Quantum gravity simplified.

[Mordred]

If you do the math you will likely find the images don't work as well as you believe they do. For example define the mathematics for consciousness hue whatever that's suppose to mean. The Feymann integrals has precise rules for their Dynkan diagrams with regards to virtual particles vs real particles those rules are exact and precise. In every vertex their is a mathematical equation supplying the details. Every representation shape has the same. 

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

If you do the math you will likely find the images don't work as well as you believe they do. For example define the mathematics for consciousness hue whatever that's suppose to mean. The Feymann integrals has precise rules for their Dynkan diagrams with regards to virtual particles vs real particles those rules are exact and precise. In every vertex their is a mathematical equation supplying the details. Every representation shape has the same. 

Refuting those diagrams is same as saying the Up quark charge is not +2/3 and down quark charge is not -1/3..the foundation of standard model.

Anyway...just a question from your understanding-
1-Are there particles/fields that move FTL? Yes/No

2-If there happened to exist could you change your interpretation of facts? Yes/No

[Mordred]

No all field variations will propagate at c as the maximum. To date their has been no exceptions to the speed of information exchange limit. 

[MJ kihara]

7 hours ago, Mordred said:

For example define the mathematics for consciousness

Are there mathematics in quantum mechanics,QFT or cosmology describing the blackhole singularity?

7 hours ago, Mordred said:

with regards to virtual particles vs real particles those rules are exact and precise.

The virtual particles am referring to are spacetime particles....I chose virtual because they are Soo tiny that being virtual is the correct to discribe them.

The conventional virtual particles and virtual photons,I explain their source and properties according to electrodynamics as derived from this concept,which I haven't yet talked about them here.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

No all field variations will propagate at c as the maximum.

The concept of invariance of light speed is critical and standard in physics....in this concept there issues concerning that,based on the nature of spacetime particles...this may explain why alot of people have difficulties comprehending those diagrams..i.e some particles may move FTL in a manner not to violate SR and GR,synonymously to how wave function collapse happens.

5 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

2-If there happened to exist could you change your interpretation of facts? Yes/No

You haven't talked about this question.

[Bufofrog]

21 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

The virtual particles am referring to are spacetime particles....

There is no such thing as spacetime particles.

22 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

I chose virtual because they are Soo tiny that being virtual is the correct to discribe them.

Virtual particles are not defined as 'tiny' particles.  You should not make up new definitions for terms that are already defined.

 

25 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

The concept of invariance of light speed is critical and standard in physics....in this concept there issues concerning that,based on the nature of spacetime particles...this may explain why alot of people have difficulties comprehending those diagrams..i.e some particles may move FTL in a manner not to violate SR and GR,synonymously to how wave function collapse happens

Word salad.

[MJ kihara]

 

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Word salad.

.....mmmmm.....😴... It's clear the weight on my shoulders on this issues it's too heavy...trying to dare the undarable...since I know the next step is to be locked...
 

Concerning this thread let wait for the evidence to stream in the near/far future...Am waiting for the Improvements on the AI programs to be able to feed it my ideas, imaginations and diagrams and Chun out formulars and mathematics ....at the rate at which things are happening going with the recent news articles concerning AI achievements it may end up to be earlier than expected....I wonder if they will come a day when professional papers will be published by the same AI to the point sites like this forum will invite humans to just speculate anything.. which may be wrong,correct,silly,word salads e.t.c, e.t.c anything...

This links containing recent research maybe useful to change the perception;

1-"Astrophysicists reveal the nature of dark matter through the study of crinkles in spacetime." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 25 April 2023. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230425111243.htm>.

2-https://www.google.com/url?q=https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR23/Session/M08.1&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi9kdf_lo7_AhXH-qQKHWxfCuwQFnoECAsQAg&usg=AOvVaw1erDW-TP6-bHzj-aq4NQJc

3-https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/world/webb-telescope-massive-early-galaxies-scn/index.html&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiqhNyFmI7_AhVN3qQKHRu_As0QFnoECAUQAg&usg=AOvVaw1icyN0c0-4PpokoorY6dOI

These are research done by respectable organisations that point to the fact we need to rethink...those diagrams helps me understand these observations....they are a design that should be followed by math....first part is design...and of course by reasoning and imagination....instead of putting lots of salads here, let us see your designs and imaginations without repetitions and plagiarism...before you dismiss other people ideas.

[Bufofrog]

15 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

before you dismiss other people ideas.

I dismiss your ideas because they are just made up statements with no evidence.

You introduce things like 'spacetime particles' without a shred of evidence to back it up.

