Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

[Mordred]

You have to be careful what dimensions are defined within a tensor. The metric tensor specifically only deals with 3 spatial dimensions. It does not contain within the tensor itself any other independant variable.

No degrees of freedom corresponding to motion or even configurations add to the number of dinensions that the symmetry , convariant or contravariant terms  don't add to the number of independant variables. Those are determined by other tensors that provide the configuration to apply. 

In other words all configurations dont simultaneously apply at the same time.

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

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

Edited November 30, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

7 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

Which g_uv actually has 4 within it so 26+1 , all 0

so g_uv looks like a point String but it should not have that many dimensions extra.

10-D object. (4 + 6)

They all say it is + 0  in value , so it doesn't effect them but still it says it is there.

Sorry I should have read the last two posts closer. ignore my last post, I completely misread your last two posts (at work and glanced on phone during break)

I have to look over the Mandelbra set but the zero value can in some literature use that as the symmetric configuration. Do you have a link to the particular literature for me to confirm.

 

51 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

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

Sigh no the the Mandelbra set uses the Haussdorf equation which specifically sets infinity as the start point. Remove that and the Hausddorf equation won't work. Recall an earlier conversation this thread where I mentioned the Haussdorf jump from Infinity to zero? Read back a few days ago.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

20 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Sorry I should have read the last two posts closer. ignore my last post, I completely misread your last two posts (at work and glanced on phone during break)

I have to look over the Mandelbra set but the zero value can in some literature use that as the symmetric configuration. Do you have a link to the particular literature for me to confirm.

 

Sigh no the the Mandelbra set uses the Haussdorf equation which specifically sets infinity as the start point. Remove that and the Hausddorf equation won't work. Recall an earlier conversation this thread where I mentioned the Haussdorf jump from Infinity to zero? Read back a few days ago.

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.

[Mordred]

No please stick to what the mathematics describes. This is a recursive function with a range zero to infinity. In order to loop it back to the function it must jump from end to start to feedback to the fuction to comply to how Mandelbrot sets work.

 

[SuperPolymath]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No please stick to what the mathematics describes. This is a recursive function with a range zero to infinity. In order to loop it back to the function it must jump from end to start to feedback to the fuction to comply to how Mandelbrot sets work.

 

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

[Mordred]

I am addressing the OPs question not your lack of understanding of the math Vmedvil has posted.

While correcting your reply as being wrong to that question.

Here read Hauusdorff Dimension and see for yourself

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausdorff_dimension

And here is an example application to ADS/CFT.

No dividing of Planck lengths grrr. We have repeatedly told you how that is incorrect so quit adviing that.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.3267&ved=0ahUKEwih1J39jOfXAhXDMGMKHWsPAOkQFggiMAE&usg=AOvVaw2QG6Dw0WHZLmRarxLWAbdd

You should be happy though its fractals in practical application. If you had ever learned physics including the math you would have been able to express it properly. Note how the D branes arise from this....

( no FTL before you mention it lol)

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

2 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

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

 

On 11/24/2017 at 8:27 AM, Vmedvil said:

 

Space for Perfect Torus k = 553

 

 

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

I am addressing the OPs question not your lack of understanding of the math Vmedvil has posted.

While correcting your reply as being wrong to that question.

Here read Hauusdorff Dimension and see for yourself

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausdorff_dimension

And here is an example application to ADS/CFT.

No dividing of Planck lengths grrr. We have repeatedly told you how that is incorrect so quit adviing that.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.3267&ved=0ahUKEwih1J39jOfXAhXDMGMKHWsPAOkQFggiMAE&usg=AOvVaw2QG6Dw0WHZLmRarxLWAbdd

You should be happy though its fractals in practical application. If you had ever learned physics including the math you would have been able to express it properly. Note how the D branes arise from this....

( no FTL before you mention it lol)

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.

Edited November 30, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Roflmao its too bad you can't even see how fractals are being used with regards to ADS/CFT to also address the issues with the uncertainty principle in that article. It even demonstrates how D-Branes arise from the mathematics

It is an excellent tool for him to build his model. Too bad you can't see it roflmao...

 

57 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

 

Stop it with interpretation bias.

Interpretation is not fact, it's not even at model stage. Refer to the scientific method.

