Strange

! Moderator Note This forum is not a place for you to advertise your web site. Also, do not hijack other people’s threads for the purpose.

! Moderator Note Ok. I think we have had enough of conjurer demonstrating their incompetence. (Again) I think the original question about hyperreals has been answered. If not, please start a new thread (in which conjurer will not be allowed to post).

Gravitational waves cannot leave the event horizon. Gravity is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of the black hole so doesn't need to get through the event horizon. (I thought an expert like you would know the difference.)

Why guess? Why not find out what it means?

I believe it is possible to use "quantum teleportation" to transfer the state of one particle of an entangled pair to another, remote, particle which is never in proximity to the particle it is now entangled with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation#Entanglement_swapping (but I haven't fully understood that, yet).

The problem is not understanding what you say. You have been given lots of very specific examples of things you say which are just not correct. Of course that won't help. When someone points out that you are mistaken, the correct response is not to double down and insist that you are correct. A more sensible approach is to take it as an opportunity to learn. I often say things that are incorrect - I hope to get corrected so I can learn from my mistakes. I try to always thank people who correct my errors.

And this is the reason you have no idea what it means.

They have zero mass. There are no light particles. Yes, it is quite clear that you immune to knowledge, closed minded and unwilling to learn. Sad but true. What is "this"? Because, to be honest, I am not really sure what you were saying was "one single example" and "one special example". But nothing I have referred to is singular or unique in any way. I am pretty certain you have no idea what "phase space" means. What on earth is "particle precognition"? Really?

Citation needed.

You said: You never mentioned "popular belief". And I don't believe it is a popular belief, anyway. Stuff is made out of other particles. This has nothing much to do with whether they have antiparticles or not. There is no such difference. It is a figment of your imagination. Wrong again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics This is not "one special circumstance". It is the way all particle accelerators operate to create new particles. No they weren't. There is absolutely no connection. The people working on preon-like theories are still working on them. What are you talking about. The emission of photons by electrons changing energy levels (assuming that is what you mean by "quantum jumps") was pretty much the first thing explained by quantum theory. (It got Einstein a Nobel Prize.) If you mean something different by "quantum jumps" please explain. Because there is a lot of new physics to explore. That is because almost everything you write is incorrect. (Apart from the trivial statements you list below. You should stop there.) If you don't understand what the words mean then (1) you are not in a position to argue against it and (2) you shouldn't be using them. The answer is to learn about the subject before spouting off.

Your opinion is worthless unless supported by evidence. Especially when it is contradicted by both theory and evidence. What are "heavy neutral electrical particles"? How can they be both neutral and electrical? And what does this have to do with gravitational waves?

! Moderator Note I will make that official. @Conjurer Either provide a reference to support this or stop posting in this thread where (yet again) it is pretty obvious you are operating with delusions of competence.

I don't think so. Not necessarily. There are all sorts of reasons why the light might be seen after (or before) the gravitational waves. It depends on the cause of each event.

As you are the one claiming such a thing exists, the burden is on you to provide a reference that supports this. (Actually, there is such a thing, I find, but it has nothing to do with gravity.) Not in GR, it isn't. It is nothing to do with "understanding it". It is not valid mathematics. You are just throwing random symbols around. For example, this does not have the same units as force, so it cannot be a valid expression for force.

You say you understand and then write nonsense like that second sentence, which demonstrates very clearly that you do not understand. Until you can get past this attitude of believing you understand things when you clearly don't, you will not be able to learn and get to understand the things you currently don't understand. There is no such thing as a "tensor force". There is no force causing the expansion of the universe. (In the same way that gravity is not a force.) No. No. No. This is completely and utterly wrong. Please stop spouting nonsense and take some time to LEARN. https://xkcd.com/895/ You don't have any math. You have meaningless collections of symbols.

It is great when a whole new area of understanding is opened up to you (it doesn't happen often, so enjoy it while it lasts!) And it is surprising that so many proofs are incredibly simple. Not all though: proving Fermat's Last Theorem took a long time and is pretty complex.

