a model of quantum gravity

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

That's not a valid contradiction, and I see no math here.

1. It wasn't a contradiction. It was an explanation. Your vague ideas are not scientifically testable. Science doesn't work by having convincing pictures.

2. As you have no math for your model (apart from 'the math is the same' but 'your "quantum wave" description would be proven wrong') why do you expect math in response.

If you are using the same math (which is a wave description of quantum phenomena) then how can it prove the quantum wave description wrong?

12 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

You seems to be unable to even understand what I'm talking about. I'm sorry. We can go hours like this, you don't prove anything, you just write "I don't trust you cause I don't see math, and I'm unable to read english and picture model physically"

I do understand what you are saying. I haven't said I don't trust you. I haven't even said you are wrong (well, except for a few places, where you were factually inaccurate!). I haven't said I want to see math. I haven't said I am unable to visualise your word pictures.

I am saying that pictures are irrelevant. Verbal descriptions are irrelevant.

This is science. If you want an idea to be taken seriously, then you need a mathematical model. 

When I say you are using the same model but it produces different results, you say the results are the same.

When I say that if the results are the same then you can't test your idea, you say the results are different.

 

I am not saying your idea is wrong. I don't care if you are right or wrong. I am saying that you are not doing science. OK?

[Edgard Neuman]

37 minutes ago, Strange said:

1. It wasn't a contradiction. It was an explanation. Your vague ideas are not scientifically testable. Science doesn't work by having convincing pictures.

It was actually the anwser to "why do I have to explain" that if my model is right, the void can be more empty, and then the void would carry much less information, much less paralel histories, and then particle here wouldn't behave like wave. So the real answer of "why do I have to explain" is because you don't really know what your talking about. Sorry I had to explain in more details.

Quote

2. As you have no math for your model (apart from 'the math is the same' but 'your "quantum wave" description would be proven wrong') why do you expect math in response.

If you are using the same math (which is a wave description of quantum phenomena) then how can it prove this same math wrong?

As I said, IF YOU READ THE ACTUAL BOOK, Feynman talks about possible classical PATHs and classical interactions. But you didn't really understand that, so how can you understand what I'm saying? 

Quote

I do understand what you are saying. I haven't said I don't trust you. I haven't even said you are wrong (well, except for a few places, where you were factually inaccurate!). I haven't said I want to see math. I haven't said I am unable to visualise your word pictures.

I am saying that pictures are irrelevant. Verbal descriptions are irrelevant.

Because you don't know what you are talking about. 

Quote

This is science. If you want an idea to be taken seriously, then you need a mathematical model. 

When I say you are using the same model but it produces different results, you say the results are the same.

When I say that if the results are the same then you can't test your idea, you say the results are different.

Do I have to copy and paste my several explanation of what is the same and what is different ? 

Quote

I am not saying your idea is wrong. I don't care if you are right or wrong. I am saying that you are not doing science. OK?

Actually, no I'm not doing physics, I'm here to propose a model (an interpretation of the physics) that seems to fit with several results and I propose a way to test it.  
I'm not doing for you, sorry to disappoint. As I always do, I will probably get off this forum for months, go on trying to understand reality (to really understand it, not playing with letters like you do), and explain it back to people after, and if you understand it or not, if it the form please you or not; that's not my problem.

To be really honest, each time I come here, I sincerelly hope that somebody can provide a real contradiction (like the result of an experiment) that wouldn't fit my ideas (that happened sometime, for instance, I used to think dark matter wasn't real and relativity wasn't valid at large scale until somebody observed a dark galaxy.(but even that fact got recently challenged as a possible observation error).. I used to think life began with metabolism until I discovered ribozom where made of ARN.. I can change my mind when somebody have REAL arguments) ..
But all I get is "I don't understand" "you need math" "it's not science"  (and I have to write the same thing at least 10 times before you actually understand the meaning and implications of each sentence).. what do I care about your opinion of my ways ? How does it contradict anything ?

Edited August 27, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[MigL]

Here is the thing...

In the currently accepted model, space, or the 'void', is filled with virtual particles, popping in and out of existence ( as you well put it ).
These VP don't rise above the threshold ( a quanta of action, as Mordred has tried to explain ) of observation. Observation is another word for interaction. IE Virtual particles don't interact individually, but combined they can have measurable interactions.

