involved here). You usually learn about it in a second mechanics class...

Invariance under time translation in the physical laws (specifically the Lagrangian = Kinetic - Potential) is related to conservation of energy, invariance under spatial translation with conservation of momentum, and invariance under rotation with conservation of angular momentum.

If you're familiar with the Euler-LaGrange equations, conservation of momentum is easy to prove:

d/dt (dL/dx') = dL/dx
dL/dx' is the canonical momentum
So dL/dx = 0 implies dp/dt = 0

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MattBowron
KH, so you're studying supersymmetry? isn't that looking for what's called "sparticles" objects that are heavier in weight to the current elementary force particles?

Sort of. One of the predctions of susy is the presence of a superpartner to every standard model particle. The fact that these are more massive (have to be or we would have seen them) than their partners is actually evidence that the symmetry has to be broken. Secondly, don't say "elementary force particles". Just say "elementary particles".

And Higgs boson is like a TeV mass particle that causes the effect of mass and thus something similar to a gravitational force as Hawking stated that anything that had mass had gravity?

a) Higgs has to have mass less than 1 TeV. Given other experiments mass should be much lower than that (preferred mass < 100 GeV with a fairly broad distribution). Lower mass bound is 115 GeV for SM higgs. So our search is already above preferred mass. Things will get funky if we don't see Higgs at LHC.

b) Yes, Higgs gives mass to other particles. The reason you can't simply give other particles mass directly is fairly deep. I'm not sure I could explain it to you in a way that would make any sense.

c) I have no idea what you mean by the relationship between Higgs and gravity. AFAIK there is no generally accepted mechanism in which Higgs explains anything about gravity.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I tell people I'm trying to develop a bomb that will kill everybody in the entire Universe.

Hmmm, a time bomb

[Lancer]

Bumpt for Oerdin

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Now unless you are a theoretical physicist, I doubt it very much that your comment was appropriate, and expect an apology.

Damn! Nothing like calling out one of our two posters who have PHDs in Theoretical Physics!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


If you are refering to poly, I would have never guessed it. I mean most with half a brain here seem to be in social "sciences" ( ).

Some of us studied real science.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Some of us studied real science.

Unfortunately, not you.