MJ kihara

Other fields acting upon spacetime producing an effect perceived as gravity,then gravity acts upon other fields... is it not a case of gravity gravitating? Making gravity difficult to renormalize....this option don't seem to produce a solution for renormalizing gravity.

Effect without cause?

Then you don't know if it's there or not.

Its interesting. Mass induces gravity to infinity that extent to quantum harmonics/quantum pseudo harmonics (speculative). It's a transition from quantum realm to classical realm...we can predict with certainity the position of earth on its orbit, however where is earth if you narrow down to it's center of gravity(it's singularity)? Anyway,lots of temptation to go off topic(TOE).

Thanks. Hope probability renormalization condition can also be employed. Wikipedia(wave function).....This leads to the normalization condition:because if the particle is measured, there is 100% probability that it will be somewhere.

Given my interests and going by my posts in this forum,I might not be a good arbiter on this topic. However,the issue with gravity not being renormalised to me seem controversial since it's being looked at from the angle of UV divergence ( an issue am trying hard to internalize) and Feynman higher order loop integral. If the perspective changes it might help...since QM involves probability and it's more fundamental, unlike GR,I think probability renormalization should be used in arguments of renormalised gravity in a manner consistent with arguments of GR.

The last paragraphs from the article...“The world is probably much more complicated than we ever could have imagined,” ....“If we set our sights high, we get deep insights.”

Going by the order of fundamentality...I think this should be criteria of getting a theory of everything. 1- pose a simple/ probably controversial basic question in philosophy and try to answer it. 2-Use the answer in step one to develop a mathematical statement/equation. 3-Use whatever you got in step two to develop a physic model. 4- Use the model that you get in step 3 to answer physic problems,of course the model should be in agreement with standard model and general relativity...and of course,since you want TOE it should merge them seamless. 5-Having satisfied step 4 more than any theory of the day,try answering other non resolved problems from other branches of science chemistry and Biology...and since we exist it should be able to explain theory of evolution..this is a critical parameter that you can't run away from. 6-Finally the theory having satisfied step 1 to 5 should be able to explain new scientific observations and make further scientific predictions that are testable in the immediate future and further into the future,this point determines the extent to which such a theory will retain the crown 👑 of A theory of everything.

Philosophers and physicist in our civilization..human civilization, who came first? I think we can use our own development to give us a clue. We can't put some aspects of reality out of the universe...issues like Evolution where evidence and it's arguments are as clear as daylight...and just associate them with accidents, in any case if anything happen by chance, it's within the universe. Philosophers and physicist in our civilization..human civilization, who came first? I think we can use our own development to give us a clue. We can't put some aspects of reality out of the universe...issues like Evolution where evidence and it's arguments are as clear as daylight...and just associate them with accidents, in any case if anything happen by chance, it's within the universe.

My opinion is that,The title Theory of everything..it's clear as it is written without further complications,among the three branches of science I think physics is more fundamental,maybe the reason why physicist would want to own the title... however,since the title is more general in it's statement then it's not wrong to look from more fundamental thing than physic,going by your post, mathematics and philosophy seem a good area to look for such a theory which should then be verified by physic since it has to be able to explain and predict physical phenomena.

Physic and math seem intertwined to the best of my knowledge so far,it's critical source of information to other branches of science(chemistry & biology). My question is what is fundamental between philosophy and physics? Since we are in speculation section,let use assume this scenario,you are in a planet with the knowledge you have, this planet has homosapiens who have just become aware of themselves i.e they now seem to start drawing things like their fingers and what seem to be circles and triangles..you have a few minutes probably ten minutes to take off and leave them without coming back...is that long equation enough to leave it in a rock tablet to make them shorten drastically the time they develop scientifically to our level or is there anything else more fundamental that they can be told and given on a rock tablet that can exponentially increase there awareness and make them reach our level within a shorter period?

Should it be just for fundamental understanding/just the foundation for knowledge? whereby,by knowing it, it would be enough to be able to know/derive why a rock fractured and the science behind psychology...I mean fundamental source of knowledge to explain/give reasons/predict almost everything if not everything.

I think this post is a hijack of thread since you are talking of the 'list maker' you own thought is critical, from the scientific knowledge you have acquired over time. The use of 'Must be' seem to restrict something that should attempt to explain/offer explanation for everything.

The explanation is so excellent...esp the combination not just matter-anti matter asymmetry but also why did extinction take place and other explanations. I also think it could also be highly speculative since establishing it's limit would be extremely difficult,the crown 👑 for such a theory would remain as long as is able to offer more predictions and explain observations more than any other theory of the day.

For a theory to qualify as a theory of everything what are the expectations for such a theory to qualify for such a heavy title? Or even to come near to that title?