You go on to say that these made up 'space time particles' are virtual particles because they are really small, which is nonsensical.

In short I dismiss your ideas, not because they challenge the status quo, but because you have absolutely nothing to back up your ideas other than hand waving mumbo jumbo.

[MJ kihara]

....mumbo jumbo...you came late in the thread i wonder if you have gone through the discussions...I wonder if you have read the links that i have sent...what your doing is not mainstream....you look alot at the semantics rather than ideas especially when it's beyond your imagination....do you have idea what assumptions are in any case....virtual particles being too small to be subjected under principle of uncertainty....

Let's do this simple experiment to settle this....(I won't let you trash this thread)...

Can you pliz make up your own statements here so that we see how they morph into those diagrams I have posted?.....or otherwise can you come up with a simple diagram to illustrate what a quark is to an uneducated layman... without plagiarising others ideas?

What you are doing is defending status quo of knowledge gatekeeping.

you can't see back up when already you have a notion.

Anyway ✋🤗😊 am done.

Clarification the above post is for...

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

mumbo jumbo.

 

[Bufofrog]

49 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

.you look alot at the semantics rather than ideas especially when it's beyond your imagination....do you have idea what assumptions are in any case....virtual particles being too small to be subjected under principle of uncertainty....

So you do not understand what a virtual particle is nor do you know what the uncertainty principle is - got it.

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Bufofrog

[MJ kihara]

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

This links containing recent research maybe useful to change the perception;

1-"Astrophysicists reveal the nature of dark matter through the study of crinkles in spacetime." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 25 April 2023. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230425111243.htm>.

2-https://www.google.com/url?q=https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR23/Session/M08.1&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi9kdf_lo7_AhXH-qQKHWxfCuwQFnoECAsQAg&usg=AOvVaw1erDW-TP6-bHzj-aq4NQJc

3-https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/world/webb-telescope-massive-early-galaxies-scn/index.html&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiqhNyFmI7_AhVN3qQKHRu_As0QFnoECAUQAg&usg=AOvVaw1icyN0c0-4PpokoorY6dOI

 

[Mordred]

Never try to learn physics via pop media style articles. They tend to never accurately describe any given scenario.

[MJ kihara]

43 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Never try to learn physics via pop media style articles. They tend to never accurately describe any given scenario.

Surely...APS(American physical society) press release... session paper...pop media?

....study of crinkles in spacetime....under supervision of a Nobel laureate....hhhh am short of words.

This are things released as earlier as April this year just a month ago...the reason am quoting them, the diagrams that am using in this thread have been having them for more than three years and when I read those"pop" articles I was like this is what....anyway purpose of news,media, internet to give us the most updated happening... no further words.

 

[Bufofrog]

4 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Surely...APS(American physical society) press release... session paper...pop media?

Please show me where any of your sources discuss 'spacetime particles' or that if particles are really tiny they are called virtual particles.

I would also like to see some reference supporting this statement:

7 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

virtual particles being too small to be subjected under principle of uncertainty....

 

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

Surely...APS(American physical society) press release... session paper...pop media?

....study of crinkles in spacetime....under supervision of a Nobel laureate....hhhh am short of words.

This are things released as earlier as April this year just a month ago...the reason am quoting them, the diagrams that am using in this thread have been having them for more than three years and when I read those"pop" articles I was like this is what....anyway purpose of news,media, internet to give us the most updated happening... no further words.

 

Try articles that show the related mathematics. Far too often confusion occurs more from verbal descriptions than it would in the related math. A good quality paper should be 75% math. I've seen far too much confusion by laymen reading simply the verbal descriptions and simply seeking key words they recognize rather than understanding the paper itself.

 They then mistakenly believe that paper supports their ideas when it doesn't even come close.

Size for Particles for example isn't really applicable. 

 

 

 

Here try these for particle related physics 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395

 

Although this article deals specifically with BH accretion disks its earlier sections cover the major formulas with regards to rge BH..

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499

Though if you want the essential tools to learn any physics theory. 

Differential geometry

Kinematics

Calculus 

Statistical mechanics.

Edited May 25, 2023 by Mordred

[Mordred]

lets take an example the geodesic equation used to describe the path of a particle.

\[\frac{d^2x^\mu}{ds^2}+\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}\frac{dx^\alpha}{ds}\frac{ds^\beta}{ds}=0\]

most texbooks and articles will simply describe this as I did the spacetime path of a particle. However someone who understands calculus and the mathematics will know it actually describes the extrenum of the function. In this case the minumum. {shortest path}.

