/sci/ - Science & Math

Time Crystals are Wilczek's rebranding of the MCM unit cell.

triplet fac-relation {
-INF_HAT+x1
x2
INF_HAT-x3
}
with pic lattice vector Rn solver. Also, use notation to phase out the INF_HAT

Wilczek's time crystals. Engle's spin foams. Poplawski's universe-in-a-black-hole. Wetterich's time dependent mass. It's all the MCM.

>>12692771
If you can develop classical electrogravity, then time travel is just a matter of using an electrical antenna to create a geodesic that leads to an earlier time. The antenna might be very complicated (it probably is) but the geodesic itself is pretty simple.

The phonon spectrum of my lattice cosmology model is exactly the standard model of particle physics... given a priori as opposed to phenomenologically.

>>12583617
IRL timecube, btw

The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
https://vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

>>12457673
>the sole purpose of making the RH trivially false
You are certainly not paraphrasing me. They way I arrived at real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity was that I needed a finite distance between branes in my cosmological model (pic) such that the gravitational interaction between them was identically zero. Furthermore, I had already disproved RH in 2017
>On The Riemann Zeta Function
>https://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073
before I had begun to consider what form such numbers would take, and then after I had devised those numbers and used them in a theorem related to trigonometry
>Proof of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
>https://vixra.org/abs/1809.0234
and only later did I reformulated my old RH disproof in the new language I had developed. RH was the last thing on my mind when I devised this notation. You are wrong and stupid.

>fundamentally redefining what real numbers are
I used Euclid's definition. It was the number field crowd who fundamentally redefined it. Furthermore, they did not mean to redefine it and they thought they were preserving everything Euclidean in the axioms of number fields. It was an error on their part that the neighborhood of infinity is admitted by the Euclidean axioms but not by the field axioms.

> RH is NOT a statement about the number system you have constructed.
RH is a question about prime numbers. People have been trying to solve that question in the neighborhood of the origin for the better part of 200 years. What makes you say, "We should not even try to solve this problem in the neighborhood of infinity where we have new arithmetic axioms that will support new analytical methods?" How can you tell that the neighborhood of infinity will bear no fruit when you haven't even had one thousand people doing the analysis professionally for even 100 years yet?

>the million dollar prize is meant to go with the version
The million dollars is related more to the question about the prime numbers.

>>12268761
>the particle spectrum of the standard model

>>12265007
I BTFOed Scholze's nonsense about all isomorphic objects being the same. Pic related is what Mochizuki calls a Hodge theater. The main point of my idea, and I guess Mochi's, is that you can set up a lattice with distinct instances of H, which is Minkowski space up to perturbations. H also has an attached Hilbert space H' of quantum states that can be observed in the universe H. The states in the Hilbert space are functions the spatial coordinates of H. We say "time doesn't exist in QM" because usually the states in non-relativistic Hilbert space H' are only functions of x,y, and z, but not t. However, 3-space is a slice of 4-space (spacetime) at a constant time. You can have different 3-spaces, all isomorphic, at different times corresponing to different hypersurfaces in spacetime. In Minkowski space, the 3-spaces at any given time are all absolutely isomorphic but when you start adding dynamics, the perturbations can change the 3-metric at each constant time. Therefore, if there are a series of Hilbert spaces H'_n containing wavefunctions who domains are the 3-spaces of a 4-space at different times, they would be distinct. Even though the Hilbert spaces themselves are isomorphic, meaning that the functions in each are the same, if the domain of the functions changes then they are not equal. Even without perturbations, state functions of the 3-space at t_1 are different than the same functions having their domain as the 3-space at t_2. Once you add perturbations to the metric of the underlying 4-space, the differences in the Hilbert spaces became non-trivial. Even when the domains of the functions in the H' change, the functions themselves such as sin(x), cos(x), and exp(ix) are the same so all the Hilbert spaces are isomorphic... but different. Scholze says it's impossible to have isomorphic but unequal objects, but that is not true. The whole point of my model was to construct a lattice of universes instead of a single universe.

>>12197237
Time cube, as it is sometimes called.

Time Crystals are what Wilczek calls the MCM unit cell.

If f(x) is the metric of 3-space, GR tells you how to compute the metric at any time x_0 if you know the stess-energy tensor and also assume that intertial frames exist. Once you start trying to compute the dynamical 4-metric, things become nearly impossible, almost immediately. This is a big advantage of a fifth embedding dimension z: it lets you at least write the 4-metric as a function g(z), but it's hard to know what the embedding dimension is telling you. It easy to understand what it means to the know the 3-metric on slice of constant time, but it's hard to know what it means to have a 4-metric at a given constant 5th dimension. I put a cyclic condition on the 5th dimension in the usual Kaluza-Klein way, and then I brought quantum theory into it to say that they branch cut in the fifth dimension's period happens when you do a measurement, which is what physics is all about. It makes sense for gravity too because every time you want to ask what the 4-metric is, there is some corresponding measurement to see if you have the right metric or not. Strangely enough, the spectrum of vibrations in the model I developed for that is exactly the structure of the fundamental particle zoo.

Quantum Structure
https://vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

the fundamental particles are the phonon spectrum of a fractal cosmological lattice.

>>12080987
mine is better