At R=0 is a point,a solution when gravity renormalised to that point, hope am not wrong about that. Since Einstein modeled gravity using geometry(Einstein manifold equating to available energy content ),we seem to have been stuck on our further understanding of gravity. Is there a limit to the extent to which you can use geometry to explain something like a point? What are parameters used to determine a point?

Has nature not given us structures e.g atoms,moon , planets e.t.c as a solution to that issue? It seem to be a mathematical problem more than an already resolved problem... formation of stable structures (existing things) can it be concluded to be gravity renormalised?

What are expectations for a conclusion to be made that gravity has been renormalised?

Atleast those post have consistency in reasoning,whenever I post I do it cautiously knowing that....for instance,there was a post I engaged in discussion with Modred about gravitational waves the initial point after Big bag and I talked about π...and already in my mathematics it's clear I have derived fundamental equation of metric tensor with π as part of the solution. Is there anything like a purely symmetric sphere in the universe? given π=3.14.....to infinitiy...and given that it's used in derivation of 10^-43, at such a point, we can say that gravitational waves were present.... maybe they were infinitely strong such that their wave length were infinitely small..that is, what led to expansion rate varying in other local place during inflation...we can say that anisotropy in this case begins with π not terminating ordred Posted June 27, 2023 Not really considering the temperature at the same time is roughly 10^19 GeV which when you convert to Kelvin isn't far off Planck temperature. Using the Bose Einstein statistics that equates to roughly the equivalent to 10^90 photons squeezed into a single Planckian volume. Good luck finding anistropy distribution under those conditions. (Also a symmetric state as all particles are in thermal equilibrium). Thats what am trying to do,I had to go and look at GR mathematics and it's ideas and see how they fit with my reasoning...remember I talked at that time about my physics mathematics background...the issue of,'i never did it',where l am internate accessibility is an issue, that's why I talked about you to be patient with me...the reason I stick on forum is that by having conversation with residential expert helps me master physics and it's mathematics part of my arguments/thinking.

You are missing the point I used those equation so that I can introduce metric tensor frequency(as far as am concerned,unless told otherwise it's a new concept) that I used in already known energy-frequency relation so that I can bring the idea of quantization,after that I solved Schrodinger equation to get the actual spacetime metric tensor,that is clear on that photo...my point was establishing equivalence in energy frequency relationship and metric tensor frequency....whose solution i had to give it further interpratation.. (how I get to scalar field) I was not given that chance.Is there something wrong with beginning from known to unknown? It's difficult to get it if am not given that chance to offer explanations....thats why I talked about prior notions.

- A model is often an equation or set of equations, so that one can predict some measurable outcome under a set of measurable conditions.. I outlined the equations which were initial set of equations before other equations and explanations that could have led to measurable conditions and predictions...I was not given time to do so. If it links quantum mechanics and general relativity,it explains geodesics paths in a simple way,it explains issues concerning time dilation,it explains wave function colapse,it explains expansion of the universe..... The issue according to my thinking is deciphering it,not overestimation...just do this,look fo a diagram all over the internate and books that is simple and can compete with that diagram/those diagrams in explaining the outlined issues,we see it,and then I will be done trying to explain or deciphering those diagrams.

🦬 I should then become a bull boy instead of a cowboy...just look at the math I posted in a sketchy photo,then ask me a question,that is more helpful than over sleeping.

Are we not in the initial phase of transition to zombification?(someone has talked about being mindless,that an appropriate explanation)whereby the usefulness of humans is declining while we are embedding our collective intelligence to a superhuman referred to AI...the different versions(of AI) of course will merge at one point in time. When the transition is over what will remain of us...of course the biological entity?....mmmm...food chain, of course not,computers don't require blood to run. Are we not taking part on something bigger unaware(becoming zombies) like for instance when we ask AI to interpret this post?

The comments are helpful,the latex and machete,I will try where I can or mayb try to reverse engineer my own ideas and theories,to be on the same table rather than light-years away to avoid a hangman noose. All the same I thought I hand tried to step away from diagrams for simple brains to mathematics...and mayb the input of likes of Mordred, sincerely talking not trivializing others,in my other thread, simplified quantum gravity, he had a lot of input and i had been waiting for him to come back on the forum to just get his take, brilliant brains seems to vanish away with age i.e you can't ask today Higgs a question regarding Higgs boson. and after reviewing my former thread i saw a need for mathematics to bring clarification to my thinking and to tackle Genady on issue concerning geodesic paths and finally settled the issue on faster than the speed of light that unsettled exchemist and others.sometimes whining help but in this form 😂😂😂 or rather 😭 to clean the eyes.

I just wanted to start a conversation concerning the main topic/headline rather than my take/comments concerning the same.