Another good example is entanglement. Anyone well versed in statistical mechanics will know that

particle {Alice} entangled with particle {Bob} does not mean A affects Bob or vise versa there is no cause and effect. You can simply make probability predictions of Bob by what happens to Alice and vise versa through the Probability function called the correlation function. Yet poor quality papers verbally describe otherwise. The mathematics itself tells the real story.

Anyone that truly desires to understand a physics theory requires understanding the math. Anyone no matter how knowledgeable that doesn't understand the math will always be a victim of verbal descriptions that often mis imply or is merely one of many interpretations

Edited May 25, 2023 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

if particles are really tiny they are called virtual particles.

Shifting goal posts... semantics.

 

42 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 They then mistakenly believe that paper supports their ideas when it doesn't even come close.

From the down quark diagram...if you have keenly looked at it there is what am referring to photons zoo zone....of course ultralight particles belong there....

10 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

crinkles in spacetime." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 25 April 2023. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230425111243.htm>.

They are talking about ultralight particles..."particles"

 

10 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

😴.

 

2-https://www.google.com/url?q=https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR23/Session/M08.1&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi9kdf_lo7_AhXH-qQKHWxfCuwQFnoECAsQAg&usg=AOvVaw1erDW-TP6-bHzj-aq4NQJc

 

....Abstract: M08.00001 : Black Holes are Watching You*

10:45 AM–10:57 AM...

...the mere presence of the black hole will eventually destroy the coherence of the superposition.....

I talked about CONSCIOUSNESS IN BLACKHOLE SINGULARITY.

 

....all said and done...you preference is fields and excitation....I prefer fields, excitation and particles...

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

 arxaaaa 

 

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499

Not in bad faith...i sincerely hope the AI will reach to the point of reading all articles at arxiv.org and give us accurate, precise and prompt summary when requested and be able to be given ideas/ imaginations and turn them into papers that can be admitted at arxiv.org.

It can be imagination, designs, diagrams then followed by mathematics......or mathematics followed by imagination, designs then followed by diagrams...it depends on someone preferences....on this point,you can't force someone into a certain preferences and overviews.

I feel the thread should stop there...others issues should be opened in another thread.

[Mordred]

I sincerely hope you never rely on AI. There is an expression garbage in equals garbage out. If you do not have a strong understanding of physics you won't be able to ask the AI the correct questions with the correct terminology. Without strong skills you won't be able to recognize when the AI makes mistakes. Or be able to correct the AI so it can improve the quality of the answer.

 

[Bufofrog]

9 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Shifting goal posts... semantics.

You stated, "I chose virtual because they are Soo tiny that being virtual is the correct to discribe them."

How did I shift goal post if I am responding to something you wrote?  Do you not know what shifting goal posts mean?

Semantics is not the problem, what you stated is wrong - that's the problem.

[joigus]

On 5/14/2023 at 11:29 AM, MJ kihara said:

Introducing graviton, which decay at to less than Planck's time to gravitation waves

I hope not. QFT would have to be re-thought from scratch.

As said,

On 5/15/2023 at 7:25 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Gravitons, if they exist, would be massless spin-2 particles - and as such, they would be perfectly stable and can have no decay modes. 

 

[MJ kihara]

On 5/25/2023 at 3:19 PM, joigus said:

I hope not. QFT would have to be re-thought from scratch.

As said,

On 5/15/2023 at 8:25 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Gravitons, if they exist, would be massless spin-2 particles - and as such, they would be perfectly stable and can have no decay modes. 

 

In this concept graviton forms as a standing waves on elementary particles,therefore,from the hierarchy of particles as shown on down quark diagram,it will be on higgs field, boson zone,the last bit from higgs boson,therefore it's expected to be massive.

It decays at to less than planck's time as it's formed(graviton)to gravitational waves which in turn consist of entangled massless spin-2 spacetime particles (Virtual particles).

Being massive and given E=mc^2,for energy conservation laws to hold,the energy released becomes the gravitational potential energy carried by gravitational waves.

[Mordred]

25 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

 

It decays at to less than planck's time as it's formed(graviton)to gravitational waves which in turn consist of entangled massless spin-2 spacetime particles (Virtual particles).

 

lets nip this one in the bud straightaway. 

spacetime t,x,y,z describes a geometry. There is no mass term, no particle degrees of freedom. Nor is there any momentum. 

Now as you specified quantum gravity this means you either need a state under QM with operators position and momentum or alternately you require field and momentum as per QFT.

pray tell where is the spacetime momentum term? Particularly since an Einstein vacuum under GR is 100 percent devoid of all fluctuations and particles both virtual and real. 

[MJ kihara]

On 5/25/2023 at 2:32 PM, Bufofrog said:

You stated, "I chose virtual because they are Soo tiny that being virtual is the correct to discribe them."

 

On 5/24/2023 at 4:09 PM, MJ kihara said:

The conventional virtual particles and virtual photons,I explain their source and properties according to electrodynamics as derived from this concept,which I haven't yet talked about them here.

Tiny to the extent,if I state here at this point,you will say am going nuts...and get locked, initially as I was formulating this concept,it seemed mad but that's it worked like that.

[Mordred]

doesn't work that way you can't simply state too tiny to see or measure and expect it to have effective measurable action.

nor can you simply take a geometry and define it as a particle. A graviton by its very descriptive is a mediator of the gravitational field being a spin2 boson. So at the very least you require a coupling constant that couples the stress energy momentum tensor to the gravitational field.

in essence in De Donder gauge.

\(\mathcal{L}_{int}=ej_\mu a^\mu\)

where \(j_\mu\) is the vector current and \(A^\mu\) is the vector potential given by charge e

to couple the stress energy momentum tensor to the gravitational field the equations describing the momentum terms is defined as 

\[\mathcal{L}_{int}=-\frac{1}{2}kT^{\mu\nu}h_{\mu\nu}\]

equivalently the field tensor is defined as

\[G_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+kh_{\mu\nu}\]

where k is defined with Newtons gravitational constant \(k^2=32\pi G\)

the energy momentum tensor for the  free matter Langrangian becomes

\[T_{\mu\nu}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta \sqrt{-g\mathcal{L}_{int}}}\delta g^{\mu}{nu}\]

where

\[\sqrt{-g}=\sqrt{-det g}=exp\frac{1}{2}trlog g\]

is the square root of the determinant of the matrix of form

\[T_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu\phi^\dagger\partial_\nu\psi+\partial_\nu\psi^\dagger\partial_\mu\psi-g_{mu\nu}(\partial_\mu\psi^\dagger\partial^\mu\psi-m^2\psi^\dagger\psi\]

for a scalar field to get the spin connections we invoke spin1/2 to start with (reasons of symmetry under so(3.1)SU(2) double cover) which becomes relevant for the tranverse traceless gauge

\[T_{\mu\nu}=\overline{\Psi}[\frac{1}{4}\gamma_\mu i\nabla_\nu+\frac{1}{4}\gamma_\nu i\nabla_\mu-g_{\mu\nu}-g_{\mu\nu}(\nabla-m)]\Psi\]

won't bother with the rest of the steps but you will get on derivatives the De Donder gauge given by

\[D_{\alpha\beta;\gamma\delta}=\frac{i}{2q^2}\eta_{\alpha\gamma}\eta_{\beta\gamma}+\eta_{\alpha\delta}\eta_{\beta\gamma}-\eta_{\alpha\beta}\eta_{\gamma\delta}\]

yields spin polarizations 

helicity \(+2 :h_{\mu\nu}^2=\epsilon_\mu^+\epsilon_\nu^+\) and \(-2 h_{\mu\nu}^{-2}=\epsilon_\mu^-\epsilon_\nu^-\)

so by this the on shell 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

57 minutes ago, Mordred said:

spacetime t,x,y,z describes a geometry. There is no mass term, no particle degrees of freedom. Nor is there any momentum.

Let consider this... space-time diagram--time axis meet space axis(x,y,z) at the origin 0....at this point,the most local point..there will be nothing(the ultimate Einstein vacuum) from there time axis and space axis emerge....forming spacetime particle(virtual particle), that probably stabilises when time and space reaches unity.

Therefore, spacetime particle(virtual particle) represent the most basic geometry of spacetime t,x,y,z.... probably a unit of spacetime(Einstein vacuum with a periphery--the vacuum need to be bound for it to exist).

When time and space reaches unity the resultant spacetime particle( virtual particle) is stable,when time is dilated or space dilated or with varying degrees of dilation of either component the resultant spacetime particle is partially stable while when time and space disintergrate the resultant spacetime particle(virtual particle) is unstable.

[Mordred]

well I just showed you where that is inaccurate. What you are doing amounts to sheer handwaving.....

look through the math I posted that is how a spin 2 graviton is theorized to result from a gravitational field. No handwaving the method above can be found in most GR textbooks.

time and space is just geometric descriptions time is given dimensionality of length via the interval ct.

It is not some substance that can spontaneously create particles.

\(t,x,y,z\) are coordinates, coordinates do not create particles nor are they themselves particles

Nor can you measure a coordinate you can only mathematically assign a coordinate or coordinate system (geometric assignment)

Edited June 1, 2023 by Mordred