 

That is precisely what I provided the scientific method to properly model build. Not la la land guess work based on wild conjectures.

Physics uses mathematics to model build not wild fantasy land dreams.

 If you knew anything about physics you would know it requires math.

Yeesh it even involves Mandelbrot sets and you can't even see it.

Here you were asking for the tools to provide the math to your imagery and when it is provided accusing me of not providing the methodology under math. Your too much,

!

Moderator Note

 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

 

See specifically the following sections on our rules for participating on this Speculation forum

 

"- A model is often an equation or set of equations, so that one can predict some measurable outcome under a set of measurable conditions. V = IR is a simple model in electricity. All of the terms represent something physically measurable. Systematically choosing two of the variables allows you predict the third one, which can be compared with the measurement."

 

3. Specific predictions often require math. Do not expect others to do your math for you, nor should you consider the math to be a trivial and therefore unimportant part of your conjecture it's usually crucial. e.g. a vague explanation that something will get hot would not separate your idea from some other idea. Predicting a temperature dependence on certain conditions would allow for that.

 

 

 

 

The whole purpose of model building is to make predictions and that provides testability. That REQUIRES math as per the rules on this Speculation Forum

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Roflmao its too bad you can't even see how fractals are being used with regards to ADS/CFT to also address the issues with the uncertainty principle in that article. It even demonstrates how D-Branes arise from the mathematics

It is an excellent tool for him to build his model. Too bad you can't see it roflmao...

 

That is precisely what I provided the scientific method to properly model build. Not la la land guess work based on wild conjectures.

Physics uses mathematics to model build not wild fantasy land dreams.

 If you knew anything about physics you would know it requires math.

Yeesh it even involves Mandelbrot sets and you can't even see it.

Here you were asking for the tools to provide the math to your imagery and when it is provided accusing me of not providing the methodology under math. Your too much,

!

Moderator Note

 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

 

See specifically the following sections on our rules for participating on this Speculation forum

 

"- A model is often an equation or set of equations, so that one can predict some measurable outcome under a set of measurable conditions. V = IR is a simple model in electricity. All of the terms represent something physically measurable. Systematically choosing two of the variables allows you predict the third one, which can be compared with the measurement."

 

3. Specific predictions often require math. Do not expect others to do your math for you, nor should you consider the math to be a trivial and therefore unimportant part of your conjecture it's usually crucial. e.g. a vague explanation that something will get hot would not separate your idea from some other idea. Predicting a temperature dependence on certain conditions would allow for that.

 

 

 

 

The whole purpose of model building is to make predictions and that provides testability. That REQUIRES math as per the rules on this Speculation Forum

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

Edited November 30, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Finally a method from you I can agree on. Well done you provided something that can be built on.

 Nothing wrong with applying this method. +1

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[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.

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Finally a method from you I can agree on. Well done you provided something that can be built on.

 Nothing wrong with applying this method. +1

This is what I've been trying to get across to Dubbelosix for months, to you, to Vmedvil, & many others from the start.

[Mordred]

There ya go a well presented argument and a good basis for a solution. That's all I was asking from you. Well done.

16 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

 

This is what I've been trying to get across to Dubbelosix for months, to you, to Vmedvil, & many others from the start.

Well now you found a way to present your arguments in a decent and understandable way that anyone can chip into without dealing directly with misconceptions and poor terminology to focus on a viable examination of the issues you wish to address.

This is by far easier and more productive to a good discussion and examination that complies within our rules and guidelines.

I tip my hat to you

27 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

 

This is what I've been trying to get across to Dubbelosix for months, to you, to Vmedvil, & many others from the start.

Well now you found a way to present your arguments in a decent and understandable way that anyone can chip into without dealing directly with misconceptions and poor terminology to focus on a viable examination of the issues you wish to address.

This is by far easier and more productive to a good discussion and examination that complies within our rules and guidelines.

