Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

An Attempt Of Quantum Gravity


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 600 posts

Posted 30 August 2017 - 09:27 AM

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.thenaked...p?topic=71266.0


Edited by Dubbelosix, 03 September 2017 - 02:15 PM.


#2 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1235 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 12:47 AM

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.thenaked...p?topic=71266.0

Reiku?



#3 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 527 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 08:01 AM

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.



#4 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1235 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 08:22 AM

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?



#5 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 527 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 08:37 AM

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?



#6 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 600 posts

Posted 03 September 2017 - 02:13 PM

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?



#7 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1235 posts

Posted 06 September 2017 - 07:50 AM

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...-7#post-3474079

 

I was one of several who reported you. :)



#8 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 600 posts

Posted 06 September 2017 - 11:49 AM

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...-7#post-3474079

 

I was one of several who reported you. :)

 

 

As I also explained, the move to pseudoscience was unjustified - I asked Kittamaru to justify his reasoning to move it to pseudoscience... and couldn't. This nice little gang or ''clique'' over the years seems to have developed nicely. None of you do any justice to science. So let's talk facts, something your side doesn't. 

 

Go to that post, and look at the errors by NotEinstien and how he was corrected. Then look at the actions of Kittamaru who reacted to me as I pointed out he closed my complaint thread immediately... probably to avoid giving any explanation to why the thread was moved.

 

Go back to James' posts who clearly said, ''this is a complicatd subject and I cannot figure out whether it is appropriate for this kind of forum.''

 

That was never him questioning the validity - though many tried and a great many flaws were exposed in the thinking of a number of members at sciforums. In my opinion, the place has degraded to trash. 


Edited by Dubbelosix, 06 September 2017 - 01:45 PM.


#9 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 600 posts

Posted 06 September 2017 - 11:50 AM

 

 

I was one of several who reported you. :)

 

 

Only because of an insipid hate towards me, not because of any intellectual honesty on the matter.



#10 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 600 posts

Posted 06 September 2017 - 11:57 AM

As for the accusation of ''copying stuff'' I outline in my work very clearly what is either 

 

1) my own approach 

 

or 

 

2) my own idea

 

There are a few of these located through my work. Some of it is copied in which I provide at times references for significant work - but prove the claim I copy things I don't understand - because looking at NotEinstein's discussion with me in sciforums, it is clear who knew what they were talking about and who didn't. 



#11 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 600 posts

Posted 06 September 2017 - 01:52 PM

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.thenaked...p?topic=71266.0



#12 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 527 posts

Posted 07 September 2017 - 02:22 AM

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...-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.



#13 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 527 posts

Posted 07 September 2017 - 02:25 AM

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.thenaked...p?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.



#14 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 600 posts

Posted 07 September 2017 - 05:23 PM

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.

 

 

No no no... do not back out. If you can ''challenge it'' then do so. Like, show where the mistakes are, or why its rubbish...

 

 

... or.... you could actually pick up a book, learn something and stop riding on the backs of trolls. I very much doubt you can do this stuff, because if you actually could, you would see there is nothing wrong with it.

 

Unless you can work with Einstein summation, some basic algebra and (some study) behind the subject, you can understand this to your hearts content... but you won't because you are nothing but a troll.



#15 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 600 posts

Posted 07 September 2017 - 05:26 PM

Not that its any of your concern, but I actually check my work by a physicist friend of mine called Matti. He's been very helpful in discussions. Time to time I show him my progress to see what he thinks.

 

You see he could easily point errors out... which he has done in the past. So that isn't the issue here. The issue here is the likes of you, and other trolls, with not the faintest idea on physics.... and then prancing around like you know it all. As I said, anyone capable of the stuff I am doing, will know it is fine... and if they don't, explain why... but I have done my homework several times over, have you?


Edited by Dubbelosix, 07 September 2017 - 05:29 PM.


#16 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 600 posts

Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:13 PM

I have worked out the quantum Bianchi idenities for the last two Covariant indices. 

 

 
So... what is the Bianchi identity?
 
The first term doesn't matter, the indice can be covariant or contravariant. The identity satisfies sign changes in the order of the last three indices
 
[math]R_{\sigma \rho i j} + R_{\sigma ij \rho} + R_{\sigma j \rho i} = 0[/math]
 
To create the first Bianchi term is easy, contract a definition of the curvature with the metric tensor
 
[math]R_{\sigma \rho ij} = R^{k}_{\sigma ij} g_{\rho k}[/math]
 
Using the same principles, you can form the other three, now all three are,
 
 
[math]R_{\sigma \rho ij} = R^k_{\sigma ij} g_{\rho k}[/math]
 
[math]R_{\sigma i j \rho} = R^k_{\sigma j \rho} g_{i k}[/math]
 
[math]R_{\sigma j \rho i} = R^k_{\sigma \rho i} g_{j k}[/math]
 
 
There is a commutation relationship it seems between the metric and the connections. Using the formulation above though, we can see an equivalent form then of the Bianchi identity is
 
[math]R^k_{\sigma ij} g_{\rho k} + R^k_{\sigma j \rho} g_{i k} + R^k_{\sigma \rho i} g_{j k} = 0[/math]
 
Or simply as
 
[math]R_{\sigma [\rho i j]} = 0[/math]
 
In which the bracket denotes the antisymmetric part of the tensor, which arises from the antisymmetry in [math]i[/math] and [math]j[/math] and the definition of [math]\rho[ /math] is entangled into it.
 
It's also nice to note, this last identity can be seen to be related to the Jacobi triple vector product
 
[math]a \times (b \times c) + b \times (c \times a) + c \times (a \times b ) = 0[/math]
 
In which case, we understand it from the following relationship using basis vectors:
 
[math]\partial[\sigma,[\partial_\rho, \partial_i]] = 0[/math]
 
Now we can move on to the three important identities we looked at and they will give a quantized look at the identities.
 
[math]R_{\sigma \rho [i j]}g^{\sigma \rho} = \partial_i \Gamma_{j} - \partial_j \Gamma_{i} + \Gamma_{i} \Gamma_{j} - \Gamma_{j} \Gamma_{i}[/math]
 
 
[math]R_{\sigma i[j \rho]}g^{\sigma i} = \partial_j \Gamma_{\rho} - \partial_{\rho} \Gamma_{j} + \Gamma_{j} \Gamma_{\rho} - \Gamma_{\rho} \Gamma_{j}[/math]
 
 
[math]R_{\sigma j [\rho i]}g^{\sigma j} = \partial_{\rho} \Gamma_{i} - \partial_i \Gamma_{\rho} + \Gamma_{\rho} \Gamma_{i} - \Gamma_{i} \Gamma_{\rho}[/math]
 
 
You can write these three relationships out in the Bianchi identity, we can write the commutation again, on the indices
 
[math]R_{\sigma \rho[ i j]} + R_{\sigma i [j \rho]} + R_{\sigma j [\rho i]} = 0[/math]
 
The order of the commutation with respect to indices we have looked at have revealed their commutation in the last two indices.

math


Edited by Dubbelosix, 08 September 2017 - 01:44 PM.


#17 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1925 posts

Posted 08 September 2017 - 11:36 AM

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 by arkain101, 08 September 2017 - 12:04 PM.