Natural Science Forum / Physics / Research / January 2005

I was thinking about the metric and if you could create a operator for
it ala QM style. I came up with one and want to see what people think.
I have also commuted it with a couple of other operators such as the
position operator, momentum operator and itself, the metric operator

http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=6657
Can any of this be true?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com

Are all unitary irreducible representations of the
Galilei group classified? Do they arise by a limiting
construction from those of the Poincare group?
Arnold Neumaier

When I think of locality, what comes to mind is this thing is here and
that thing is there, etc. . This is my naive expectation of locality.
If a photon passed through a slit at time t, it means the photon was
localized at the slit up to the radius of the slit. However, a

If you are interested in an essay on the unified field theory of gravitation
and electromagnetism,
you may find mine at www.e-kr.org .
Best Regards

I am starting to collect material for the new version of  the
motion mountain physics text. For this, I have started a discussion
on the German newsgroup de.sci.physik which might be of interest also
over here. My sparring partner there is Norbert Dragon, well-known for

I've written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special
Relativity." It's a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations and
5 graphs. If you'd like a copy via email attachment, just let me know.
Features include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox "trip"

It is my understanding that, by means of a contact transformation, the
Hamiltonian of a system can be brought into a different form with
precisely the same eigenvalues.  Because of this, if one expands the
Hamiltonian in some basis of operators, one cannot in general expect to

I was wondering if some analog of the no cloning theorem obviously holds
in string theory or loop quantum gravity? By no cloning I mean the QM
result that there is no quantum operation which maps |a>|b> -> |a>|a>.
Do singularities cause problems for this result?

Is it possible that given an quantum state \psi, you transform from
some classical state by unitary transformation to get another quantum
state \phi, and |\psi - \phi| <= \epsilon? namely, the distance between
the two quantum state is close.

i realize that physical reality is not governed by majority rule within a
small group of human beings on an "insignificant planet [orbiting] a humdrum
star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe"
but i was wondering what a "straw poll" here might look ...

In the book "Classical Electrodynamics", Jackson clearly states
that much of the electrodynamics had developed as an experimental
science.
 I am wondering if there have been successful attempts to develop the

R F Streater has a couple pages called "Lost & Regained Causes in
theoretical physics". I'd enjoy to hear your oppinions about them.
http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html
http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/regainedcauses.html

Pardon me for butting in.
I am doing a translation work (an art catalogue) from Italian to English and
I'd need a quotation from the Discourse on two new sciences - Sagredo
introducing the pendulum in the first day: "Ho ben mille volte posto cura

Can someone tell me (or point me to a reference) as to how Loop Quantum
Gravity solves the cosmological
constant problem?
Thanks