I tip my hat to you

edit: the article above is one of my favourites on Cellular automata, I highly recommend it.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=VGdhDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=deterministic+model+on+sub-planck+gravity&source=bl&ots=l243t5WbhV&sig=qC2MUzUkw3MZogX3d9MhC9_NkZI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib7LPYrefXAhUHSiYKHXjJA8EQ6AEIUzAF#v=onepage&q=deterministic model on sub-planck gravity&f=false

[SuperPolymath]

Okay, stochastic gravity theory is for sub-planckian gravity

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5660882/

But those are gravity fields, not waves (frame dragging). Waves would be superluminal & an entire microverse would have bodies that abruptly accelerate & decelerate constantly, also teleparallel gravity would make it synonymous with atomic charge. This would allow the polarity of one particle to influence that of another particle beyond the speed of light, faster, via commutation of sub-planckian gravitational interactions. No superposition or non-local action between particles that are in two places at once...again because C covers 1 planck length in 1 planck, it will cover 1/n planck lengths in 1/n planck times even if n>1

This is within parameters of special relativity, or scale relativity, acting beyond the planck length.

Edited December 1, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, SuperPolymath said:

Okay, stochastic gravity theory is for sub-planckian gravity

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5660882/

But those are gravity fields, not waves. Waves would be superluminal, also teleparallel gravity would make it synonymous with atomic charge.

There is a handy memorization rule to use for QM (specifically)below but in QFT the fields are the operators.

operator=local=particle or more accurately a field excitation has a finite waveform/function  ie waveforms that restore to ground state of the field within finite return to ground state crossing points.   All crossings of two waveforms either to the ground state or any other waveform are finite points. Planckian

field=propagator=non local = ((global) = neighboring states within range of  time dependant causality) neighboring states interact with one another via gauge vector bosons (virtual particles or more accurately field fluctuations (fluctuations waveforms with indeterminate amplitude boundariesOperator requires a unit of quanta=observable/measurable.sub planckian

VERY IMPORTANT The uncertainty Principle applies to Both Fields and particles. All points of measure are affected.

Now here is the thing, by the above one must recognize that nothing in the above describes a corpuscular (Solid like object) these are specifically waveforms. All principle particle quantum numbers have wave-functions that model the waveforms ( the excitations that define the particle)

see here for the atom in regards to electron and orbitals.

https://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/general/quantum_numbers/Quantum_Numbers.htm#Principal

So here is how this works. First off the purpose of QM and QFT aren't really the same. QM more concerns itself more so with particle collisions, So scattering effect in general from intersecting excitations. Whenever two waveforms overlap they cause interference with one another (destructive and constructive interference. QFT more concerns itself with the fields themselves as being the primary focus.

to quote from following link under Principle of Superposition. Well defined in that article even though its a simplified link. ( includes interference of different lapping patterns.

"When two waves interfere, the resulting displacement of the medium at any location is the algebraic sum of the displacements of the individual waves at that same location" Or due to Heisenburg uncertainty. This is your Stochastic state, it is this arena that statistical probabilities apply as this is your indeterminant state. Stochastic  with definition {b]:randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely [/b]

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-3/Interference-of-Waves

Now once you have determined/measured a wave-function probability no longer applies to that wave function.

Now consider the following logic argument from the above lemmas. Due to the interference nature of wave functions, via constructive inference we get higher amplitude than the ground state wave-functions that become sharply defined (excitations with a quanta of energy). The ground state for QM being the zero point energy state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Now as to the Uncertainty, well lets think above to all that interference. Is it any wonder that their will always be interference present? that it will be present in every point of measurement? In nature their is never truly a pure state, it will always have some overlapping waveforms. Even the very act of taking a measurement will cause interference.

These articles that recommend the stochastic treatments to geometry are applying the above, where as under relativity the field geometry is determined to describe the particle geodesic. They don't apply the uncertainty principle mainly because at the macro scale, in particular the universe the effect is negligible to measurement error. Except over vast volume ( ie can contribute to cosmological constant). BOTH QM and QFT are indeterministic treatments ( all possible) General relativity is a deterministic treatment.

By the way thanks on the above link, I love reading these types of articles. This one is quite good. Also excellent question above hope this helps you understand this article

Here is an assist to all readers, A holomorphism is an overlap of fields either due to excitations overlap or to fluctuation overlap. This will correspond to the Neighbors descriptive above. Under Geometry the Manifold will have a boundary condition that provides the causality region from that manifold or state. This boundary condition also applies to its own range of influence as well as IR (infrared red Extremely low frequencies) or UV (extremely high frequencies) cutoffs.

