Mordred

Do you know what teleparallelism of vectors means? it means two vectors that are parallel to each other. IE free fall motion in Euclidean space. I shudder to see what you understand as affine space lol.

Your interpretation is imaginary fantasy land that has no basis in physics Do you even know what the word Stochastic means?

Perhaps you should study the Feyman lectures and come back when you actually can comprehend what you read. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

No it has absolutely nothing to do with your BS theory, these papers are in essence the difference between Schotastic vs Determined states. They are not less than Planck length and do not involve microverses whatever that garbage means. The problem is you have zero comprehension of anything your reading. They don't even involve frame dragging which is quite frankly easily described as the Kerr Metric. I am well aware of the IR/UV cutoff limits, Far more so than you will ever be and your foolishness is quite frankly getting on my nerves. At every post I constantly have to point out your errors while you pretend to know anything about the topic of physics yet don't even understand the most basic definitions or terminology

Let me quote you the specific lines "The first is that their apparent unlimited speed does not fit with the rest of physical phenomena that it is know. Therefore, an explanation is mandatory. Second, although quantum mechanics successfully predicts the statistical properties of the physical observables associated with entangled quantum systems, it does not offer a geometric interpretation of quantum correlations. This lack of geometric description in the framework of quantum mechanics, a theory whose dynamics has a spacetime interpretation in the form of sum over histories [15] is, from our point of view, an unsatisfactory situation" Do you not understand the meaning of the second view in regards to lack of geometric description of QM in this section? ie in the conclusion In our proposal the quantum systems are in well defined states at each instant, but switch randomly and very fast among the available states described by the wave function, producing an effective apparent superposition of states. We quantify the time spent in each state in terms of a unit called switching time tS, which must depend on the system’s quantum inertia Iq. We have proposed a specific expression of tS as function of Iq in Eq.(1), and we have also proposed a lower bound relating the indeterminacy on the quantum inertia ∆Iq with the corresponding indeterminacy on the switching time ∆tS. In other words this paper is about modelling Spacetime itself in a superposition state. Not about FTL communication. Read the full paper and at least make sure you understand what it is actually talking about.... You could have at the very least looked up Hamilton Randels emergent QM space-time model https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ricardo_Gallego_Torrome/publication/295699673_Classical_gravity_from_certain_models_of_emergent_quantum_mechanics/links/56cc8e0008ae96cdd071c11a.pdf?origin=publication_list

Tell you what define local with regards to these experiments. Lets see how much you really understand. Define local vs non local. Then after you do that I will provide the definition under QM. Lets see if you really know what these papers are saying seeing as to how badly you muddled up the other one. Did you bother reading properly the first link above? Once again you didn't read properly the second link " the EPR correlations cannot be used to send a signal, because the very idea of a signal implies the purposeful nature of its content, which is lacking in the measurement of a spin component. However, as we have seen, the choice between measuring S1 or S3 on a particle does affect the probability of finding a positive spin when measuring S3 on the corresponding particle, although this can be ascertained only after the results obtained on both particles become available. This is a special case of the “no-signaling” theorems" what this means is the two must compare the results in order to ascertain the other state via sub luminal communication.

On one thing we agree, the ever so slight curvature of the datasets can support a far larger universe with a curvature term that would support a closed universe. A paper from the South Pole observatory (can't recall the name, did a set of calculations that if expansion were to stop it would take roughly 880 Billion years to follow this curvature to return to the origin. Where we will continue to disagree is that my view is any rotation must be detectable via CMB data ie the Sache Wolfe effect through hydrodynamic flows. This would include Dark flow, any flow of a fluid causes temperature anistrophies. You already know this as it is a consequence of basic entry hydrodynamics via thermodynamic friction terms which correspond to the stress viscosity and stress vorticity terms of the energy momentum stress tensor. This is the terms my paper discusses while yours didn't cover. So as there is viability on both views, I would still consider the upper constraints in my support paper, which goes into a more thorough examination to be more accurate than the constraints in your support paper. However lets be clear here I don't feel either paper has fully examined the conjecture completely enough to be fully conclusive on the constraints both are lacking in my opinion. It would have been been nice to see the Monte Carlo's datasets that actually correlates to the early and late time Sache_Wolfe provided within either paper. ie https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0205436.pdf though this paper isn't addressing rotation specifically. This paper however does address rotation effects on shear stress with Monte Carlo and hydrodynamics. Far surpassing both of our prior papers in terms of rotation vs DE... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.07961.pdf This is the kind of paper that counts, the others merely show the viability this provides a detailed examination included. LOL I should have remembered how handy Monte Carlo data-sets are in this previously but for some oddball reason it slipped my mind. Here is the details on the constraints for Dark flow. https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0008041.pdf "The validity of the Cosmological Principle and the isotropy it implies gained much credibility in recent years. The small fluctuations in the CMB (∆T/T ∼ 10−5 on angular scale ∼ 10◦) provide the strongest evidence that the universe can be well approximated by the FRW metric on scales larger than ∼ 1000h−1 Mpc (e.g., Peebles 1993; Wu, Lahav, & Rees 1999) On smaller scales (∼ 100h−1 Mpc) bulk flows of the order v/c ∼ 10−3 indicate that this isotropy breaks down. This is also manifested by significant correlation functions of galaxies and clusters on large scales, and structures like the Supergalactic Plane and the Great Attractor" which was something I previously mentioned to you sometime back on thee topic of Dark flow... being a localized rather than global perturbation...