What is the source of the magnetic field?

I would say it is the other way round: the voltage of the battery could be considered (rather inaccurately) as a force that pushes electrons (from the negative terminal) and pulls electrons (to the positive terminal) hence generating a current. The current flows through the motor: some of the energy of the current is converted to kinetic energy of the fan (and the air it moves), some is converted to heat. I would caution you against trying to interpret absolutely everything in terms of force though. Not everything is caused by forces. (In GR, gravity is not a force, for example.) And, once again, your "mathematics" is a meaningless collection of symbols.

No, everything is not made out of photons. They are not "more fundamental" than the other fundamental particles. There are 17 known fundamental particles: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle All fundamental particles can be described in string theory, not just photons. Any particle and its particle will annihilate to create photons. If they had sufficient energy, they would also generate other particles (including Higgs, Z and W bosons, potentially). No you couldn't. That would be incorrect. No it doesn't. That is not what happens when particles are collided. It does not break them apart to reveal what is inside. (The Higgs boson, for example, is not inside the particles collided at CERN.) It is the energy that creates new particles. There is no evidence they are not fundamental. While there are some theoretical ideas that particles might be made of more fundamental constituents ("preons") that would be true of all fundamental particles, including photons. Yes they can. And do. I don't even know what that means. Certainly, their interactions are mediated by virtual photons. But they are not hidden variables (they are not hidden, apart from anything else). There are good reasons to think there are no hidden variables. No it couldn't. The Higgs mechanism has nothing to do with gravity. It isn't even the source of most mass in matter. It doesn't have the properties required to mediate the force of gravity. In summary, you have made (yet another) post where almost every statement is wrong (or meaningless). You seem to have a large number of fundamental misunderstandings. Either you have read some very misleading sources or you have misunderstood what you have read. Perhaps you could acknowledge this and stop making statements with such certainty when they are usually wrong. It might be better to phrase things as questions or start statements with "I thought that..." Then you could start to learn, instead of spouting off with such confidence. And, as you can see from that page, it includes the Z and W bosons. As you are unable to understand it, maybe you should stop talking about it (wrongly) with such confidence.

None of this is part of any extensions to the standard model. It is just figments of your imagination. Photons are not hidden variables and neither are Z bosons. There is no reason to think there are hidden variables at all. That has nothing to do with anything in the previous paragraph. Which has nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. Nor unifying GR and QM. Your ideas are just all over the place. It would be difficult because they very rarely interact, not because they are fundamental. The earliest particle accelerators used electrons, which are also fundamental (and easy to accelerate because they are charged). As gravity is described by GR, that is the same thing. But why on Earth do you think the Higgs is relevant to this?

It may be. But that is not what that thread was about. And it is not what this thread is about, so please stay on topic. No. It is not a constituent of any other particle. The W and Z bosons mediate the weak interaction. I don't know why you think the Higgs field is relevant to unifying GR and QM.

Borax is sodium borate so I would assume that mixing sodium bicarbonate and boric acid would give you sodium borate = borax (plus CO2).

Not really. It is about how to combine GR and quantum theory. (That might lead to a unified model for all forces, but it might not.) What on Earth makes you think that. All I said was that the W and Z (and Higgs) bosons get their mass from the Higgs mechanism. That has nothing to do with the unification of GR and QM. The Z boson is fundamental. Why would that be relevant? You continued to promote the same nonsense after being told not to. So the thread was split off. ! Moderator Note You are now hijacking this thread with a discussion of forum rules. Stop it. Start a thread in the appropriate place if you want to talk about that.

The W and Z bosons get their mass from the Higgs mechanism. Which has little or nothing to do with the original thread.

! Moderator Note As you clearly have a limited understanding of the topic, I suggest you restrict yourself to reading others' posts and, possibly, asking questions. Do not keep making confident assertions about topics that you do not fully understand.