For Gaussian fields  see Gauss Bonnet theorem which applies to Gaussian treatments to the above as well.

https://math.berkeley.edu/~alanw/240papers00/zhu.pdf

Edited December 1, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

Apply this notion to my theory,

So as for the charge of a proton, we see it as a rotating & spinning body, yet most atoms have protons & neutrons. My theory gives a micro black hole at the center of every atom, so the atoms with both 1 proton & neutron have 1 quasar disc & 1 matter jet at each pole. Positively charged protons have matter spiraling into waves away from the quasar, negatively charged protons have waves collapsing into the quasar. Quarks would also be matter-jet like. A black hole atom may have many quasar discs.

Would the behavior of the quantum world not be the same as EM, WNF, & SNF? So isn't everything reducible to deterministic relativity when my other ideas are combined with this? Does my theory not account for dynamic dark energy & dark matter? This seriously needs to become a mathematical model. There's a dozen members here who could make it one.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

There is a handy memorization rule to use for QM (specifically)below but in QFT the fields are the operators.

operator=local=particle or more accurately a field excitation has a finite waveform/function  ie waveforms that restore to ground state of the field within finite return to ground state crossing points.   All crossings of two waveforms either to the ground state or any other waveform are finite points. Planckian

field=propagator=non local = ((global) = neighboring states within range of  time dependant causality) neighboring states interact with one another via gauge vector bosons (virtual particles or more accurately field fluctuations (fluctuations waveforms with indeterminate amplitude boundariesOperator requires a unit of quanta=observable/measurable.sub planckian

VERY IMPORTANT The uncertainty Principle applies to Both Fields and particles. All points of measure are affected.

Now here is the thing, by the above one must recognize that nothing in the above describes a corpuscular (Solid like object) these are specifically waveforms. All principle particle quantum numbers have wave-functions that model the waveforms ( the excitations that define the particle)

see here for the atom in regards to electron and orbitals.

https://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/general/quantum_numbers/Quantum_Numbers.htm#Principal

So here is how this works. First off the purpose of QM and QFT aren't really the same. QM more concerns itself more so with particle collisions, So scattering effect in general from intersecting excitations. Whenever two waveforms overlap they cause interference with one another (destructive and constructive interference. QFT more concerns itself with the fields themselves as being the primary focus.

to quote from following link under Principle of Superposition. Well defined in that article even though its a simplified link. ( includes interference of different lapping patterns.

"When two waves interfere, the resulting displacement of the medium at any location is the algebraic sum of the displacements of the individual waves at that same location" Or due to Heisenburg uncertainty. This is your Stochastic state, it is this arena that statistical probabilities apply as this is your indeterminant state. Stochastic  with definition {b]:randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely [/b]

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-3/Interference-of-Waves

Now once you have determined/measured a wave-function probability no longer applies to that wave function.

Now consider the following logic argument from the above lemmas. Due to the interference nature of wave functions, via constructive inference we get higher amplitude than the ground state wave-functions that become sharply defined (excitations with a quanta of energy). The ground state for QM being the zero point energy state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Now as to the Uncertainty, well lets think above to all that interference. Is it any wonder that their will always be interference present? that it will be present in every point of measurement? In nature their is never truly a pure state, it will always have some overlapping waveforms. Even the very act of taking a measurement will cause interference.

These articles that recommend the stochastic treatments to geometry are applying the above, where as under relativity the field geometry is determined to describe the particle geodesic. They don't apply the uncertainty principle mainly because at the macro scale, in particular the universe the effect is negligible to measurement error. Except over vast volume ( ie can contribute to cosmological constant). BOTH QM and QFT are indeterministic treatments ( all possible) General relativity is a deterministic treatment.

By the way thanks on the above link, I love reading these types of articles. This one is quite good. Also excellent question above hope this helps you understand this article

Here is an assist to all readers, A holomorphism is an overlap of fields either due to excitations overlap or to fluctuation overlap. This will correspond to the Neighbors descriptive above. Under Geometry the Manifold will have a boundary condition that provides the causality region from that manifold or state. This boundary condition also applies to its own range of influence as well as IR (infrared red Extremely low frequencies) or UV (extremely high frequencies) cutoffs.