Just a side note You might spend a bit of time actually reading the full paper. It specifically states that correlation is not superluminal and supports the second view not the first view which is the conjecture of superluminal communication. If you like I can quote you the specific lines lol. This paper actually counters your view. That's one of the dangers of simply looking for buzzwords you think support your argument, without taking the time to fully understand the reference. What is even more amusing is it also states there is no physical process between the two states thanks for supporting my position and explanations and not yours lol.

Ok lets start at the fundamentals. Title of that article. The key term is correlation. http://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-correlation/ It is a statistical test if two or more datasets have a common trend. If for example I have a dataset x and a dataset y or some graph or waveform of each and I want to see if graph A follows one pattern of change compared to the other I use a correlation formula. If both plot of values rise when one changes and the other also rises. This is positive correlation. If one increases while the other decreases this is negative correlation. If one changes and the other neither increases or decreases neither is correlated. The strength of a correlation function is how closely the trends match. An entangled pair is strongly correlated because of their very creation and the conservation laws. So they will follow a correlated trend as a result.

There isn't any superluminal communication that is precisely my point. Stop relying on pop media articles. They will always mislead you because Authors that write them rarely understand the actual physics nor math involved. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to demonstrate this without using the math via showing how mixed probability states arise and how intetference causes the mixed state to become a pure state.

Sigh, don't trust pop media articles like that. An entangled state is a mixed state until a measurement is performed. (In actuality until any form of interference occurs upon that state which will collapse the correlation wavefunction. When particles are formed in pairs, you cannot know which is which without causing wavefunction collapse. The pairs follow the laws of conservstion of the Eightfold Wayen. This includes, energy/monentum, charge, parity,isospin, parity,color(strong force), flavor(weakforce) etc. These conservation laws automatically cause a correlation function as they must preserve these conservation laws. Once you determine one state, you automatically know the other. It cannot be any other state but its opposite. Hence no communication and no action either. The true challenge is preserving the entangled states at a distance as it is incredibly easy to collapse. Now this can be useful for encryption but not FTL communication. Hence its applications for Quantum information theory.

I already explained action at a distance is a misunderstanding popularized by pop media. There is no such thing as FTL communication between entangled particles as there is no need for it..However you ignored my reply which is the real science behind entanglement. I"ve performed some of these experiments myself using the quantum dot detectors and particle entanglement diodes from Toshiba laboratory.

Sigh, this is science not wishful fantasy land

The uncertainty is a fundamental property of our universe. It isn't a measurement error as much a many would like to think so. The distiction between virtual and real particles under QM and QFT arise from this. The internal lines on all Feyman diagrams are the propogators that act on the external lines (Operators). An Operator requires a minimal 1 Quanta. A Planck unit is a unit of action. For Super https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics) Look at the definition of action. Ie no action no motion no change in state.

The uncertainty is a fundamental property of our universe. It isn't a measurement error as much a many would like to think so. The distiction between virtual and real particles under QM and QFT arise from this. The internal lines on all Feyman diagrams are the propogators that act on the external lines (Operators). An Operator requires a minimal 1 Quanta. A Planck unit is a unit of action.

! Moderator Note Our Speculations forum has rules, that must adhered to read the pinned threads at the top of this Forum. One of those requirements is mathematical rigor.

You wouldn't understand the math nor the proof. So I won't bother wasting my time. Google Action under QFT. Or better yet read a previous post on this thread where I already posted the relevant equations. Simple enough to confirm just Google "Action, physics and include pdf for better quality articles.

