/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12159752
Bump

bump

>>12159752
>What kind of problem is this?
A bunch of schizo nonsense for people who desperately want to believe that the universe has some "underlying reason" or equation that can explain everything.
Its leftover cope from the enlightenment era, where everyone thought of the universe as a grand, clockwork-like machine. This isn't true, and isn't how the universe works.
But the cope continues.

>>12160043
What is the true nature of the universe then? And what credentials do you have to make anything you say carry any sort of weight?

When George Ellis, one of the proponents of block universe was editor-in-chief of General relativity and grvitation, he allowed publication of my article "Periodic relativity: basic framework of the theory." Periodic relativity satisfies Einstein's field equations but does not use weak field approximation. My theory is based on the idea that time is strictly a periodic phenomenon. You can only compare one period oftime with another and nothing more could be said about time. Smallest unit of time is the period of the wave and smallest unit of length is the wavelength. There is another article of mine which introduces spin in the Laplacian of the Schrodinger theory and gives exactly same energy levels for hydrogen spectra as that of Dirac theory. While general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot be unified, I have unified periodic relativity and the spin dependent modified Schrodinger wave mechanics. Here the Hubble parameter is associated with the Planck frequency at Planck time.

In my theory free will is possible but not for individual consciousness. Individual consciousness is in bondage (of senses) and free will is not consistent with bondage. The free will possible for the collective consciousness which is a limitless unified field of consciousness without boundary, underlying the entire universe. This field is motionless and does not interact with anything that moves. Since it does not have any boundary, the numbers zero and infinity does not have any meaning here. Before the beginning of the creation, the geometry did not exist because geometry is a part of the universe. Similarly, gravity or any other force did not exit but there was one force which did exist. We will call this unified field the unmanifest. Nothing can destroy this unmanifest because it does not interact with anything. It has existed through eternity. There's your explination OP take it or leave it.

>>12160244
>>12160043
just someone who cant cope with the world being more complex than a movie. most likely believes in one or all of the following:
god
flat earth
qanon
climate change denial
anti-vax

we don;t need two threads about unification desu

>>12160309
Unify them both then kek

>>12160256
Can someone break this down for a brainlet?

>>12160361
It's just an attentionwhore trying to non-argument xir way through reality >>>/his/9514008
It's a schizo leak, basically.

>>12160361
Read my article here;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225712819_Periodic_relativity_Basic_framework_of_the_theory

We will never unify the quantum with einstein and attempting to do so is silly.

>>12160417
I'm published. You are not.

>>12160357
lol

Bump: still no proper answer ITT

>>12159752
>What kind of problem is this?
A problem of synthesizing two models into 1 model.

>Can it be formalized to be a well-defined mathematical problem? If so, where could I find the mathematical statement of the problem?

Yes it can be formalized, no you can't find the statement, that's mostly the same thing as solving the problem. The more people formalize it the more the solution will emerge. It hasn't been answered yet, precisely in part because it
hasn't been formalized.


>If not, how will we know if we find a solution?
As stated, when people get more specific about the problem.

The main problem is that general relativity describes points in spacetime (called events) but the quantum theory of position is such that position states in a Hilbert space tell you about an object being between two points as opposed to at a single point. This discrepancy in the language of the two theories makes hard to write an equation saying that something from GR is equal to something from QM. I showed how to do it almost ten years ago. Pic shows how my solution to the problem was in the exact same form as Higgs' solution which has been getting him name dropped 10,000 times a day for 50+ years.

Note that the coefficient on my GR stress-energy tensor is the same [math]f^3[/math] that appears in the Planck law energy density by which quantization was initially introduced into physics!

Let me also say something about gravitons. Unless you have a grant that pays you to work on gravitons, there is no good reason to think gravitons exist. The graviton would be the quantized force carrier of the gravitational force but Einstein showed more than 100 years ago that there is no gravitational force. Therefore, since there is no force, one has no good reason to think that a non-existent force would have a force carrier. It is overwhelmingly likely that the reason no one has ever seen a graviton is because they don't exist. It irks me when people say the problem of quantum gravity is about gravitons rather about a method by which to incorporate the elements of two disparate mathematical languages into a single expression (pic rel.)

>>12163247

>>12159752
The basic problem is that quantum mechanics deals with discrete quantities, whereas general relativity is continuous. If you could find a model that explains both gravity and the quantum world -- either by quantising general relativity or by making quantum mechanics continuous -- then you have found the unifying theory.

But there's another aspect to the problem. Even if you did find some elegant mathematical model, but it involved an 800-dimensional manifold with bizarre properties, nobody would care. The solution needs to be such that it is easily interpretable. Unfortunately the universe is too complex for human-friendly explanations which is why this search is futile.

>>12163263
The Schrodinger equations describes "continuous" time evolution.

>>12163307
The schrodinger equation has a planck constant in it

>>12163263
>The basic problem is that quantum mechanics deals with discrete quantities, whereas general relativity is continuous
No, no, no no non nonononono. QM has plenty of continuous quantities. The energy spectrum of a free particle, positions, momenta, all continuous. Most of QM is continuous. Wavefunctions are clearly continuous.
Special relativity, the non-gravitational limit of GR can be combined with QM to give quantum field theory. The problem is that GR doesn't lead to a sensible QFT the way the other forces do, but on a classical level they're all just as continuous as each other.
>>12163334
So? The Einstein field equations have the Planck speed in them (that is, the speed of light). They're both just constants that grown up physicists set to 1.

>>12159752
A theory satisfying the postulates of QM that gives you GR when you take the classical limit.

>>12163391
>The problem is that GR doesn't lead to a sensible QFT the way the other forces do
And this stems from the fact that QM is discrete...QTF doesn't lead to gravity because QTF uses quanta, at bottom this is the problem.

