/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12178130
>It's just become too complicated for one person to make a large contribution these days.
One person could a lot to uncomplicate it.

>>12035549
I showed how the fundamental particles are the EXACT automata (phonons) of the cosmological model in which I unified gravity with electromagnetism, and also unified gravity with quantum theory. This is a sufficient feat to claim the title Unifier of Physics. I've been rubbing it all over the place for years but people just say, "Nuh-uh." Some of them say, "In the ten years I've been not knowing about this, I have deliberately avoided the few hours of reading which would end my period of not knowing. Therefore, I cannot evaluate this evidence but I can, however, say that other people have opinions that the evidence is not convincing, and since I have deliberately avoiding familiarizing myself with the material over these ten years, I find these other people's opinions more compelling than Tooker's because there are more of them."

>>11968872
The first thing about "Dirichet" branes is that they support a Dirichlet boundary condition on the continuity of a function and its first derivative. I didn't invent branes, I invented the configuration in my picture. My model is a simple picture. That theory you mentioned is some over-complicated bullshit which has never proven useful for anything except padding a CV. On other hand, I used this simple picture to solve the fundamental problem of quantum field theory: why do we have the particles that we have? The reason we have to introduce the standard model on top of QFT is because QFT by itself does not say which particles we ought to have. The Standard Model is like an engineering handbook for doing QFT but I showed how you can do QFT the physics way without a phenomenological "standard model." The fundamental particles are the automata of the MCM unit cell.

Seems like a graphics engine more than a physics theory. Does Based Gary answer any questions with his Excel? Does it make any falsifiable predictions, even unoriginal ones?

The Planck length is a limit on what can be measured, not on what can exist. Do there exist "immeasurable" lengths? Quite possibly. The radius of an electron gives a good example. We often say the radius is zero but we mean is that the radius is smaller than what we can measure.

30 Tooker papers
https://gofile.io/d/IOOaMw

I predict spin-1.

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

>>11869966
>What are quantum particles made out of? Just pure energy?
Pretty much yes. I showed how the spectrum of the fundamental particles is the spectrum of phonons allowed in a cosmological lattice that describes the universe very well. Phonons are just vibrational energy in propagation.

The theoretical scenario which says those guys exist says that absolute zero is not a physical temperature.

The fundamental problem of quantum field theory, namely the reason for the variety of particles which are observed, got solved about seven years ago. They still pretend like it didn't get solved however. They still give out huge grants to people to try to solve this problem that I solved alone, for free, about seven years ago.

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

And don't forget, my work on RH is not even my best work.

>most successful living physicist
Quantum Structure
https://vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

Witten never lobbed a boompill in there. It was the USA feds that lobbed cointelpropill in there.

Note very well: I didn't just outperform each and every one of them. I outperformed all of their efforts combined, working alone in isolation, without ever reaching class material as advanced as GR or QFT.

Bless Wikipedia: the best website on the internet!

>>11287244
>How does one incentivise actual science
Strap a sword to your side and slay the infidel wherever you might find him.

>>11287592
>Physics has been stagnant for the last 30 years.
wrong

>THE PINNACLE
Not really, IMO. That tells you how the particles interact with each other but it doesn't answer the more fundamental question of why we have the particles that we have. If anyone could figure that out, then that would be even above what you call the pinnacle, rendering that alleged pinnacle not a pinnacle but merely a very high achievement.

Pic from here:Quantum Structure
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

30 Tooker Papers
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=08673880568874767256

>>11263611


Hi, I am Jon Tooker: the inventor of the time circuit...
https://pastebin.com/uHZrB238

Mundane events related to time travel.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1240030/pg1

John Titor, the Montauk Project, the e-Cat and Geometric Unity
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread966329/pg1

I am the anonymous physicist featured in the black hole article yesterday.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ukbz6/i_am_the_anonymous_physicist_featured_in_the/

30 Tooker Papers
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=08673880568874767256

LOG (from the log meme, HTML only)
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=53054654562431378856

Exide Docs
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=01757295105924737785

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=u7Q6o_1559880838

4 and 0 are the same thing.
>0
>1
>2
>3

>>11211601
The best interpretation is that classical mechanics satisfies the action principle with the minimum of the action and quantum mechanics satisfies it with the maximum of the action.

The graviton would be the quantum force carrier of the gravitational force if such a thing existed, but Einstein proved that there is no gravitational force and that gravity is the result of the action principle in curved spacetime. Therefore, there is no reason to think the graviton exists. It would be different if gravity was a force because then you could expect to have a quantized force carrier like the EM, strong, and weak forces, but since gravity is not a force there is no good reason to think it is a force with a quantized force carrier. That directly contradicts Einstein's demonstration that gravity is only the curvature of spacetime.

However, if the likelihood of your grant application depends on you thinking the gravitational force has a quantized force carrier called a graviton, then that is also a good reason to think that the graviton exists but this is an economic rather than scientific reason to believe it. I myself do not believe the graviton exists because only forces have quantized force carriers and gravity is not a force.

>>11212094
>Why was he underrecognized?
Recognition isn't something you do for yourself, so it is not your own qualities but the qualities of others which determine your level of recognition.

String theory is literally nothing but a special catalog of jargon for quantum field theory. There's nothing in string theory that isn't already in QFT. The reason string theorists think everything is a string is because Hamiltonian mechanics requires that any trajectory between two events (points) in spacetime behaves like a string. In turn, this is because the harmonic oscillator is basically the only exactly solvable system in physics, and if something moves from "here" to "there," then the motion was a curve in spacetime: hence strings. So, it certainly is not that string the theory is a crock of shit; the crock of shit is that string theory is something besides quantum field theory.

I dissent and I argue to the contrary that the truth is never less than 7.62 out of 10 true.

I know what quarks are.
AMA

The metastability of the vacuum is probably due to some non-equilibrium condition related to the passage of time rather than the existence of a lower energy vacuum in a equilibrium universe. The whole "the metastability of the Higgs means the universe could collapse at any moment" is based on an assumption that the universe is generally in an equilibrium state, but in my opinion the passage of time suggests it is non-equilibrium state. If it was in equilibrium, then why would time pass? IMO, the vacuum is already in the lowest energy configuration.