Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.12059398 [View]
File: 21 KB, 751x440, TIMESAND___dimensionlessconstants.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12059398

>>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.

>> No.12059375 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 21 KB, 751x440, TIMESAND___dimensionlessconstants.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12059375

>>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.

>> No.10274150 [View]
File: 21 KB, 751x440, TIMESAND___dimensionlessconstants.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10274150

Math is discovered
Notation is invented

>> No.10207835 [View]
File: 21 KB, 751x440, TRINITY___dimensionlessconstants.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10207835

Honest question: did she come up with that model on her own (with Sundrum) or did one of the time travel lesbians send it to her? Serious question.

>> No.10184104 [View]
File: 21 KB, 751x440, TRINITY___dimensionlessconstants.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10184104

>>10183394
Apparently, without adding the "levels of aleph" from my other research, this is not a field because it is not closed under its operations. I see that
1 / [(inf - b) (inf -a)] = 1 / (ba)

can be decomposed as
[1 / (inf - b)] [1 / (inf -a)]

Each of these terms is zero so we obtain a contradiction
0 = 1 / (ab)

Therefore, I am glad I did not upload a new version of the paper with this replacing the original non-definition of the product.

Good point, thanks.

>> No.10164086 [View]
File: 21 KB, 751x440, TRINITY___dimensionlessconstants.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10164086

>> No.10128767 [View]
File: 21 KB, 751x440, TRINITY___dimensionlessconstants.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10128767

Look how the three most important real numbers of physics, the classical electrical coupling constant, the quantum electrical coupling constant, and the gravitational coupling constant all come from the same simple model which is taught to 3000-level undergrads in physics: the 2D box.

Note that the 8pi term is the stress energy tensor and it contains the same f^3 terms as Planck's law for the energy density. Obviously this is just numerology because anyone can take any foundational problem in physics and it use it to derive these three numbers in a way that includes the dependence of planck's law int he energy term, but I haven't seen anyone else do it. Since it's meaningless numerology I know there's 900 other ways to crank out the same numbers but I can't remember where I saw those other 900 wrong demonstrations which show that this result isn't unique and worthy of further close study.



Navigation
View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]