There is no possible way to determine anything below Planck scales. A planck is a unit of action. No action no possible influence on any possible or even hypothetical perfect detector. garbage

No GR and QM are not incompatible, the only issue is renormalization which your not even addressing on this thread. As far as Heisenburg is concerned the effect is essentially average or washed out as some literature will describe it as. Its a common misconception the two are incompatible but they simply have different aporoaches. QM being canonical while GR is conformal. This involves different transposed vectors. Rather I should say QFT not QM as they use different operators entirely though they both use p,q. for those operators. The Poincare group itself is involved under both regimes. Both use the same group and symmetry relations. Ie both use SO(1.3) which is the Poincare group. Anyways if that is your goal you should really be looking at QFT vs GR and not QM and SR. That is where the renormalization issues crop up.

Let me ask you one simple question. Why do you think you need to mix claasical, with relativity and QFT when everything can be done under a single theory? Both relativity and QFT can describe any Newton equation. QFT can describe anything under relativity with extremely good approximation as QFT includes relativity.

Ok fair enough, if your going to stick to SI thats your choice. The math exression above is still an extemely messy jumble where you have Newtonian approximations mixed with relativity equations. Tensors mixed with complex conjugates, vectors mixed with scalar values. So good luck getting the above fully reducible. Here is the thing many of those equations you have above simplify to common kinematics. You would have been far better off taking the final equations and examining the proofs of each to find the common variables that apply to each expression then developing your formula from those variables common to each equation instead of having the same variables repeated numerous times on the RHS of the equal sign. However your doing the work so have fun with that lol.

The problem I have with this paper is its all first order perturbations which doesn't include any examination of the second order Sache Wolfe effect on the CMB. Which strikes me as not examining the studies deeply enough. Review the paper I previously linked in this thread on the bounds. Where it discusses the need to examine the second order perturbation. This paper is extremely lacking in the details it would take for myself to seriously consider. Particularly since it only includes the torsion formula which would apply to second order with no examination of the second order perturbations (stress stress is missing) via the stress tensor on temperature. Then again so is shear viscosity of the four momentum

Ok here is a simple fact, no offense but I cannot work with that garbage equation above. There is no basis to even start with. So here is what I would like from you. 1) Clearly define what unit system you are going to work in. The above has such a mix of units, both Natural and otherwise that it is obvious you never did a single unit conversion to anything above (prime example kiloparsecs in the above mixed with units expressed in Natural units.) 2) Clearly define your goal. 3) define the system metric you wish to use, You still have curvature mixed with non curvature expressions above. Lets start with that. Toss away that mess above. Lets do this properly. Lets start with a coordinate system that is generic enough to apply above, (after all your going to find the symmetry relations of a fundamental use.) do this before we worry about such things as curvature and frame dragging. Those dynamics won't apply at all the measurement scales you have above. (ie curvature is useless at Planck scales) You would never be able to determine a curvature below the Planck length so absolutely pointless at that scale). My recommendation is that you stick to Natural units as it will greatly simplify things. Here is Natural units. [math]\hbar[/math] is one unit of action [math]ML^2/T[/math] c is one unit of velocity [math]L/T[/math] [math]\hbar=\frac{h}{2\pi}=1.055^{-34} J/s[/math] c you already know. ( least I assume so) so the unit of energy becomes [math]ML^2/T^2[/math] so you can be a bit lazy and speak of mass (m), momentum (mc) and energy (mc^2) all in units of Gev=[math] 10^9[/math] electron volts. Length becomes [math] \hbar/mc[/math] time as [math]\hbar/mc^2[/math] these two are units of [math]GeV^{-1}[/math] lets start with that. This will correspond to [math]c=\hbar=1[/math] Had some RL to deal with so lets add some conversion factors to the above. 1 kg=[math]5.61^{26}[/math] GeV 1 metre= [math]5.07^{15}[/math] [math]GeV^{-1}[/math] 1 sec= [math]1.52^{24}[/math] [math]GeV^{-1}[/math]

Ok lets try showing tensor advantage. Take your electromagnetic stress tensor above. Do not confuse with the stress under relativity. I want a scalar uncharged electromagnetic field. now this will be a bit of a garbage equation but its just a demo. [math] A(whatever)+T^{00}=whatever [/math] replace the T^{00} with the formula in that entry above. Does that hekp?

Again you run into the same problem with tensors in the equation in the box you have 3 tensors. Each entry of each tensor is its own set of operations or formulas to apply. Think of tensors as arrays ie computing where each array isn't single valued but is a setvof instructions on what operation to perform.