In YOUR model, the 'void' is filled with real particles, which must exist for a brief but measurable time, in order for their interactions ( annihilation with subsequent anti-particle ) to carry the information ( properties ) of the particle along its classical trajectory. This 'wave' is your proposal to explain quantum behavior.
These being real particles, however, means they are above the quanta of action threshold for interactions ( observation ), and if still in particle form, there is nothing stopping them from interacting with other particles, or being observed.
Even if they have annihilated, the resulting photons would still contribute to the energy of the 'void', which would need to be huge.

Again, I ask...
Why is there no observational confirmation that the 'void' is filled with observable particles, and has an extremely high energy density ?

It would seem to me, that, if a model doesn't fit observational evidence, it is a non-starter.

Edited August 28, 2019 by MigL

[Mordred]

Can I do a single calculation that is specific to your model.

No I cannot. You state your math is the same as mainstream. Fine then it's the same as String theory or Lattice gauge or QM or classical

Which one ?

If I present some random formula you can just claim no that's not my model.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred

[Art Man]

On 8/9/2019 at 9:32 PM, Edgard Neuman said:

Hi,

I read this article, and I have a theory   
https://www.zmescience.com/science/physics/physicists-are-a-step-closer-to-a-theory-of-quantum-gravity/

Let me explain : in model, 

- quantum theory use "virtual particles". In my model : particle are not virtual, but what we call "void" is filled with two kinds of real particles : matter and antimatter (or maybe some other kind of symmetry).. think of it like electric charges in a metal.. you have  two opposite charges but they globally cancel out each other. If the void is indeed filled with particles of matter and antimatter interacting, (but ! stable of course, because the high energy of the photons would constantly turns back into particles, for it to work, it has to come to some equilibrium state between annihilation and creation of particle that are not photons).. 
In that case : the void is full of particle that actually carries the information of all quantum scenaris, but in a limited quantity. This quantity is the "density of the void".. Because there would be a equilibrium of positive and negative particles, we can imagine that the void can contains more of less of both.
- that would also imply something else : the quantity of quantum parallel "versions" of systems would be finite : the void can't carry has much information as we want. That would perfectly fit with an other theory called Quantum Darwinism. Think about the Feynman diagrams. In this model, instead of exploding into infinite trees of possibilities, it would fit into a finite quantity of reality per units of void (because the void carries the information).  In that case, it would look like a limited width genealogy tree : some branch would constantly die out, will only one remain from the distant past. Decoherence would be explain like this : the one particle we see in the Young double slit experiment (for instance) would be like the common ancestor of all realities that remains (the other possibilities having died out, from the moment the wave hit the screen to it became macroscopic for us to see). The key idea is this : the quantity of parallel stories in each part of space is limited (because it's indeed carried by real particle in what we call the void).

- the density of the void would so define "permittivity" of information by the space. Relativity insure that a system is by itself organised by information (the speed of light). The reason the speed of light is constant is because light is the lightest possible information or the quantum of causality.. Information defines "distance" and "time" in the systems.. not the other way around. So if a system is in a space with some a certain permittivity of information, and we change the permittivity, the only difference is the speed of time.. the story would be the same, so we can't directly measure this (as we are "inside" the story).

I have a nice metaphor for that : think about "matter" and "relativity" as some kind of self organizing software running on a network, the network being the particle of void in equilibrium. The void, would then by the physical level of the network. The structure that the software take can only be influenced by the topology of the network (the software is self organizing : creating relative distance and relative reference frames between its parts), but not its average speed. A difference in the density of the void (the global speed of the network) wouldn't change what the software do and how it behave (and itself would be able to measure anything).. byt the speed of the computation, the speed of the story (relative to an outside observer) 

- So now, we can suppose that the density of the void is the gravitational field : (the curvature)... the variations of it would manifest exactly as general relativity does : a variation of time. (the gravitational force would be the local effect of gradient of efficiency : particle probabilities (for instance) would be greater in the direction of the more density : so the matter running on it would be in a accelerated frame, and information would take more time to go from a relative "fast network" to a slow network outside (causing what we see as curvature)

 

I partially understand what you are trying to depict but this would be a whole lot simpler if you drew up something and explained your theory that way with visuals. I fail to see how what you outline here connects to the article you linked to. I must re-read your post a few more times to fully understand, but what I am getting right now is that your theory implies that there is a void which contains a hard copy of information that is the "story of reality" and this void gives birth to new _______? probabilities of this "story", and those new probabilities fly towards a slit in this void but once the correct "story" exits through the slit all of the incorrect possibilities are destroyed and the "hard copy" updates. I don't know, I think I got that wrong. Your linked article mentions nothing of voids, slits or story structuring.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Art Man

[Edgard Neuman]

I'll give you an other example of how bad you use math.
At one point you gave me the classical argument ("the uncertainty principle imply that the void can't be empty").. That's just wrong. If I put you in a ordinary macroscopic dark room, and I ask you to locate a ordinary light ball with your head, you can tell me where it was, and if it was, but you can't be sure about both, because that's all "the information you get from the interaction". CAN YOU THEN USE THIS TO PROVE AN EMPTY ROOM ISN'T EMPTY ? HUMMM.. NOPE. Can you use it to prove that a ordinary classical ball behave like a wave ?? HMMM NOPE. If I have to explain you that the uncertainty principle talks about WHAT YOU KNOW from the ball, and not the ball itself, imagine the whole lot of things you got wrong because you didn't really understand the meaning of the equation, and the reason WHY it's true (the amount of information you obviously get from a single particle interaction) 
So please, so called experts,  stop bothering me with your nonsense.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

Quantum Darwism has that but it involves wave functions which the OP objects to. He also objected to the mathematics I posted on QFT on the same basis but later claims he doesn't need the mathematics because it is just the same.

So your guess is as good as mine.

I can model a quantum void/vacuum or an Einstein vacuum which would be a true void as it wouldn't have VP either.

Words don't make a model.

[Art Man]

On 8/24/2019 at 2:37 PM, Edgard Neuman said:

When I write with my simple english, my simple mind, I have no idea if I'm right. So how can you be sure you are write with such complicated ideas ?

I am going to guess that you speak Chinese or live in China?

[Mordred]

6 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I'll give you an other example of how bad you use math.
At one point you gave me the classical argument ("the uncertainty principle imply that the void can't be empty").. That's just wrong. If I put you in a ordinary macroscopic dark room, and I ask you to locate a ordinary light ball with your head, you can tell me where it was, and if it was, but you can't be sure about both, because that's all "the information you get from the interaction". CAN YOU THEN USE THIS TO PROVE AN EMPTY ROOM ISN'T EMPTY ? HUMMM.. NOPE. Can you use it to prove that a ordinary classical ball behave like a wave ?? HMMM NOPE. If I have to explain you that the uncertainty principle talks about WHAT YOU KNOW from the ball, and not the ball itself, imagine the whole lot of things you got wrong because you didn't really understand the meaning of the equation, and the reason WHY it's true (the amount of information you obviously get from a single particle interaction) 
So please, so called experts,  stop bothering me with your nonsense.

Well considering I could model the ball under Lattice gauge of solids and then apply the uncertainty principle to that lattice gauge under field treatments. It is possible to describe any macro object under QFT if its practical to do so.

[Edgard Neuman]

"your theory implies that there is a void which contains a hard copy of information that is the "story of reality" and this void gives birth to new _______? "
In my theory, the void is full of classical particles with classical trajectories... that's what carry information... picture the feynman diagram, and then picture that all possible paths are the results of actual particles instead of virtual ones... 

[Mordred]

I don't have a theory mainstream physics has several to which one specifically are you referring to ?

[Edgard Neuman]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well considering I could model the ball under Lattice gauge of solids and then apply the uncertainty principle to that lattice gauge under field treatments. It is possible to describe any macro object under QFT if its practical to do so.

(You didn't even understand the argument. WHY DO I WRITE HERE ?... The hypothesis are "IN A CLASSICAL ROOM", "A CLASSICAL BALL", so QFT don't apply here.)
so now every classical room have classical balls in it ? Go on, use you math ! And in some alternate universe, all empty rooms are filled with cake instead right ? Isn't what the infinite feynman diagram tends to prove ? And in some universe, I'm immortal ! My heart, when it will start to fail, somewhere it won't. 
You can study your math universe, let me study the actual one. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

Funny nothing you described has anything to do with Feymann path integrals. Those paths are simply probability functions using calculus of variations.

The path chosen is the one with the least action.

You should really learn a model before stating what it says

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

Just now, Mordred said:

Funny nothing you described has anything to do with Feymann path integrals. Those paths are simply probability functions using calculus of variations.

funny how you obviously don't understand anything, so your comments don't really matter to me.

[Mordred]

Ah that's why I have two physics degrees one in particle physics and posted that complex math for you which you could have used to describe a void by taking the next step to propogators instead of operators 

[Edgard Neuman]

 

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Ah that's why I have two physics degrees one in particle physics and posted that complex math for you which you could have used to describe a void by taking the next step to propogators instead of operators 

And yet when I say "in a classical room", "a classical ball" , you want to apply QFT. You can't even respect the premises of a model.
Maybe you should start to doubt yourself ? Don't you think ? 

