/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15823778
>very serious physicist.
I think if you read the Randall--Sundrum papers, it isn't hard to guess which part Sundrum did. I am being an asshole when I say that, by the way.
>>15823768

I am physicist and I have no idea what "anabelomorphy" is or even an "outer isomorphism." I understand calculus and analysis very well, but not so much when it comes to abstract algebra. Still, I am pretty sure that Mochi's Hodge theater is my unit cell. The Randall-Sundrum brane world models are quite similar to what I have done, pic related. In the MCM, the AdS and dS branes are placed infinitely far away and the Minkowski brane is snadwiched between them. It's a combination of RS1 and RS2. I only read about RS1 and RS2 later and I did not use their work in my research, or know about it.

The only problem with getting the classical equations of motion of of the Kaluza-Klein metric was that the EM field strength tensor had to be zero everywhere. If not for that problem, KK theory would have "unified physics" 100yrs ago. This paper by Overduin and Wesson is great!
>Kaluza-Klein Gravity
>https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805018
Since the 5D Kaluza-Klein metric contains two 4D EM potential vectors, by abutting two such 5D theories and modelling our universe as a surface of tangency between two semi-infinite half-spaces, we can get four EM potential 4-vectors and that gives you the freedom needed to have a non-vanishing EM field strength tensor. Basically, what I did is just AdS/CFT but I did the "holographic duality on a surface between two bulks instead of just on the outside of one bulk. The Randall-Sundrum models are pretty similar but there was the obvious third configuration they didn't notice.

People criticize me, I guess, because I only said, "Obviously if you have four 4-vectors instead of just two, then you will have sufficient degrees of freedom to solve the problem of why KK theory didn't solve unified electrogravity 100 years ago," but I didn't go and actually replicate all the stuff from 100 years ago, as if me solving the field equations in 5D by hand would demonstrate the worth of my research more so than saying, "Why not try a boundary between two bulks instead of on the outside of just one bulk." People who make those criticisms are jealous and bitter. Literally there's a thousand people who already have KK software set up that they could do on a computer in 15 minutes what would take me who knows how long and which would probably contain arithmetic errors when I was done anyways since I work in isolation. For me, it is sufficient to include the above paper in my references. It sufficient for anyone, and anyone whose saying I needed to do more to have a proper result is holding me to an extraordinary standard that no one else gets held to.

My MCM is quite similar the Randall's Randall-Sundrum models.

Randall-Sundrum models are pretty like MCM models except they dpn't quite close the gap with reality

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