>>12160451
Wolfram has already done so. Might as well have 'your paper' redacted, anon.

>>12163334
I think you are not making sufficient distinctions between quantized energies and quantized dynamics in general. The quantum theory very much has continuous dynamics in it.

>>12160279
You're a fucking idiot and you're completely wrong.
You are not intelligent and you will never make it.

>>12163427
No he hasn't holy shit.
Why do you keep shilling this wolfram shit on this board faggot. If you aren't Wolfram himself you're pathetic and stupid.

>>12163263
Can't we sample the continuous relativity the way an analogous signal is sampled according to the Nyquist frequency? Except it would have to be a complex frequency.

>>12160244
There is no "true nature". There's stuff that works and stuff that doesn't. Their thing doesn't.

>>12159752
I'm not a particle physicist, so there's probably other issues I'm not aware of, but the major problem I can see is that G, which would need to be the coupling constant in a QFT of gravity, is not dimensionless in natural units, and thus such theories wont be renormalizable.
This means it would be possible to create effective theories within prescribed energy ranges (a bunch of these already exist), but no single theory that is general across all energy scales.

>>12163263
Quantum mechanics isn't necessarily discrete.
For example, a single free particle in an empty universe would have a continuous energy spectrum, as
>>12163391
has said.
Most of the discrete stuff in quantum mechanics is an emergent consequence of particles being confined. In some sense, this is analogous to how fixing the ends of a classical string (a kind of confinement) results in the wavelengths of the vibrational modes becoming discrete.

>>12160279
All of these are a meme.
There are no "anti vaxxers", they are almost entirely media fiction in order to create a embarrassing caricature of a "dumb person", to manipulate the intellectually insecure. It's likely one of the biggest reasons for the overreaction to the virus:
>We need to shut down the entire world economy
>If we don't, people will think we're dumb like those anti-vaxxers the media keeps showing us
>You don't want to be like them do you?
The same applies for the rest:
>God
WBC was another media meme. Evangelists of that kind existed in a handful of towns in a handful of US states, while the ideologies pushed by mass media exist and are dominant worldwide.
>Flat earthers
Trolls.
>Climate deniers
Depends upon massive conflation between people who reject the existence, people who reject human activity as the primary cause, and people who accept humanity as the primary cause but see the proposed solutions as doing more harm than good. Without this conflation, the boogieman becomes as much of a forced meme as the rest of them.

>>12165410
But can you explain... qualia tho...

>the problem of unifying QM and GR
it's an easy problem, and also a hard problem.

it's easy because you can mathematically remodel GR as a curvature of the entanglement "field".

but it's a hard because GR says gravity is a result of time dilation gradient where time flows faster away from concentrations of matter, but QM predicts time as an emergent property of interactions (entanglement) between matter, which means time dilation should be literally the opposite of the GM model.

one solution is to model it based on photons entangling with the space it travels through because that allows shaded areas to be absences of photon entanglement and therefore the emergent time is slower there, which brings GR and QM into co-consistency.

this predicts that glass doesn't generate a gravitational field, unlike a rock of equal mass.

>>12163247
This is a good explanation. The problem does seem to stem from the language more than anything else, and as such, as you state, the problem of quantum gravity is not about gravitons but rather about a method by which to incorporate the elements of two disparate mathematical languages into a single expression.

The question though is what did you mean by Einstein showed more than 100 years ago that there is no gravitational force? Are you referring to the fact that gravity can't be distinguished from a uniformly accelerated field? and as such is some sort of proto-force? or something else?

>>12160256
interesting stuff, it goes above my head because im a brainlet but im glad there still are independent researchers out there getting published

>>12166579
gravity is geometry, not a force.

>>12166579
Gravity is a result of standard motion across the plane of space-time fabric, which is flat, except where mass is contorting it.

Gravity is straight lines, if you can see space-time as a flat paper.

>>12160451
> Vikram Zaveri
>MME mechanical engineering in the 1970s
>bunch of pseudoscience writings about “unified consciousness field”
why are pseuds always engie boomers?

>>12167514
he got published in respected physics journals lad, even has a few citations that aren't his own citations

>>12167595
so what. it was like 2. probably passing mentions too. i have more citations FWIW

>>12167432
>>12167481
Ay, yo, hold up. Gravity is a physical phenomena, or connected to one, at some level.
Geometry is a mathematical construct, so gravity can't be geometry. Now, the substantiation, or manifestation of that mathematical construct of geometry into the physical, takes place as what? The fabric of space time, which is matter and energy? Or in other words, it can't be strictly a "geometry" if it's affected by mass.

I know what you mean by "gravity is the lines", the vector field or isobars in some Minkowskian metric or something like that, but again, it can't actually be the "lines." It has to be something; the fabric, the mass, something. Even if it ends up as a "proto force" as some kind of scalar relationship versus the other 3 forces as vectors, it still has a physical analog.

It's as if your suggesting the force carrier is information? but even if that were so, physical information is passed physically, so then wouldn't it be more accurate to say all particles are the force carrier? Maybe everything is a gravaton?

>>12169562
The theory of gravitation is a theory a geometry. It's not a theory of forces of the type described by Newton's laws.

>>12169562
The theory of gravitation is a theory of geometry. It's not a theory of forces of the type described by Newton's laws.

>>12169591
that's the math that describes it. what it's describing still takes place as physical interactions, affected by physical qualities. so even if it's not a force it's still physical configuration states. What then is the full physical machination, and which sub-machination carries the information of gravity in it's state?

>>12169606
again, once choice might be masses in contact, and the mass itself as the carrier of information. that would imply at some level that gravity alters the mass.

and maybe that's not right,or not observed, but some correct choice of full physical machination and sub-machination will correspond to what is observed.

>>12169606
Yes, geometry is math.