For Gaussian fields  see Gauss Bonnet theorem which applies to Gaussian treatments to the above as well.

https://math.berkeley.edu/~alanw/240papers00/zhu.pdf

Dear audience, this long post was designed with the sole purpose of diverting attention away from every point I want your collective attention turned toward. QM & QFT are not at all apart of my theory, a mathematical nightmare of superpositions.

Forget the uncertainty principal. We know how bodies in the large scale universe behave, that can serve as a formula for how superluminal (sub-planck scale relativity) & commutative (frame dragging) gravity in adjacent sub-quanta cells will make a wave-particle behave.

Edited December 1, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

You don't have a model till you have mathematical testability. 

3 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

Apply this notion to my theory,

So as for the charge of a proton, we see it as a rotating & spinning body, yet most atoms have protons & neutrons. My theory gives a micro black hole at the center of every atom, so the atoms with both 1 proton & neutron have 1 quasar disc & 1 matter jet at each pole. Positively charged protons have matter spiraling into waves away from the quasar, negatively charged protons have waves collapsing into the quasar. Quarks would also be matter-jet like. A black hole atom may have many quasar discs.

Would the behavior of the quantum world not be the same as EM, WNF, & SNF? So isn't everything reducible to deterministic relativity when my other ideas are combined with this? Does my theory not account for dynamic dark energy & dark matter? This seriously needs to become a mathematical model. There's a dozen members here who could make it one.

No absolutely not.

Are you not aware we have electron microscopes powerful enough to image atoms? We certainly do not see micro black holes in atoms.

Wild conjecture incorrect to observational evidence enough said.

I am done trying to help you out. You have your articles. Study them nothing about micro blackholes in those articles and they support my last post. They also include the Uncertainty principle in its mathematics.

Enough said on your last two paragraps.

They weren't intended to steer away from anything but provide you the aids to comprehend what your reading and answering your previous post.

6 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

Okay, stochastic gravity theory is for sub-planckian gravity

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5660882/

But those are gravity fields, not waves (frame dragging). Waves would be superluminal & an entire microverse would have bodies that abruptly accelerate & decelerate constantly, also teleparallel gravity would make it synonymous with atomic charge. This would allow the polarity of one particle to influence that of another particle beyond the speed of light, faster, via commutation of sub-planckian gravitational interactions. No superposition or non-local action between particles that are in two places at once...again because C covers 1 planck length in 1 planck, it will cover 1/n planck lengths in 1/n planck times even if n>1

This is within parameters of special relativity, or scale relativity, acting beyond the planck length.

specifically this post

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122154357.htm

Here are images of atom. See any micro black holes?

 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122154357.htm

Here are images of atom. See any micro black holes?

Secondly if your theory were correct, there would be no stable particles nor atoms as microblackholes would radiate away via Hawking radiation.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

 

 

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

You don't have a model till you have mathematical testability. 

No absolutely not.

Are you not aware we have electron microscopes powerful enough to image atoms? We certainly do not see micro black holes in atoms.

Wild conjecture incorrect to observational evidence enough said.

I am done trying to help you out. You have your articles. Study them nothing about micro blackholes in those articles and they support my last post. They also include the Uncertainty principle in its mathematics.

Enough said on your last two paragraps.

They weren't intended to steer away from anything but provide you the aids to comprehend what your reading and answering your previous post.

specifically this post

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122154357.htm

Here are images of atom. See any micro black holes?

 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122154357.htm

Here are images of atom. See any micro black holes?

Secondly if your theory were correct, there would be no stable particles nor atoms as microblackholes would radiate away via Hawking radiation.

God damn it I thought you read my thread, Mordred. 

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-mini-black-holes-atoms-earth.amp

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://haramein.resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/Nexus-Nov-Dec-2013-Black-hole-at-heart-of-Atom-ENGLISH.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi-o4qJrenXAhVq0oMKHZdrAaAQFgizATAZ&usg=AOvVaw1ELLH9iqPU0BwhQlRdA0tE

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/x-ray-lasers-make-atoms-act-like-ldquo-black-holes-rdquo-in-molecules/

Micro BH evaporation is what would turn a proton with negative charge (microverses with microBH mass going in) into protons with positive charge (microverses without microBH or mass coming back out). The  evaporating black hole atom would keep reforming as charge transfers mass from atom to atom.

