An Attempt Of Quantum Gravity

[Dubbelosix]

The work on the Geon model led to a relationship that made me investigate a possible gravitational interpretation. Linking the Christoffel symbols, to a Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (which is a geometric interpretation of the uncertainty principle), implemented with commutators set in a Hilbert space, looks like this is closing in on a nice quantum interpretation for the possible non-trivial spacetime relationship [math]\Delta x \Delta t[/math]

 

Check the derivation in the link below

 

 

 

[math]\sqrt{|<\nabla_i^2>< \nabla_j^2>|} \geq \frac{1}{2} i(< \psi|\nabla_i\nabla_j|\psi > + <\psi|\nabla_j\nabla_i|\psi>) = \frac{1}{2} <\psi|[\nabla_i,\nabla_j]|\psi> = \frac{1}{2} <\psi | R_{ij}| \psi > [/math]

 

[math] = \frac{1}{2} < \psi |- [\partial_j, \Gamma_i] + [\partial_i, \Gamma_j] + [\Gamma_i, \Gamma_j]| \psi >[/math]

 

 

This is without the imaginary number attached to the curvature tensor. Since its absolute value, it doesn't matter, it still comes out a positive number.

 

 

 

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71266.0

Edited September 3, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[exchemist]

The work on the Geon model led to a relationship that made me investigate a possible gravitational interpretation. Linking the Christoffel symbols, to a Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (which is a geometric interpretation of the uncertainty principle), implemented with commutators set in a Hilbert space, looks like this is closing in on a nice quantum interpretation for the possible non-trivial spacetime relationship [math]\Delta x \Delta t[/math]

 

Check the derivation in the link below

 

 

 

[math]\sqrt{|<\nabla_i^2>< \nabla_j^2>|} \geq \frac{1}{2} i< \psi|\nabla_i\nabla_j|\psi > + i<\psi|\nabla_j\nabla_i|\psi> = \frac{1}{2} <\psi|[\nabla_i,\nabla_j]|\psi> = \frac{1}{2} <\psi | R_{ij}| \psi > [/math]

 

[math] = \frac{1}{2} < \psi | [\partial_j, \Gamma_i] + [\partial_i, \Gamma_j] + [\Gamma_i, \Gamma_j]| \psi >[/math]

 

 

This is without the imaginary number attached to the curvature tensor. Since its absolute value, it doesn't matter, it still comes out a positive number.

 

 

 

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71266.0

Reiku?

[OceanBreeze]

Reiku?

 

I’ve been try my best to understand what he’s saying.

 

 It has long been known that this is trivially true:

 

[math]\lim \overline{\| {R^{(\varepsilon)}} \|},  | \hat{\mathcal{{P}}} | < {R_{\mathfrak{{x}}}} \\ \cos \left(-0 \right),  \gamma' = {T_{e}}[/math]

 

But 006’s work seems to be a derivation of:

 

[math]\sim \int \rho \left( {\xi_{\sigma}}, \dots, \Phi \right) \,d \mathfrak{{b}}-\overline{\aleph_0 2} \\  > \frac{\tilde{C} \left(-1^{-1}, \dots, \sqrt{2} + N \right)}{\overline{-{K_{W}}}} \\  \ge \left\{ e \cap | \Theta | \colon \overline{{Y^{(w)}}^{-1}} \in \min \tilde{\chi} \left( 1^{8} \right) \right\}[/math]

 

I don't think this has ever been proven, but he might start by at least stating his Boolen propositions, for better understanding.

[exchemist]

I’ve been try my best to understand what he’s saying.

 

 It has long been known that this is trivially true:

 

[math]\lim \overline{\| {R^{(\varepsilon)}} \|},  | \hat{\mathcal{{P}}} | < {R_{\mathfrak{{x}}}} \\ \cos \left(-0 \right),  \gamma' = {T_{e}}[/math]

 

But 006’s work seems to be a derivation of:

 

[math]\sim \int \rho \left( {\xi_{\sigma}}, \dots, \Phi \right) \,d \mathfrak{{b}}-\overline{\aleph_0 2} \\  > \frac{\tilde{C} \left(-1^{-1}, \dots, \sqrt{2} + N \right)}{\overline{-{K_{W}}}} \\  \ge \left\{ e \cap | \Theta | \colon \overline{{Y^{(w)}}^{-1}} \in \min \tilde{\chi} \left( 1^{8} \right) \right\}[/math]

 

I don't think this has ever been proven, but he might start by at least stating his Boolen propositions, for better understanding.

