>>12059245

Which concepts do you feel are unrelated?

The fundamental problem of quantum gravity is that the language of the two theories is so different that it is not possible to put a gravitational object into an equation such that it is equal to a quantum object. This was my big discovery: I found a way to forge that connection. Furthermore, I have the frequency cubed dependence of Planck's law attached to the stress-energy tensor. The Planck law has to get integrated to give a total energy density, and that is like how the "branes" are differential slices of the bulk. The states exist in one slice the way Planck's law gives the energy at one frequency.

I introduced the triple because position eigenstates don't exist in Hilbert space but they do in rigged Hilbert. Rather than forcing agreement between the quantum and geometric theories by making geometry fuzzy, I introduced the triple to make quantum unfuzzy. After I showed that my scheme of numbers immediately spat Einstein's equation, I showed that the same numbers, by a similar mechanism, also produced the fine structure constant. The scheme I used, in addition to constructing a bridge between GR and QM, produced the most important dimensionless constant of GR: 8π, the most important dimensionless constant of QM: 137, and later I showed that the leading coefficient of the basis decomposition is the most important dimensionless constant of EM: 1/4π.

Rather than saying

>REEEEEEE this is word salad

why not say what you see as disconnected and then ask me about it? You have revealed yourself as a shitcunt of the first kind when you read the paper and your first though is, "This author wrote garbage," without wondering, "Am I missing the author's point?" Name literally anything you think is conceptually unrelated, shitcunt.

>'not even wrong'

What's not even wrong? The parts about

[math] \frac{8\pi^3}{\pi^2}=8\pi\quad\text{and}\quad (\Phi\pi)^3+2\pi\ approx 137 [/math]

are not wrong at all.