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30597-the-theory-of-everything/

This explains teleparallel gravity.

& again if particles & waves are microverses, they have smaller black holes. Matter doesn't go into the event in my theory, only the mass which comes from micro black holes. That's why black holes turn matter into dark energy as they grow. The macroblack hole that forms at the core of a giant dying star is formed by all these black hole atoms combining during fusion. It's also what keeps galaxies from flying apart, one day the smbh of our galactic core will consume all the bha's in out galaxy, & galaxy will fly apart several adjacent parts of the universe beyond our cosmic event horizon will converge this wayward cherenkov radiation at that point, where it will reignite a qg plasma state, which will be pulled apart by these shrinking monster black holes (from the big rip) surrounding it, creating the first atoms in a new inflationary universe. This is what all radiation is doing when it goes from solid particles to waves.

 

All of this needs to be modelled

This is deep inside an atom so you wouldnt see it. In Einstein's time a BH was theoretical, now we find one at the center of every galaxy.

All of these different ideas are related to one theory, I suggest someone reads my thread on hypography, create a mathematical model, & publish it in physics journal A, if you want the Nobel prize for physics.

Edited December 1, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Modelling this is your responsibility not mine.

So far you havent supplied anything supportive.

Why would I waste my time modelling something I know will not work?

Let me ask you a question How do you propose to explain the massive difference  in decay rates between the proton and Neutron which is incredibly close in mass? 

Both are matter particles, The proton mean lifetime is well beyond the age of the universe. Ie we cannot detect any significant decay

The neutron by itself (not in an atom ) is roughly 10 minutes.

Answer that with your model proposal

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

32 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Modelling this is your responsibility not mine.

So far you havent supplied anything supportive.

Why would I waste my time modelling something I know will not work?

Let me ask you a question How do you propose to explain the massive difference  in decay rates between the proton and Neutron which is incredibly close in mass? 

Both are matter particles, The proton mean lifetime is well beyond the age of the universe. Ie we cannot detect any significant decay

The neutron by itself (not in an atom ) is roughly 10 minutes.

Answer that with your model proposal

 

When subatomic particle waves of the protons interact, they feed each other their collective material, collapsing wave functions. Like bug rips & big bangs in the microverses of most all subatomic particles. 

The neutron flies apart because, as I said, it's between the up quark  & down quarks matter jets @ poles of the BH atom held together entirely by it's gravity underneath or adjacent to the proton quasar discs.

Gravity is a lot stronger near the planck scale, resembling bthe other forces of the  quantum world in it's  strength:

https://phys.org/news/2009-05-mini-black-holes.amp

Edited December 1, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[koti]

Okay, so we have miniature planckian size black holes inside the atoms with accretion disks, evaporating - everything just like a standard black hole which we have in the large scale. Sounds like a decent B class scifi movie narrative. I’d watch that

Edited December 1, 2017 by koti

[Mordred]

Actually in this particular instance the model used describes particles as a BH with charge as source/sink atttaction/repulsion.

Yes I know this model enough to build model the paper and link above. Yes it is strictly classical.

However if I show you how it works to provide your best bet at developing your model.

Are you also willing that I can also show the BH interpretation as an artifact of the metric used? (solid lattice gauge theory) ?

[SuperPolymath]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Actually in this particular instance the model used describes particles as a BH with charge as source/sink atttaction/repulsion.

Yes I know this model enough to build model the paper and link above. Yes it is strictly classical.

However if I show you how it works to provide your best bet at developing your model.

Are you also willing that I can also show the BH interpretation as an artifact of the metric used? (solid lattice gauge theory) ?

Absolutely not, the url says gravity is stronger inside atoms which is the only reason I linked. God please, no more diverting my theory, they're scattered enough already

29 minutes ago, koti said:

Okay, so we have miniature planckian size black holes inside the atoms with accretion disks, evaporating - everything just like a standard black hole which we have in the large scale. Sounds like a decent B class scifi movie narrative. I’d watch that

It's trippy but it solves ALL of the problems.

[koti]

14 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

It's trippy but it solves ALL of the problems.

It’s so hilarious that there just might be a small grain of thruth in it, I’ll be watching