Mordred

Whether or not a particle is in superposition or not doesn't change its range. The question should rather be can it maintain its superposition state for the entire length. (Consider that any particle is in superposition till measured should address that question). As far as entangled states well let's just say they are easily collapsed. Hypothetically there is no range limit decays aside however it only takes an interference to collapse entangled state. By the way quantum tunneling is significantly different than entanglement.

Well this is the sort of things you will get questioned on. Ordinarily I for one would have looked at that paper. Saw the tensors and lost any faith in the paper as a result. Thus discarding it as invalid. Regardless of anything else the paper described. (I have read tons of alternative model papers,) it is a habit I developed as a result.

Then your misusing the purpose of a tensor. The fundamental tensor doesn't specify a coordinate choice. If you used them correctly in the manner Einstein did you would find it far more useful. That was why I couldn't identify those objects they weren't employed correctly. Should be more on line with this though it's just for illustration purposes. [latex]\frac{dx^\alpha}{dy^{\mu}}=\frac{dx^\beta}{dy^{\nu}}=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{dx^0}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^0}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^1}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^2}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^3}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

You might want to look again how he handled his tensor. He certainly did not place coordinates along the diagonal. He placed the covariant and contravariant vector components in those locations. Hence his need for the Einstein summation rules to track the covariant or contravariant tensor. The vector components are for the four momentum and four velocity components in zero and one form. (Scalar, vector components) that is the unknowns a tensor tracks.

I read his 1915 paper I don't recall him using his tensors in that fashion. For that matter in 1915 I don't believe he used tensors at that time.

You won't even identify your supposed tensors how lame. You cannot simply place the coordinates in a diagonal line with a tensor. Those are not Einstein's metric tensors. Here is the thing I expected that type of response. I knew you couldn't back them up.

I have looked at your paper, you still haven't addressed my question on your fundamental metric. I already showed that you aren't able to account for galaxy rotation as you were not able to produce a graph or dataset for comparison. I also showed other pieces of evidence in terms of expansion that you simply claim without examination as being wrong. Even though temperature studies directly relate to expansion rates lmao. There is nothing quantum about the laws of thermodynamics... In essence your not doing a very good job in defending your paper. You should have the answers ready for these types of questions.

Here is the thing what we term as gravity is in actuality spacetime curvature. Particles are subject to this curvature so indeed it exists on the quantum level. A collection of photons can cause curvature. The problem really stems is the scale of influence individual particles can induce upon other particles. This is described by the gravitational coupling constant. [latex]\alpha_G=1.75*10^{-45}[/latex] This is defined as the gravitational attraction between two electrons. It is a dimensionless constant that will vary with the choice of particles.

Mathematically by ratio it's much the same as moving toward a moving train. Think of the beginning and end of the individual train cars. If your approaching each other the rate each car goes by will be increased. Now replace the train with a signal then look at the leading edge and falling edge. Both scenarios use vector addition rules

Here is the thing about path integrals, yes there is an infinite number of possible paths. The probability of the path is determined by the principle of least action. The main goal isn't to determine the exact path but to determine the overall length of the path taken. The paths are never to the edge of the universe as the mean lifetime of particles limit their range. Secondly the integrals are calculated between two coordinate locations. Not to mention the universe has no edge. You really should read textbooks learning physics by videos will always lead you down the wrong path no pun intended.

I suggest you Google Galilean invariance. Which states the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. That is identical to premise 1 of the Lorentz transforms. Secondly those formulas I gave are not in error. Doppler shift simply applies velocity addition to moving sources when dealing with wave front pulses. Either the source or observer is moving so you must account for the movement on pulse arrival times.

And yet you claimed to be able to account for rotation curves without having applicable data. See this statement. Funny how you couldn't locate any data to prove the quoted claim... You still haven't answered my question on your fundamental metric. What kind of mathematical object is that your using as your not using any matrix, dyad or tensor rules in your paper.

Really then how do you explain how they calculated Keplarian galaxy rotation curves in 1935 before the first computer was developed ?

News flash science didn't stop with Einstein when he developed relativity he only knew about two particles of the atom. The proton and electron. So arguing that simply because Einstein gave up something doesnt mean squat. They barely knew about other galaxies see the Great debate in 1912.

BS there is plenty of graphs available on Kepler curves with mass distributions. It was extremely examined for several decades. Start with Zwicky, it was his examination that first led to the missing mass problem. If not pick up a copy of Elements of Astrophysics. All the relevant formulas are contained in that textbook.

you never did answer one earlier question what in the world are you doing with your fundamental metric you are not following any of the rules of a matrix, dyad or tensor. Even if they appear to be orthogonal tensors. Galaxy rotation curves are based upon mass distributions. That is certainly a physical aspect. Physical aspects is any measurable quantity under physics.

You believe in what you wrote but unfortunately your examination simply isn't sufficient. Tell you what present your graph showing a spiral galaxy rotation with the applicable formula. That is not contained in your article. Do an accounting of the mass distribution galaxies are also examined by spectrography. The applicable formula is the mass luminosity relations in mainstream. Then we will generate a Kepler curve with a baryonic mass distribution

I already have other pieces of observational evidence. Mainly thermodynamics in an expanding volume. This holds true even without DE or DM. You for one have never shown a solution to Kepler curve in galaxy rotations. Your paper has no analysis of galaxy rotation rates which is a major piece of evidence for DM. Kepler curve is unavoidable if the mass is centralized such as the visible baryonic matter of spiral galaxies. To avoid the Kepler curve one must employ the NFW profile of DM enveloping the galaxy in a uniform distribution. I seriously hope your not foolish enough to think the simple examination of your paper is enough to overturn LCDM. There is literally thousands of professional cosmologists that have been involved in trying to counter DE and DM to no avail. Believe me their papers were far more detailed in their examination to gain far greater credence. Only to be overruled by evidence and cross examination. Here is the gist you posted your paper here to be examined. Well I examined it and found it lacking on detail to overturn LCDM and I am pointing out my reasons. So lump it I once told you I am a tough critic. Now as its good policy here is how the 21 cm Hydrogen line correlates to temperature variations due to expansion beyond the Hubble horizon to the CMB. Further details can be found in any studies of the Lyman alpha forest studies on CMB data but it's not restricted to the CMB studies as this paper describes other redshift zones. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6012&ved=2ahUKEwjgnKyyquPjAhUEvZ4KHchCBMUQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0AJvJR_HUOrOlf87U-1CPv Arxiv paper working on phone. I did warn you in your Hubble illusion thread of the significance of temperature studies in an expanding volume.

That's fine but as I mentioned that doesn't mean the paper is correct. I could provide examples of numerous papers peer reviewed on arxiv that were later competed against with other pieces of evidence. In my opinion accounting for some of the issues would have made your paper more robust but be that as it may you didn't consider that in that paper.

The reviews may disagree however I disagree with the reviewers. Which is within my purview. I have after all studied diligently cosmology and high energy particle physics for over 30 years...and if you recall in your Hubble illusion thread I constantly pointed out factors and observational evidence beyond redshift data. For example observational evidence of the 21 cm line for hydrogen when measuring stellar object composition The process involved in nucleosynthesis with regards to the required temperature for dissociation of hydrogen atoms which coincide with the scale factor inverse temperature relations at z =1100 which correlates to roughly 3000 k. Ie surface of last scattering of the CMB.

Unifying spacetime into QM/QFT has been a major hurdle and trust me in one that has intensively studied the attempts it doesn't get easier to understand lol. I actuality Relativity was far easier to learn than QFT. QM itself isn't particularly suited for field treatments. One must employ different operators when you apply QFT than QM. All three treatments can readily explain mass energy time and distance as all three share the same definitions. Energy ability to perform work Mass resistance to inertia change Time a unit of measure describing rate of change. Distance is self explanatory as length of separation. The three theories simply have different mathematical methodologies of handling each To provide greater detail I wrote this up a little over a year ago. This is an intro level brief into the Basics of QFT

Do you honestly believe there is anything remotely scientific in this post? Would you like to try again because very to nill of this post has anything to do with how to model atomic orbitals... it literally reads as a word salad thrown into a blender.

In Galilean relativity the primary differences is that the speed of light had no speed limit. Time itself is absolute. The principle of invariance however remains the same. The definition of an inertial frame is also identical. We know today that Newtonian/ Galilean physics is wrong on two major points. The speed of light is limited and so is all information exchange by the constant c. We also know that time is not absolute and that the absolute frame does not exist. An Eather has medium like properties that if it did exist would cause directional drag aka the one way speed of light tests. All tests on c show there is no directional difference in the speed of light between two observers. In Lorentz transformations you have both length contraction and time dilation however in each reference frame the laws of physics such as Pythagoras theorem remain the same (per the reference frame) this is the same within the reference frame for Galilean relativity. Conjecturing some medium or Eather is very commonly done by far more posters than you realize you'd be amazed how often it crops up. Now two observers that see different densities do apply in gravitational redshift but why would the two observers see different densities in non relativistic Doppler ? Here is the details for the Michelson Morley test for an Eather https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://faculty.etsu.edu/gardnerr/5310/5310pdf/dg2-2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjWksX-tuLjAhUFj54KHVpeBC0QFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3fVRCzr82fWGmyXI9J2AD3 Ok let's try this we will stick to sound waves for now and show why moving relative to the wavefronts changes the wavelength. First you have a wave that emits a wavelength [math]\lambda[/math] this wavelength emits a continuous sequence of wavefronts given at a rate of [latex]\frac{1}{\nu}[/latex] which is it's given frequency so let's say the source is moving slowly towards you the observer at speed [latex]\mu[/latex] now each time the source transmits it's signal it has moved a distance [latex] \mu t[/latex] this changes the distance of the frequency wavefronts from [latex]\frac{1}{\nu}[/latex] Which now becomes [math]\lambda=\frac{c}{v}-\mu t=\frac{c}{\nu}-\frac{\mu}{\nu}=\frac{c}{\nu}(1-\beta)[/math] It's apparent frequency becomes [math]\acute{\nu}=\frac{c_s}{\nu}=\frac{\nu}{1-\beta}[/math] There you have it the source is moving so each time it emits a frequency wave pulse its position is different thus changing the frequency. You do not require any medium to get this effect nor does this in any way violate Galilean relativity (however sound waves itself required a medium) the effect itself doesn't require a medium if the density of the two emitters location differs from the observer location the speed of sound will vary on route and you will need to account for that seperately. However the generalized Doppler effect is based on the medium density being the same between the observer and emitter and the only cause is from a moving source. In essence it is simply addition of velocities for classical physics.

Doppler shift applied to any wavelength including sound waves. It is not restricted to light. I already provided a paper showing this detail.

There is no Eather or medium that was tested to null results via Michelson and Morley experiment. Spacetime isn't a medium