[Mordred]

You haven't established a premise. Your opening post involves three theories that apply to QFT. Feymann path integrals is QFT or QM. It is not classical

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

You haven't established a premise. Your opening post involves three theories that apply to QFT.

I forgot that you don't really read nor think. So I will copy and paste :
"If I put you in a ordinary macroscopic dark room, and I ask you to locate a ordinary light ball with your head, "

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

How does that possibly relate to quantum voids and VP and particles hrmmm ?

[Edgard Neuman]

Just now, Mordred said:

How does that possibly relate to quantum voids and VP and particles hrmmm ?

Because at one point you gave me the classical argument ("the uncertainty principle imply that the void can't be empty").. That's just wrong. If I put you in a ordinary macroscopic dark room, and I ask you to locate a ordinary light ball with your head, you can tell me where it was, and if it was, but you can't be sure about both, because that's all "the information you get from the interaction". CAN YOU THEN USE THIS TO PROVE AN EMPTY ROOM ISN'T EMPTY ? HUMMM.. NOPE. Can you use it to prove that a ordinary classical ball behave like a wave ?? HMMM NOPE. If I have to explain you that the uncertainty principle talks about WHAT YOU KNOW from the ball, and not the ball itself, imagine the whole lot of things you got wrong because you didn't really understand the meaning of the equation, and the reason WHY it's true (the amount of information you obviously get from a single particle interaction) 
So please, so called experts,  stop bothering me with your nonsense.

 

[Mordred]

Are you talking to the right person because I didn't state that this thread not once did I discuss the HUP

[Edgard Neuman]

43 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well considering I could model the ball under Lattice gauge of solids and then apply the uncertainty principle to that lattice gauge under field treatments. It is possible to describe any macro object under QFT if its practical to do so.

My argument was that even in a purely classical model, you have the uncertainty principle, but that don't imply anything about the none classicality of the model, because it's about information you get, not necessarily the thing itself. do you understand that argument ? Do you understand that all the physics of particle can be purely classical, not wavy at all, and still have the uncertainty principle, because the information you get from a particle always come from on interaction (a classical bump can't carry both speed and position).

Objects obviously don't become wavy when you don't know where they are (at least, they don't have to)

If you understand this, if you understand that THEN, the uncertainty principle can NEVER be use to prove the nature of the void NEVER EVER.
(because, YES, ME EDGARD NEUMAN, I JUST PROVED TO YOU, THAT IT DOESN'T,  BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE IT WITHOUT THE IMPLICATION YOU SUPPOSE IT HAVE, EVEN THOUGH MOST OF YOU SPECIALIST BELIEVE IT HAS.).. AND NOW, will you stop use it, FOR EVER ? Is your logical brain connected to reality, or connected to your social status ?  Do you select beliefs according to logic or to fame and mainstream ? 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

That's not the only reason behind wavefuctions in QM or QFT. In the macro world you wouldn't even bother applying it as it's negligible.

In the quantum world is the only regime it applies and like it or not experiment evidence proves it's a fundamental property of our universe.

Heck there was a Nobel prize to a team that was able to only minimize the effect.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That's not the only reason behind wavefuctions in QM or QFT. In the macro world you wouldn't even bother applying it as it's negligible.

In the quantum world is the only regime it applies and like it or not experiment evidence proves it's a fundamental property of our universe.

I DIDN'T APPLY QFT. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED YOU NOT TO. A "classical ball" in a "classical room". 

Why is it so complicated ?
My last argument is "you can have uncertainty principle, in a classical situation, where you know IT CAN'T imply any quantum behavior".. So if something doesn't apply something else in a situation, it doesn't at all. Never. 

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Art Man]

8 hours ago, Strange said:

You "think" there are no differences? How about proving the two model are mathematically equivalent?

As real particles and virtual particles are very different things I find this argument extremely unconvincing with either mathematics or evidence to back it up.

 

So, to make this testable, you need to quantify this "void density" and specify exactly what the "complexity a qubit can carry" is.

Unless these are quantitative predictions, they are not testable.

Of course, doing that would require a model. Which you don't have so ...

What is the purpose of "virtual particles"? Since they don't really exist how can they be valid within physics (the study of existence)? Additionally, what good would a "virtual particle" be when its values arent even equal to its "real" equivalent?