Hang on, shouldn't it be √(2π) on the penultimate line?

[OceanBreeze]

Hang on, shouldn't it be √(2π) on the penultimate line?

 

Possibly. I missed that. But then there needs to exist an algebraically real, countably Fermat, partial and co-trivially anti-n-dimensional manifold where [math]\pi = \overline{\varepsilon^{3}}[/math] Right?

[exchemist]

If you guys can't understand the math, its not my fault... but instead of acting like dicks and trying to take the piss, why don't you ask and you might learn something?

Because, Reiku, a.k.a. Simon's Cat and many other sockpuppet names, we have realised that you are a well-known tedious madman, who copies obscure stuff that he doesn't understand and fills science discussion forums with sh1t.

 

I see you have just been banned, yet again, from Sciforums, under the name "Geon". Your thread there has been moved to Pseudoscience. Details here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/towards-ideas-on-a-quantum-theory-of-gravity.159827/page-7#post-3474079

 

I was one of several who reported you. :)

[OceanBreeze]

Because, Reiku, a.k.a. Simon's Cat and many other sockpuppet names, we have realised that you are a well-known tedious madman, who copies obscure stuff that he doesn't understand and fills science discussion forums with sh1t.

 

I see you have just been banned, yet again, from Sciforums, under the name "Geon". Your thread there has been moved to Pseudoscience. Details here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/towards-ideas-on-a-quantum-theory-of-gravity.159827/page-7#post-3474079

 

I was one of several who reported you. :)

 

 

I realized this not long after he started posting his crackpot “math” on this forum. Several times, I pointed out that his equations didn’t make any sense as the Right-hand side and the Left-hand side were not even dimensionally the same. This nut case has been getting away with using this forum as his personal crackpot blog, but I just tired of responding to his crap.

 

Even now, I am sure the admins will do nothing about it because his posts “look so mathy” they don’t even realize what a joke he is making of this place.

[OceanBreeze]

Anyway... I have nothing to prove here. If you can't understand this, it is not my fault, but others who do know relativity, could easily challenge it. Where are they? 

 

 

Moving on now, continuing my updates, loads more has been written 

 

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71266.0

 

It is all unintelligible garbage and not worth the time it takes to read it, let alone challenge it.

 

But, by all means do carry on. We love to look at "mathy" horseshit.

[arkain101]

A response to your opening post:

Consider the following in order to make sure the math is legit and applicable.

Phenomena or any kind of measurable action is due to a relationship. When you have a singular entity that is not linked to anything else, such as an object or even one side of an equation with no equals sign, you become limited in what you can apply to that singular. Here is a quick example: Imagine a particle floating in space, in fact forget the space and just think of the particle. Understand you can't look at the particle, otherwise you are adding another reference frame and therefore dealing with a dual set of possibility as opposed to a single one. So, your position is such that you are in the first person view of a particle with 360 degrees of freedom. Ask yourself, what can I apply here as legitimate actions, features, or phenomena in relation to physics?

First lets look at some of the things you cannot determine. 1)size 2)velocity 3)position 4)direction 5)orientation. Now lets look at the things you can apply: 1)rotation or spin (creating inward and outward tension/force) 2)Charge (expansive or contractive nature, or positive or negative attributes) 3)frequency (the state of energy that is defined in relationship to time) 4)mass (the quantity of the elemental capacity and predictive quality).

This is most likely not an all-inclusive list. However, it is just to provide a starting point in which to work with as a tool to guide the mathematics.

So you see there is limitations in a singular system because certain possibilities have not been created yet. Now, allow us to add an additional reference frame to the system. Here we begin to see new possibilities. For example, we can now apply 1)velocity 2)space 3)Ratio of balance (which frame is doing what, and to what extent, such as movement and velocity, both moving? or just one? And what proof do you have to make this decision.) 4)Force (the way in which the frames interact due to their singular set features). You should see that there is a paradox where you cannot be certain which frame of reference is responsible for certain actions such as velocity, motion, direction, or force (this requires a complete system with 3 reference frames which I will explain later). You cannot apply things such as 1)shape 2)color 3)certainty of measurement (determining which frame is doing the moving).

Making this part short. Lets add a 3rd frame to the system. Now, we can view two positions from a single point. We can apply qualities such as: 1)Certainty of action (which frame is doing the moving 2)distance 3)direction 4)comparison of qualities (the ability to make or measure distinct differences 5)curviture (the ability to have something move in a curved path). Including all the qualities that could be applied in both singular, and dual set systems. So you see the system becomes complete when there is at least 3 frames of reference. This is where all possibilities (even though those possibilities are limited) can exist. It does not add any new possibilities to add a 4th or 5th frame of reference of phenomena/object.

Here is the key thing to notice. Fundamental qualities and nature are the result of relationships. There is the relationship something can have with itself (singular qualities) and there is the relationship something can have with other singular systems. Notice that when a relationship is created it also creates new possibilities that didn't exist in a simpler reality. When you look at this such as a set of laws, you see you can apply them to everything. For example: The earth does not have a 1)axis 2)night and day transition 3)equator 4)direction until you give the earth a spin or rotation. One action literally creates new possibilities. The relationship between rotation and non-rotation makes possibilities, that are fundamental in nature, to exist. The same can be applied for a molecule. If you focus on one atom, you miss the possibilities of the molecule. The relationship of several atom creates the nature and behaviors of the molecule. Again, this is a relationship that literally creates new possibilities.

Now, keep in mind this applies everywhere. You can even see it in the kinetic energy equation (when appropriately arranged). I have forgotten how to write out lattice math code, so this will have to do.

Ke = (M*V)(M*V) / M + M

Really this is the same as Ke = 1/2mv^2

Notice in the first equation there is TWO sets of mass and velocity in the brackets and also two sets of mass in the divider. This equation shows there is a relationship occurring in energy more specifically kinetic energy. One rule must be obeyed in the measurements and that is that you use the same value for M in all cases of M even though you are dealing with two objects which may have different mass. There is two objects because as was described you cannot have motion with out a set of two reference frames and both can be considered moving or just one or the other. So what you do is balance out the masses (M) by selecting one object at a time to be doing the motion and the other at rest in reference to a 3rd frame of observation.

With all of this in mind you can use these laws to apply to equations and mathematics in order to obey logic and the limitation of possibilities even when the logic is such that it is non-local logic (quantum in nature).

You can use this to design equations or refine equations and make sure you are obeying real possibilities.

One thing that crossed my mind is that it may not be possible to unite all the fundamental forces in nature under a single theory, like quantum gravity. Here is why: The relationship that creates gravity may be disconnected from the relationship that create the other fundamental forces. Just like how a quark does not control the chemical reaction between two electrically unbalanced atoms. Also, in the same way, how a macroscopic change of an object like position does not change the sub-atomic values and states of a sub-atomic system. (in some cases this is possible but the relationship influence is so small that it can be ignored or considered null).

I hope this has enlightened you in some way(s) so that you can properly express your mathematics and possibly make new insights into the problems you are working on.

Also, feel free to add to the list of possibilities for each system (the singular, dual, and tripple reference frame systems) in order to make a more complete theory on natures phenomena. Keep in mind that mathematical language can be translated into a vocal/written language by paying attention to how many reference frames are involved in the expression of a system.

I should also add that this process shown here in this post can help describe the nature of quantum physics and why we find the behaviors that we do. You have to wrap your mind around the idea that certain systems have limitations of possibilities and therefore will behave accordingly to the rules that apply in their realm of existence. This process can be used to apply to photons, wave/particle duality, uncertainty principle, entanglement, and others.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with, with these new insights in your tool bag.

Don't forget the fundamental law of relationships when applying features to an equations (even fields and geometric expressions).

Edited September 8, 2017 by arkain101

[arkain101]

What I wrote is aimed to help you find out if your way off track of reality and whether or not your wasting your time with mathematical anomalies.

[arkain101]

What is a mathematical anomaly?

A bogus relationship. For example: Lets say I made the claim that everything in the universe is made of mini pyramid shaped objects. I have no way to test for it. Then I write down equations that explain the methods in which these objects function. However, the theory fails to explain many things. The anomaly is when the math explains things that do not relate to reality. They are abstract expressions with no use. higher dimensional math is a very good example of this. It seems all higher dimensional math is repeating logical concepts on top of each other to try and express greater dimensions. However, I think the proper way to go about higher dimensional math is to split the system in two when you reach more than the detectable 4 dimensions. So you end up with duality and pairs and sets when you go into 5,6,7 or higher dimensions.

[arkain101]

A lot of the stuff I am talking about, is about basic principles. And one hypothesis on how to treat quantum gravity... the structure of spacetime in this model is made of a geometric uncertainty and we explore non-commutation towards describing such a phase space.. 

Phase space?

[Maine farmer]

No offence, but how are you going to teach me the errors of my ways if you don't know what a phase space is?

It seems to me that if you are posting here for the purpose of presenting a better way of understanding quantum gravity, you could at least take the time to explain the terms you use.  Mathematical equations with no explanation can cause some people's eyes grow heavy.

 

If your purpose is to display your genius, that would better be served by making a complex problem seem easy.  I would not be offended if you felt you had to "dumb it down".

[exchemist]

Ok, I keep seeing this notation 

 

[math](\Delta A)^2[/math]

 

So I cannot assume from now on its a mistake, just a gap in my knowledge. I just don't understand what you get from squaring the operator when its not a number. Anyway....

 

From a link below, there's an interesting form of the expectation of an operator ~

 

[math](\Delta A)^2 = <\psi| A^2| \psi> - 2<A^2> + <A^2> = <A^2> - <A^2>[/math]

 

I'll need to take a look, because we never got the terms [math]- 2<A^2> + <A^2>[/math] when we constructed the expectation

 

[math]\sqrt{|<\nabla_i^2>< \nabla_j^2>|} \geq \frac{1}{2} i(< \psi|\nabla_i\nabla_j|\psi > + <\psi|\nabla_j\nabla_i|\psi>) = \frac{1}{2} <\psi|[\nabla_i,\nabla_j]|\psi> = \frac{1}{2} <\psi | R_{ij}| \psi > [/math]

 

... and the terms didn't seem to be implied when we derived it from the Cauchy Schwarz inequality.

 

 

 

 

references

 

http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys301/Chapters/Chapter14.pdf

It's obvious surely?  What do you think {d/dx (x²)}² means? Obviously the square of the result you get from operating, with the operator d/dx, on x², in other words( 2x)²  = 4x². No? BODMAS?

 

And if you square an operator on its own, it means performing it twice, as in d²/dx² f(x) = f''(x).  

Edited September 13, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

Yes, now that I have sat and actually read the paper, I understand it.

 

Look, you have to come to understand something, I am literally going through this as I write a lot of the time. I did not have time to check the derivation, and actually, its related to the eigenstates, which gives rise to those extra terms, which is completely suitable and will be something I will be incorporating into this as well. 

 

As for the squaring thing, I don't think you understand me. Or the equation... its not the Laplacian, I made this mistake as well. It's a change operator (it doesn't have any dimensions) hence, I do not understand the process of squaring it. The difference operator is simple [math]\Delta E = E' - E[/math] The operator literally takes the difference of two values. If it was a spatial derivative like d^2/dx^2 like you have suggested, then my original decomposition of his equations would be the way I assumed it was.

 

Please read the link if you want to know the direction better.

''

Any 6th form maths student could have given the answer I gave you.

 

You're such a charlatan, Reiku.  

[exchemist]

You are rambling, did you read my post?

 

Is that all you have to say?

 

 Are you not identifying [math]d^2/dx^2[/math] with [math]\Delta[/math]? If you are, this is not what the symbol is. The symbol comes in when you take the difference of something. You know, that thing you learn in 1st grade. Not 6th. 

 

 

ps. My name isn't Reiku.

d/dx is an operator. Of course I know it isn't the same thing as del squared. Anyone with half a brain would have realised I was giving a simple example, to help you see the answer to your question in general terms. Reiku: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/qm-randomness.159457/page-15#post-3474152  

Edited September 13, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

That;s not what is being said hahaha

 

 

You ****ing twit. Are you reading me at all?

Not if I can help it, Reiku.