References
Category:Network management//
// Generated by class-dump 3.5 (64 bit) (Debug version compiled Oct 15 2018 10:31:50).
//
// class-dump is Copyright (C) 1997-1998, 2000-2001, 2004-2015 by Steve Nygard.
//
#import
@interface _TtC14EntityKit32GridRowSpecification : NSObject
{
}
- (void)applyToExpression:(id)arg1 row:(int)arg2;
@end
Q:
What will be the status of negative energy states?
So, the idea is that we live in 3 dimensions.
The first dimension is time, which we observe as an irreversible process.
The second dimension is length, which we observe as a reversible process and is a property of all inertial frames.
The third dimension is space, which is the sole dimension of our observable universe and is a property of non-inertial frames (due to being unable to stay with the clock and the rest of the universe).
In a non-inertial frame we would see two sheets and we would be the only ones to live on the upper one.
So, my question is:
Since our universe has a non-inertial frame, then it is also non-static and for that reason it is able to have negative energy states.
What is the status of negative energy states in GR?
Does negative energy have a place?
Also, it seems to me that the idea of negative energy itself is not really coherent with special relativity, since as far as I know in SR if we translate a system the energy it had before the translation must always remain the same.
Could you please give me some references?
A:
In GR, the concept of "energy" is observer dependent. There is a gravitational field in the Universe, and that field has some energy associated with it, which we are accustomed to thinking of as "energy", and when we say "negative energy" we are simply indicating that the energy of the gravitational field is less than the maximum energy, as we can arrange. (When we say that the gravitational field has energy, this of course means that it is something which interacts with other stuff, and therefore we must ask what the ac619d1d87
Related links: