QM. Split from Are Space & Time A Fundamental Property Or Emergent

[Conjurer]

Oh snap, I just noticed this was split 10 days after the fact, so I figured I should probably say something about it.  I was under the impression that I solved the other threads questions, and you guys understood that, for some reason.  I may be poorly mistaken, so I will break my point into smaller points.

• Is spacetime fundamental or emergent. -> Take a look at the leading theory that comes closest to answering this question.
• The leading theory is Quantum Foam -> Details about quantum foam theory
• Details about Quantum Foam Theory -> QM
• QM in Quantum Foam Theory-> Particle pairs are emergent from spacetime, OR spacetime is emergent from particle pairs -> answer to question broken off original thread...
• There are two possible answers.

I favor the second answer, even though the inventor of the theory favors the first answer.  I think if you stick with the rules of QM through and through, it is actually both answers.  It doesn't explain the spark of the Big Bang, but if spacetime was emergent from random particle pairs, that could help explain the early rapid expansion of space.  I think the spark lies in discovering a theory to explain why particles cannot be contained.  If spacetime is emergent from random particle pairs, then those first random particle pairs would have been contained before spacetime emerged from them.  That could define the spark and why it no longer sparks.  Spacetime emerges, so they are no longer contained.  

Looking at it that way could make it easier to define the spark of the Big Bang; we are here after all.  Somehow, it had to have happened, one way or the other.  

Edited July 26, 2021 by Conjurer

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

  I think the spark lies in discovering a theory to explain why particles cannot be contained

Particles cannot be contained?

[studiot]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Particles cannot be contained?

 

I claim precedence on answers to wild unsupported claims, as I am still waiting for even an attempt at justification of the claim that wires can be scalars.

[Conjurer]

On 7/26/2021 at 2:25 AM, swansont said:

Particles cannot be contained?

 

On 7/26/2021 at 4:55 AM, studiot said:

 

I claim precedence on answers to wild unsupported claims, as I am still waiting for even an attempt at justification of the claim that wires can be scalars.

It is in the book I referenced in my first post.  You are clearly unable to check a reference.  If you ever want to get serious about science, it is crucial to checking the validity of scientific papers.  They reference the book they got it out of, and it is then the persons job that believes it is in error to look it up in that reference.  If you are unable to look up the information in the book they got it from, then you shouldn't be able to deny it.  

You can't just tell them, "nah, I don't believe you or it is correct".  You have to be able to prove the reference wrong.  That is how the scientific process works.  SO, if you are really going to be a stickler about science, you shouldn't lower yourself to another standard. 

Copyright laws prevent me from posting the book.  Science still works with those laws, because scientist know how to read books... By being unable to look it up yourself, you are not really being a scientist.  You are just trolling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Particle_at_the_End_of_the_Universe

It references where he got the information from, from him writing the book.  Those are the papers I am talking about. 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Conjurer said:

 

It is in the book I referenced in my first post.  You are clearly unable to check a reference. 

You gave a book title. A proper reference would include a page number.

That, and the likelihood that you simply misunderstood the comment, or took it out of context. The burden of proof is on you to back up your claims.

 

Quote

If you ever want to get serious about science, it is crucial to checking the validity of scientific papers.  They reference the book they got it out of, and it is then the persons job that believes it is in error to look it up in that reference.  If you are unable to look up the information in the book they got it from, then you shouldn't be able to deny it.  

I asked a question, because it's laughable to suggest that particles cannot be contained. So it's obvious to me that there is detail being omitted, and you need to supply the detail.

 

Quote

You can't just tell them, "nah, I don't believe you or it is correct".  You have to be able to prove the reference wrong.  That is how the scientific process works.  SO, if you are really going to be a stickler about science, you shouldn't lower yourself to another standard. 

In my experience, scientists don't hand-wave in this fashion. A proper reference would include exactly where the source material can be found, and might even include a quote from the work in question, in order to establish the context. In any event, it's what we expect here on this forum.

 

Quote

Copyright laws prevent me from posting the book. 

Fair use allows you to post passages.

Quote

Science still works with those laws, because scientist know how to read books... By being unable to look it up yourself, you are not really being a scientist.  You are just trolling.

Projection? 

 

[studiot]

 

On 7/13/2021 at 5:06 PM, Conjurer said:

I believe it is a more general loose way to use the term that he adopted himself.  It is a description of spacetime, since it has a constant energy level, due to random particle pairs.  scaler = constant energy level

It would be like saying that the 1 volt on an IC chip makes the wire or line leading up to it a scaler.  

The original experiments done to prove this at Fermilab didn't refer to it this way, but it essentially describes what they discovered.  It is difficult to argue that it could not be considered a scaler.  I don't know the math well enough to determine how or if it would even change anything.  That is what he is using as a term to describe it.  I don't believe such a term was ever invented for it.  That is why this terminology is used for it.

The only conclusion I can come to is that you are unable to support these nonsensical claims and are unwilling to consider any offers of help in the right direction.

So you have reverted to personal attacks.

On 8/2/2021 at 5:49 AM, Conjurer said:

By being unable to look it up yourself, you are not really being a scientist.  You are just trolling.

 

As a result I can only recommend closure of this thread.