SuperPolymath

Einstein had difficulties with the relativistic invariance of quantum mechanics (“does the spooky information transmitted by these particles go faster than light?”). These, however, are now seen as technical difficulties that have been resolved. It may be consid- ered part of Copenhagen’s Doctrine, that the transmission of information over a distance can only take place, if we can identify operators A at space-time point x1 and operators B at space-time point x2 that do not commute: [A, B] 6= 0 . We now understand that, in elementary particle theory, all space-like separated observables mutually commute, which precludes any signalling faster than light. It is a built-in feature of the Standard Model, to which it actually owes much of its success. So, with the technical difficulties out of the way, we are left with the more essential Einsteinian objections against the Copenhagen doctrine for quantum mechanics: it is a probabilistic theory that does not tell us what actually is going on. It is sometimes even suggested that we have to put our “classical” sense of logic on hold. Others deny that: “Keep remembering what you should never ask, while reshaping your sense of logic, and everything will be fine.” According to the present author, the Einstein-Bohr debate is not over. A theory must be found that does not force us to redefine any aspect of classical, logical reasoning. What Einstein and Bohr did seem to agree about is the importance of the role of an observer. Indeed, this was the important lesson learned in the 20th century: if something cannot be observed, it may not be a well-defined concept – it may even not exist at all. We have to limit ourselves to observable features of a theory. It is an important ingredient of our present work that we propose to part from this doctrine, at least to some extent: Things that are not directly observable may still exist and as such play a decisive role in the observable properties of an object. They may also help us to construct realistic models of the world. Indeed, there are big problems with the dictum that everything we talk about must be observable. While observing microscopic objects, an observer may disturb them, even in a classical theory; moreover, in gravity theories, observers may carry gravitational fields that disturb the system they are looking at, so we cannot afford to make an observer infinitely heavy (carrying large bags full of “data”, whose sheer weight gravitationally disturbs the environment), but also not infinitely light (light particles do not transmit large amounts of data at all), while, if the mass of an observer would be “somewhere in between”, this could entail that our theory will be inaccurate from its very inception. This is what I've been trying to get across to Dubbelosix for months, to you, to Vmedvil, & many others from the start.

The model you're giving him is designed to give his equations zeroes when my pre-model concepts are introduced precisely BECAUSE of the la la land speculation that quantum mechanics was built on. To use said maths to describe my ideas is pointless, my ideas need their own mathematical model - which would work better with relativity than QM. Give something you won't find under any post-Einstein model, such as QM & fractal cosmology that doesn't include superpositions & therefore won't produce zeroes because it accounts for sub planck gravity. @Vmedvil https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1548&ved=0ahUKEwib7LPYrefXAhUHSiYKHXjJA8EQFgg8MAM&usg=AOvVaw0MUhorINilKzMzBnSiq_Iy Found it. Use the math in that PDF, it actually agrees with me on superluminal communication beyond the planck length, also apply it to microverses. An organism is composed of cells are composed of molecules are composed of atoms are composed of cosmic microwave background stage microverses, waves are composed of galaxies from that CMB. The regression is infinite and repeating, at the center of every atom is a microcosmic black hole, the basis of all gravity is...the black hole

Stop it with interpretation bias. Interpretation is not fact, it's not even at model stage. Refer to the scientific method. Mordred, please let Vmedvil decide between whether he wants the quantum interpretation that Einstein was against or the microverse interpretation, then as per forum rules you must help him build his model regardless of your opinions on the one he picks. We don't pet theories here Mordred, it's his choice. They're two completely different maths.

That's not even what I'm addressing right now. I'm addressing the superluminal motion when you account for sub-quanta that we were arguing about on pages 18 & 19 & how it replaced the superposition in spacetime which him that 10+1 dimension gif. Now he does need to account for ADS

It's still going to reduce that 27 dimensions thing. It's not QM, string, or M theory. This theory has commutative QE, except this QE has a different mechanism than non-locality entirely which is what we were arguing about for the past two pages non-stop.

So when you remove the superposition of spacetime, @Vmedvil, do you still get 27 dimensions? Because the only superposition is ADS & that's just the EM higgs waves connecting the 4 forces you defined earlier. You're radically modifying the standard model equations I don't think you realize. Because the only superposition is ADS & that's just the teleparallel gravity that you defined earlier. You're radically modifying the standard model equations I don't think you realize. Because the only superposition is ADS & that's just all the black holes, micro black, aka perpendicular ADS universes that give matter/energy/particle waves their curvature in DS, they're the points in space where the fabric of DS fluctuates about the concaved concentric curve of ADS leading to expansion & the 4 forces This might reduce the infinities you got when adding in fractions of a planck length

Einstein>Feynman. Einstein wasn't a fan of the quantum interpretation. Teleparallelism was his idea. His theories, such as frame dragging & gravity waves detected by LIGO a century later, are the only ones that are still validated to this day. Einstein was the only physicist to earn a brain autopsy post-mortem. Stop linking me to these poser misinformants & their cover-up theories. Link me Einstein talking about superpositions & non-locality. These were the very ideas he was against, the very thing preventing a GUT.

The accepted stochastic assumption has been a calculated dead end for a hundred years. You can confuse the masses with super positions & planck limits, but youd have to buy my acceptance of it.

I'm saying my interpretation makes more sense than a BS superposition. Not that they're related beyond the fact that particles are clearly influencing each other beyond C.

Yes, the issue of the accepted interpretation I've been arguing about for pages. you keep dodging the transplanckian problem. An organism is composed of cells, cells are composed of molecules, molecules are composed of atoms, atoms are composed of particles, particles are collapsed wave states. What are particles or waves composed of in your mind? It doesn't matter what their smaller components are, planck time is a unit of time in which C covers a distance of one planck length. C will cover a distance of 1/n planck lengths in <1 planck time if n<1. So components smaller than a planck length will interact faster than light, their gravity or charge (synonymous terms in teleparallelism) is non-static, that is, commutative, due to frame dragging, as a sub-planckian curve experiences a sudden abrupt accelerations a stationary EM/gravity field becomes a propagating wave. The collective subplanck interactions (&spins) in the fractions of a photon within it's wave will determine the state (polarity) of the photon when the wave function collapses. An alternative interpretation to the superposition of space.

I didn't muddle the other one at all. It's just like you said, the up down polarity of particle states if they are paired, regardless of distance. They attribute this to a superposition, the particle exists in two places simultaneously (non-locality pair) Which is actually less logical than smaller components in the particle, 1/n planck lengths, interacting as small dominoes that are >C which eventually effect the big dominoes that =C (the polarity of a particle, it's state). This would be defined differently than non locality, this is what I'd like Vmedvil to express mathematically, you would define this as fluctuations in fractions of a particle that are 1/nx10^4 h (plancks constant) that propagate throughout adjacent qubit cells. This is an interpretation that assumes total quantum cellular commutativity of qubit information...teleparallelism, where gravity = charge, more specifically frame dragging waves as opposed to fields, as sub planck bodies constantly experience abrupt accelerations..... Your misleading responses have a certain emotionless, calculated algorithmic methodology to them that I'm all too familiar with.

The term you're looking for is action at a distance. Synonymous with non locality https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.05465&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5YeBoeXXAhWlRN8KHeyYA28QFgg1MAM&usg=AOvVaw2f0NO0v0UkDqseoL-Cv4Gf https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02587&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5YeBoeXXAhWlRN8KHeyYA28QFggrMAE&usg=AOvVaw25NFx-7Zxq0pHHJQotw8RG https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.03093&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5YeBoeXXAhWlRN8KHeyYA28QFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw0-JG_pXEmEDw84Oyz7EQ4U All of these articles say within 4 orders of magnitude faster than light. That is, nx10^4 Yet they all are on the assumption that there's no motion & it's something like non-locality, superposition, etc. Thus is the deception of the quantum interpretation. I could provide more articles if you'd like. Why do you keep avoiding the transplanckian problem? An organism is composed of cells, cells are composed of molecules, molecules are composed of atoms, atoms are composed of particles. Particles expand into waves before collapsing into particles. Tell me, what do YOU think particles are made out of? It doesn't matter eventually you're going to get moving, interacting components that are fractions of a qubit, fractions of a planck length. Do you know what happens to C under scale relativity at that size? It looks just like the pairing of polarities between particles that is quantum entanglement. It's inevitable.

