a model of quantum gravity

[Mordred]

8 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

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. 

 

What your stating makes no sense when it comes to particle production. Where you must apply QM not classical physics. The very attraction repulsion nature of quantum particles is part of the problem

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

8 minutes ago, Art Man said:

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?

virtual particle are necessary (if you don't use my model) to explain the results of most quantum experiment. If you don't have something between electrons, how do they repulse each other ? The mainstream model uses virtual particles, my model simply state that the virtual particle were already here and are as real as the "real ones" (they are in the void).. 
but anyway you need something to carry the interaction. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

Told you the void should be replaced with field a void is too subjective to vacuum energy levels. Is it a void with 246 GeV/m^3 just with the Higgs field ?

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What your stating makes no sense when it comes to particle production. Where you must apply QM not classical physics. The very attraction repulsion nature of quantum particles is part of the problem

Please. In a classical dark room. A classical ball. YOU WANT TO TELL WHERE IT IS, using your head ? Can you tell where it is ? No. You touch it : IT BOUNCE. Now it's somewhere else. The information you get is obtain via a (purely classical !!!!!!!!!!!!!) interaction. AND STILL. YOU HAVE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. 
SO in that thought experiment can you then USE THE PRINCIPLE to suppose that the classical ball is wavy ? And the room, if empty, isn't really ? 
NO. SO if you can't use It here, why can you then use it in reality ? YOU CAN'T. YOU HAVE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE THAT IS TRUE HERE, AND YOU HAVE ALSO PERFECTLY EMPTY ROOMS EVERYWHERE. 
The uncertainty principle talk about the information you get from a particle via interaction, IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE PARTICLE.

Before answering take the time to understand the full logic of my argument. 
 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[moth]

2 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Please. In a classical dark room. A classical ball. YOU WANT TO TELL WHERE IT IS, using your head ? Can you tell where it is ? No. You touch it : IT BOUNCE. Now it's somewhere else. The information you get is obtain via a (purely classical !!!!!!!!!!!!!) interaction. AND STILL. YOU HAVE THE INCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. 
SO in that thought experiment can you then USE THE PRINCIPLE to suppose that the classical ball is wavy ? And the room, if empty, isn't really ? 
NO. SO if you can't use It here, why can you then use it in reality ? YOU CAN'T. 
The incertainlty principle talk about the information you get from a particle via interaction, IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE PARTICLE.

Before answering take the time to understand the full logic of my argument. 

It sounds like you are conflating the measurement  effect with Heisenberg uncertainty 

[Mordred]

Nope your trying to avoid the issue with classical objects and classical physics which don't apply in the QM regime.

Define void for me. Your definition must be different than mine.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Told you the void should be replaced with field a void is too subjective to vacuum energy levels. Is it a void with 246 GeV/m^3 just with the Higgs field ?

I have no idea. I suppose the void would really be packed with particle, for the quantum effect to apply at very low scale...first you need a perfectly symmetric network of particles and interactions (I suppose the actual one is correct, I know the model has to fit with all the results of passed experiments, of course)  : you want to be able to build a stable void (since we can observe and create almost empty space everywhere).. so you don't want some interaction to be unbalanced. 

[Mordred]

A void is a region devoid of all matter and energy. Hence it doesn't exist in our universe as the HUP applies via zero point energy. The Higgs field exists at 246 GeV/m^3. It is not applicable to describe an EM field nor a gravitational field.

[Edgard Neuman]

14 minutes ago, moth said:

It sounds like you are conflating the measurement  effect with Heisenberg uncertainty 

The problem, I don't know your mainstream theories are mixed up and what is enough to explain experimental results.
If you can infer the uncertainty principle from the laws of conservation of charges (and momentum etc, symmetries) during a interaction, than the two are the same thing.

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

A void is a region devoid of all matter and energy. Hence it doesn't exist in our universe as the HUP applies via zero point energy. The Higgs field exists at 246 GeV/m^3. It is not applicable to describe an EM field nor a gravitational field.

You realize how complex and different all theories you use in the same sentence. I'm sorry, I certainly don't believe you understand all the details of what you are talking about. 

"A void is a region devoid of all matter and energy. Hence it doesn't exist in our universe as the HUP applies via zero point energy."

Now you are shifting the definition of the void (IS IT REALLY A SMART MOVE? or the proof you don't really use logic ?). "A void is a region devoid of all matter and energy" that is certainly not the premise of my model (it's precisely the OPPOSITE). What i called void is simply a void like you can try to create in labs. A void of what you would call REAL matter. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

1 minute ago, Edgard Neuman said:

The problem, I don't know your mainstream theories are mixed up and what is enough to explain experimental results.
If you can infer the uncertainty principle for the conservation of charges (and momentum etc, symmetries) during a interaction, than the two are the same thing.

The uncertainty problem applies to the uncertainty of position and momentum.

In field treatments the position is defined by the field coordinate and the momentum is the four momentum.

If your uncertain of the momentum then obviously there is an issue with conservation of energy/momentum.

If your uncertain about the position then your uncertain of the location of the scattering. So it definitely applies.

[Art Man]

5 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I don't know what you are trying to prove here, on a forum about science. You want a cookie for your years of study ? You want a nobel prize ? I don't pretend to know what I don't know, I'm just here to propose a different interpretation of things (yes without mathematics). You eather contradict it, or leave me alone.

You can throw complex mathematics at me, if they don't contradict my theories (and they don't, until now I've answered your objections, but you don't seem to care), I've no reason to trust you. 

Well, to be fair, in what I have observed in this thread thusfar, is that you outlined a difficult to understand theory about quantum gravity and eventually the whole idea of it turned out to be a substitution or modification of an already existing equation wherein you replace virtual wave particles with classical single objectified particles. That was quickly shot down with references to other theories that prohibit such replacements within the equation because they are fundamentally co-dependent in order to operate correctly. Truthfully, where the discussion is now appears to have no relation at all to your original post. This discussion on a mathematical level is beyond my comprehension for the most part but I can start to see the error in your hypothesis and your presentation of that hypothesis wasn't all that legible to begin with. I don't believe anyone inquiring about your theory is being unfair in their conclusions.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Art Man

[Edgard Neuman]

1 minute ago, Art Man said:

That was quickly shot down with references to other theories that prohibit such replacements within the equation because they are fundamentally co-dependent in order to operate correctly.

hum ? WHERE EXACTLY DID THAT HAPPEN ? AND WHAT WAS MY ANSWER ? 
You can quote ! Go ahead I'm ready to read ! 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

6 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

The problem, I don't know your mainstream theories are mixed up and what is enough to explain experimental results.
If you can infer the uncertainty principle from the laws of conservation of charges (and momentum etc, symmetries) during a interaction, than the two are the same thing.

You realize how complex and different all theories you use in the same sentence. I'm sorry, I certainly don't believe you understand all the details of what you are talking about. 

"A void is a region devoid of all matter and energy. Hence it doesn't exist in our universe as the HUP applies via zero point energy."

Now you are shifting the definition of the void (IS IT REALLY A SMART MOVE? or the proof you don't really use logic ?). "A void is a region devoid of all matter and energy" that is certainly not the premise of my model (it's precisely the OPPOSITE). What i called void is simply a void like you can try to create in labs. A void of what you would call REAL matter. 

Perhaps you should study physics terminology then. You can google my responses

[Edgard Neuman]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Perhaps you should study physics terminology then. You can google my responses

Switching between mainsteam definitions and model definitions of words is a dumb and fake technic you all use for some reason.
My definition of the word VOID is pretty obvious and coherent all along this thread. If you didn't get it correctly, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE ANSWERING ME ? 

The fact that I have to endure all this nonesense, and incoherence (pure fallacious methods) in your reasoning is pretty annoying. Please respect the premise of the model.  You can tell to idiots you have 2 doctorates, if you can't respect the hypothesis of a problem, you will never convince me of anything at all (you lost already a lot of points)

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Art Man]

On 8/26/2019 at 2:35 AM, Edgard Neuman said:

In fact the only difference between my theory and the ordinary MQ, is that in my model : all virtual temporary particle you use in Feynman diagram are as real as the real ones we study and are just there in the void all cancelling out themselves globally (a lot of interaction without long term effect), but creating the "noise" and the randomness (and carrying the quantum information). 

You asked for a direct quote.

6 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

hum ? WHERE EXACTLY DID THAT HAPPEN ? AND WHAT WAS MY ANSWER ? 
You can quote ! Go ahead I'm ready to read ! 

And then from there a lot of physics laws were referenced showing what equations can validate what.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Art Man

[moth]

2 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Switching between mainsteam definitions and model definitions of words is a dumb and fake technic you all use for some reason.
My definition of the word VOID is pretty obvious and coherent a along this post. If you didn't get it correctly, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE ANSWERING ME ? 

The fact that I have to endure all this nonesense, and incoherence in your reasoning is pretty annoying. Please respect the premise of the model. 

If you could define what you mean by void and real as in "real particles" it might help.

Sometimes you say the void is filled with real particles and that is hard to understand.

[Mordred]

I told you. You haven't defined a premise to your model. Not one that can possibly work in the quantum regime. Classical only physics are useless in the quantum world of particles.

QM didn't get created just for the sheer fun of it. It got created to explain those situations that 

COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED using classical physics.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

5 minutes ago, Art Man said:

You asked for a direct quote.

 

 ? Are you all going nuts ? You are quoting me .. I agree with myself.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I told you. You haven't defined a premise to your model. Not one that can possibly work in the quantum regime. Classical only physics are useless in the quantum world of particles.

QM didn't get created just for the sheer fun of it. It got created to explain those situations that 

COULD NOT EXPLAINED using classical physics.

UNLESS the void of (matter) is actually full of particle.. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but obviously you didn't even bother think to about it, and you are here only to annoy me with you doctorate. If you don't doubt, why do you even read anything ? 

"Classical only physics are useless in the quantum world of particles."
NO. If you have a FULL POOL OF CLASSICAL BALL, and TWO TYPE OF BALL THAT CANCEL EACH OTHER : YOU CAN HAVE A WAVE IN THE PROBABILITIES.  
PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN FOR 1 SECOND.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Art Man]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

Either:

a) you have a different model, in which case you would need to show your math so people can decide if it is consistent with reality or not; or

b) the math is the same in which case there is no difference between your model and the current one.

Saying, "I have a new model but the math is the same" doesn't make much sense.

I agree here with this statement. You appear to be capable to do the math and obviously nobody else wants to volunteer to do the math but since you are in the position to defend your theory its up to you to do the math or else this cannot conclude one way or the other.

[Edgard Neuman]

6 minutes ago, moth said:

If you could define what you mean by void and real as in "real particles" it might help.

Sometimes you say the void is filled with real particles and that is hard to understand.

void of ordinary matter and particles (what you call "real particles")... but of course possibly fields (in my model : the field are actually carried by the particles of the void : in yours it's carried by...magic ?)

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

2 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

 ? Are you all going nuts ? You are quoting me .. I agree with myself.

I have no issue with VP or particles popping in and out of existence as a result of field densities. The term is inaccurate under physics definitions so shouldn't be used.

If you want the quantum vacuum that term would also work 

Just now, Edgard Neuman said:

void of ordinary matter (what you call "real particles")

Field or vacuum of ordinary particles. The term void isn't accurate use proper terminology at the very least.

[Edgard Neuman]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I have no issue with VP or particles popping in and out of existence as a result of field densities. The term is inaccurate under physics definitions so shouldn't be used.

If you want the quantum vacuum that term would also work 

"particles popping in and out of existence as a result of field densities"
So your field (a mathematical tool you invented to describe reality) describe the probability of finding a particle, and now the field explains the actual apparition of them ? (so when I create the field of Poson, which is globally null because I invented this particle, but fluctuate, because this particle obey the uncertainty particle, you think Poson will pop out when needed during Gason (another particle I invented) interaction ?) Think about it. Really. I'm just saying : they are already there, and they don't pop (ok they change state). That's all I say. 

In my model, of course the rules of photon-electron-positron interactions are respected (and all others, I just speak about the simplest).. .. so yes, this "void" would be filled with isotropy high energy photon, and they would constantly interact to create short life electron and positron (and others particle, I just talk here about the simplest case) that would rapidly get back to photons.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Art Man]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

1. I don't have a "void must be void" feeling (whatever that is). We know there is no such thing as a void because of the non-zero energy of "empty" space, and the uncertainty principle.

2. How can we know it is simpler until you have a simpler mathematical model? (And if, as you say, the math is the same, then how is it simpler?)

3. How do we test this idea with no model? (And if the math is the same, then the predicted results of any test will be the same.)

And yet, quantum theory is enormously successful. So it appears your conclusion is wrong.

(Strictly speaking, the field doesn't describe the probability; the wave equation does.)

 

I agree with this statement. It seems that fundamentally, because the theory is based on physical factors that impossibly dont exist there is nothong to argue.

[Edgard Neuman]

7 minutes ago, Art Man said:

I agree with this statement. It seems that fundamentally, because the theory is based on physical factors that impossibly dont exist there is nothong to argue.

you didn't quote my answers as I requested.. can you please do all the job ?

ok, this one :

 

Quote

I said numerous time, that the result is the same, and the math is the same, it's your interpretation of the void using "virtuality" that is wrong. Results don't contradict me, because I don't contradict Feynman diagrams.. 

and then :

Quote

You need the simplest interpretation, and mine is simpler, (even though you don't seem to understand why)
In my model, I repeat. You have a void full of classical particles of opposite charges constantly interacting with each others, and that all cancels out. And sometime, somewhere, some of them are "added" in this constant mess.
No need for virtuality : they are all the same
No need for "randomness from nowhere" : actual randomness of the actual particles of the void
No need for "parallel histories"  a big bunch of particle like the medium i'm describing can actually carry charges different ways
An explanation for "quantum darwinism" : in your model, you don't now why parallel histories don't explode exponentially. In my, it's simple : the particle are real, and so the information carry by a peace of void space is actually limited. 
You can also explain "spooky action", if you agree that measurement on system are made on particle carried by the void : you can "move" the void. You can make a particle disappear here, and suddently suppose that an other one is the one "added"..

I'm sorry, but that's definitely simpler.
So I don't know if I'm right, but you definitely didn't convince me the contrary.

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

14 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

"particles popping in and out of existence as a result of field densities"
So your field (a mathematical tool you invented to describe reality) describe the probability of finding a particle, and now the field explains the actual apparition of them ? (so when I create the field of Poson, which is globally null because I invented this particle, but fluctuate, because this particle obey the uncertainty particle, you think Poson will pop out when needed during Gason (another particle I invented) interaction ?) Think about it. Really. I'm just saying : they are already there, and they don't pop (ok they change state). That's all I say. 

Whoever claimed I invented the theory involving particle production ? Don't confuse someone describing mainstream physics as the inventor.

You really need to study mainstream physics would you like a few YouTube videos as the math isn't something you understand ?

If you prefer I can give you the formulas under QFT for particle number densities to energy density relations and give you the mean lifetime formula for particles.

Unlike you I can provide the math under mainstream physics for every statement I ever make in any post I ever do on any forum

 

On 8/9/2019 at 11:34 PM, Mordred said:

OK so you want particles and and antiparticles popping in and put. 

So let's use the field treatment of QFT. Now the positive frequency modes form the annihilation operators for particles with the negative frequency modes for the creation operators of anti particles.

a^†(k⃗ )a^(k⃗ ) the former is creation the latter annihilation operators for particles 

For antiparticles 

b^†(k⃗ )b^(k⃗ )

Hence a^†(k⃗ ) creates a particle of energy ℏω and momentum ℏk same applies to the antiparticles

Now with the above you sum up the positive frequency parts with the negative frequency parts. 

ψ^(x)=∫d3k(2π)322ωk√ a^(k⃗ )e−i(ωkx0−k⃗ ⋅x⃗ ) +b⃗ †(k⃗ )e−i(ωkx0−k⃗ ⋅x⃗ )

How's that for a start to your model you now have the a scalar spacetime complex field of particles and antiparticles.

Now accepting that baryogenesis leaves a slight higher density of positive frequency parts (cause unknown) I will let you think about this in terms of the energy density values for different observers for the Unruh effect in your link above. Naturally the mass density valued will vary accordingly to field potential which will affect the path integrals described by the Feynman lines you referred to.

(I am going to up vote you +1 for coming up with a viable speculation model though we can improve your descriptive as we go )

Now continuing from above a complex field has an adjoint. 

ψ^†(x)=∫d3k(2π)322ωk√ a^(k⃗ )e−i(ωkx0−k⃗ ⋅x⃗ ) +b⃗ †(k⃗ )e−i(ωkx0−k⃗ ⋅x⃗ )

Now assuming you want bosons for an uncharged field. We can incorporate the Pauli exclusion symmetry to the Bose Einstein statistics 

So first we have normalize the vacuum to unity. In Dirac notation

〈0|0〉=1 . The ket |〉 is the initial state the bra 〈| is the final state.

So we need to compute the normalization  to an arbitrary state.

|k⃗ 〉 for that we need the inner product

〈k⃗ |k⃗ ´〉

So a^†(k⃗ )|0〉=|k⃗ 〉

with adjoint  〈0|=〈k⃗ |a^(k⃗ )

Without going through all the steps

〈k⃗ |k⃗ ´〉=δ(k⃗ −k⃗ ´)

Now each k state represents the momentum of a single particle.

If they are bosons  then the following relation holds 

|k1→,k2→〉=|k2→,k1→〉  

Now you have a complex spin zero boson field in momentum space.

Next lesson we apply thus to the four momentum of GR.

As we're dealing with a complex scalar boson field of particles/antiparticles  let's start with the Minkowskii metric

ds2=−c2dt2+dx2+dy2+dz2=ημνdxμdxν

Apply coordinate notation (x0,x1,x2,x3x4)=(ct,x,y,z)=xμ Where the indice range is 0 to 3.

Four momentum is given here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum

In the format I have provided using a particle number operator I will just latex the positive frequency modes as the negative frequency modes simply switch a to b.

N^=a^†(k⃗ )a^(k⃗ )

The Hamilton is

H^=∫d3kωk[N^(k⃗ )+12] includes the harmonic oscillator.

The field momentum

P^=∫kk⃗ [N^(k⃗ )+12]

Now there is an interesting consequence of this when you compute the energy of the field...it is related to the energy of the harmonic oscillator.

Can you guess what it is ? I will show the answer tomorrow.

PS to OP I hope your descriptive above needs considerable work however you have several details with  accuracy that although poorly described are applicable. So I hope you don't mind if I run the modelling gauntlet with the basis of particle/antiparticle creation and annihilation and it's effects. I will get to your network analogy later on as I can employ that analogy

 

 

 

This is QFT textbook introduction level material. See my first post 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred