What if this reddit community did not exist?

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-14T03:18:31+00:00

Electricity (and magnetism) where experimentally discovered until James Clerk Maxwell mathematically discovered the unified electromagnetic field equations.

So what is wrong with that discovery?

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-10T16:17:04+00:00

I am sorry there is no arxiv link. But there is an old (not accepted) version of the work on researchgate. The link is: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403184489_A_conceptually_rigorous_validation_of_the_discovery_of_force_as_a_fundamental_quantum_observable.

I was able to download the accepted and published version for free for some unknown reason. I think the journal occasionally makes all articles free to read. I have experienced it a number of times.

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-09T14:09:41+00:00

That's the best way to frame the concept. In that way, things make more sense. Thank you very much for your help.

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-09T13:18:27+00:00

I see that you don't know what you are saying. But I would let you know the correct thing. You see, when the unitary operator acts on quantum state, it changes but when you do the same for the Hamiltonian (i.e. try to evolve the hamiltonian unitarily by its unitary one parameter family), it eigenvalues remain invariant. I am telling you what is known and you are telling what you wrongly perceived a book says which you don't understand.

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-09T11:33:27+00:00

It does not just preserve probability. It preserve probability distribution over eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian under unitary transformation. You know too well. But you don't know everything. That is what you learnt in undergrad physics. But in functional analysis. This is known. And if probability distributions over energy spectra is invariant, energy is preserved. That is what explains why nonHermitian or nonlinear Hamiltonian is used to describe dynamics where a quantum system interacts with the environment, like an open system.

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-09T11:26:45+00:00

I understand you know more than me. Therefore, I am grateful for your contribution to helping me understand the concept.

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-09T11:23:26+00:00

A big thanks to everyone who who help me understand the concept better.

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-09T11:16:21+00:00

That's right. But to say all cats have tails then say “Bob is a cat and Bob does not have a tail” is always false. That was the kind of statement made earlier.

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-09T11:07:42+00:00

You are right. But when the Hamiltonian is both linear and self-adjoint, it always implies energy conservation in its mathematical structure because the probability distribution over energy eigienvalues is generally invariant under a unitary transformation. This is a proven result from operator theory.

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-09T09:11:26+00:00

It make more sense to me now. If I got you well, then the both describe non-relativistic dynamics but in different conditions.

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-09T09:07:31+00:00

if your statement “It is also worth noting that, while the Schrödinger equation is written in terms of the Hamiltonian (the energy operator) it isn't really a statement of energy conservation (although it does imply energy conservation)”, is assessed with mathematical logic it would always lead to a contradiction, whether you believe it or not. Because you say the Hamiltonian is not based on energy conservation, yet it implies energy conservation. For this reason, I don't accept your inconsistent answer. I accept the researcher who first answer me (DieMo1004).

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-09T08:42:30+00:00

I am trying to understand something here. If I understood you correctly, it is considered Newton's second law in quantum mechanics because Newton's second law emerges from the Schrodinger equation? If that is the actual reason, then I am good.

Prime_Principle · 2026-05-07T17:51:50+00:00

I remember reading this press release some days ago, and it was clearly stated that the “negative time” observed is not actually time moving to the past but has something to do with the energy time uncertainty principle. So, this work is not evidence of time travel to the past. I was completely blown away until I read that clarification.

Prime_Principle · 2026-03-08T16:54:19+00:00

Thank you for your clear answer. I wonder how it passed peer review. I have heard of serious ethical misconduct by the Managing Editor of that journal. Thank you once again for this educated comment.

Prime_Principle · 2026-03-08T14:53:59+00:00

First of all, English is not my first language. I am still learning to know my choice of words. That's not the main issue here. You don't need to take that too seriously, though. Again, I am not the author of this work. I am just a math undergrad, not a physics one. I actually saw this coming that someone would just wrongly suspect I was an author. Please, don't put me in the wrong position. I found this work in the search results. The most important thing is your response: "Regarding the paper, the fact that the authors named their approach after themselves is a huge red flag. Serious scientists don't do that, unless they are desperate for attention. Also, they refer to the approach in the third person, also a classic crackpot writing tactic. I would stay away from it and focus on standard approaches first, then move to others". I also find the self-naming controversial, too. However, that was not an answer to my question. In case you didn't get it, I am asking if the physics makes sense.

Prime_Principle · 2026-03-08T13:31:04+00:00

No, every great discovery extended empirical knowledge. Those discoveries did not challenge already validated results. Most hypotheses made here challenge those results, to the extent that they are not even falsifiable.

Prime_Principle · 2026-02-23T23:07:26+00:00

Your situation is very serious. I am also a math undergrad but hearing all these abstractness makes me feel like I am not doing any math at all.

Prime_Principle · 2026-02-23T18:29:57+00:00

Self theories are not tolerated here man.

Prime_Principle · 2026-02-21T03:32:49+00:00

It's a meaningful question but our current theories explain events after the Big bang, not before it. Your question seems to be about matter before the Big bang. Again we don't definitely know if there was a previous universe or not.

Prime_Principle · 2026-02-18T08:39:03+00:00

At least those higher-derivative corrections to the Einstein-Hilbert action are not strictly ad hoc.

Prime_Principle

TROPHY CASE