Okay, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.05465&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5YeBoeXXAhWlRN8KHeyYA28QFgg1MAM&usg=AOvVaw2f0NO0v0UkDqseoL-Cv4Gf Frankfurt institute of advanced studies. He must be making those credentials up.

Than how could there be superluminal communication? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.livescience.com/27920-quantum-action-faster-than-light.html&ved=0ahUKEwji4Jq7k-XXAhUlUt8KHURYA_IQFghLMAM&usg=AOvVaw2UDSknujRQ4qWThoSA-ujZ&ampcf=1 Two possible explanations: A: the quantum interpretation: superposition or non-locality action B: C traverses 1 planck length in 1 planck time, therefore C traverses 1/n planck lengths in 1/n planck times, so any sub-planckian curve with abrupt accelerations will lead to superluminal gravity waves. In teleparallelism (gravity = EM) this can link polarities (particle states) ftl via interactions between adjacent qubit cells. It can also collapse a wave (particle-scattering) into a particle as the masses attract & merge after being brought into close proximity by that which gives any subatomic particle motion, or anything in nature, motion, & that would obviously be expansion in option B. Expansion = wave function, gravity = wave collapse as well. These forces obviously mediated by DS & ADS fluctuating by the value of each other's curve to attain a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. If this is about a boundless plane, the equilibrium never occurs. Translate that into mathematical expressions & you have a Nobel prize.

You don't have to be able to! State the theory, show the math.

It could just as likely be what I said it was. Stop cookie cutting that won't do science any good If motion is non-commutative beyond less than 1 planck length than QM is action at a distance there is no way around this. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-shatters-ldquo-spooky-action-at-a-distance-rdquo-record-preps-for-quantum-internet/&ved=0ahUKEwiT4qbAjuXXAhUFMd8KHVuPB9kQFggoMAA&usg=AOvVaw3iq-cnwzHNUC8DlRLagjWH

For this model, I wouldn't worry about defining anything. I'd just leave it at notation. The world needs incalculable model, because all options need to be investigated not just those of popular mainstream assumptions.

This is the truth, there is no need for action at a distance (other than the fact that nature is too complex) to explain quantum effects, but this action at a distance is the foundation of QM: math that could be based on a lie.

Just because it hasn't been determined doesn't mean it can't be under commutation between adjacent qubit cells NOT QM's non-locality You might get it right enough times to build a quantum cellular automated entanglement gate in the lab if you are looking at a super-computer's animated-graph of a continuously iterating operation and you are this guy: There are ways.

Wow, Deja vu

Someone like Daniel Tammet, or a room of Daniel Tammets, might have found a way around the uncertainty principal because certain people can process information differently, obviously if they had it wouldn't be public knowledge.

Lorentz transformations & scale relativity change rates & lengths, not how everything under those rates & lengths behave with each other. Lorentz transformations & scale relativity change rates & lengths, not how everything under those rates & lengths behave with each other. Gravity is gravity, hyperbolic time or not.

Yet it's all still dictated by the same laws of motion. You'll just have to be more mathemically precise & innovative with the notation.

Yes but if there's action occuring at 1/n planck lengths, this changes everything & these changes have to be accounted for

Are you sure you got the math right? Try getting Mordred to help you build a model based on the assumption: But he won't do it, the main part of his job as a physicist is apparently to keep the truth a secret. We should call this Einstein: post-SR; declassified