Mordred

Gee didn't know I was bilingual lmao. You can relax on this particular topic lol. Though I'm still studying the paper. I do agree with Swansont's assessment.

The unfortunate part is that the factors are not just a case of funding and curriculum. For example when we went to school we were taught some useful skills that simply are not taught today. One example being finding the square root of a large number say for example 6 digits long without resorting to a calculator using a sequence of division by two. I've also noticed that many recent high school graduates don't even know how to add, subtract, multiply and divide fractions. Those same ppl quickly understood how once I spent a measly 15 to 20 minutes showing them. So had nothing to do with their learning ability. They weren't shown before. They relied on the calculator

In so far as emergent spacetimes I would say you would need a considerable amount of additional details to the article to be useful for showing its applicability to determining an emergent spacetime particularly in regards to incorporation to QM/QFT. I also feel that your article would be far better off if you included the invariant vs variant quantities in regards to causation rather than the verbal descriptive attempts with regards to your IFRs. The other recommendation is to use examples that at least have some viability. You have seen the commentary on the examples you provided by others. Poor examples that have no viability will be counter productive to any further interest in the article or hypothesis. Those are some immediate suggestions granted more work on finding indirect means of testability would go along ways as well. For the record there were numerous points where poor descriptives and examples were extremely distracting from the articles goal. Several of those were already mentioned in this thread. Think of it this way. If you, yourself was reading some paper that is poorly described and included examples with zero viability or has statements that doesn't conform with known physics Do you continue reading it ? Now in the interest of article improvement in one regard I can offer some advise with regards to the causal vs acausal argument involving atoms. Now Swansont may very well have a better treatment for dealing with half life decay but a method I'm familiar with is to treat the atom as a single state via a summation of all amplitudes using the Caasimer trick and then applying Breit Wigner distributions. This will give a reasonable decay rate for neutral atoms as well as ionized atoms. Obviously the formulas will vary between the two cases. Breit Wigner is typically in the CM frame but it does have the Lorentz invariance corrections. However as that isn't the focus of the article whether or not you choose to include those details is up to you. In terms of applying causality regardless of any specific relativity theory. There are essential equations that all physics theories use. Regardless of the theory work with those in particular those relating to the equations of motion for causation. Good example is time ordering of events viewed from different observers (part of the proof for timelike observers as opposed to spacelike). There's nothing incorrect about applying those lessons without involving SR directly.

Yes thanks lol must have gotten distracted. Fermi-Dirac is often used for low density gas in particular the Fermi level (Fermi-energy) however it's not limited to a low density gas. Other factors included being Fermi temperature and Fermi velocity. See here for details https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_energy

This is where the Jacobi matrices comes in handy to help keep track of. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobian_matrix_and_determinant A little side note some people find when learning GR the treatments that tend to lead to comprehension is Fermi-Walker transport or alternately the Rarchaudhuri equations. For some reason I've seen numerous posters struggle with GR but once they study the those equations they get that Eureka moment of understanding

Well that link you included specifies a Fermi-Dirac gas. This specific to fermion fields. The equations in the paper are applying the Fermi-Dirac statistics. For Bosons the statistics is the Einstein-Boltzmann statistics. For mixed stated one uses the Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. These statistics directly apply the Pauli-Exclusion principle already mentioned in this thread. Another link that may help. Matter takes up space so matter is comprised of fermions and not bosons. Cross posted with Migl

Lmao thanks when I read that I immediately visualized the gravity wave polarizations as the dog. Thanks for the amusing visual.

Other than confirming the stress energy momentum tensor is valid under the Einstein Field equations which essentially dictates the curvature terms that's the only insight. Once one understands how the stress energy momentum tensor works it becomes rather obvious.

Propogator or S Channel. A one loop integral will have one progogator inner loop with two incoming and two outgoing external lines typically however you can have further interactions on a particular leg.. Here is an example of a loop integral \[\vec{v}_e+p\longrightarrow n+e^+\] \[\array{ n_e \searrow&&\nearrow n \\&\leadsto &\\p \nearrow && \searrow e^2}\] The wavy line in the center to the progogator internal loop

Well described Migl +1

Well Joigus did give a couple of examples of self coupling for gravity. However gravity also can generate its own gravity via the self couplings Let's use gravity waves. \[g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}\] Now the spacetime locally to the gravitational wave is Minkowskii (local not global). The gravity wave being transverse traceless quadrupolar wave has two key polarizations. These fall under the perturbation tensor \(h+\) and \(h\times\) for the plus and cross poalarizations. The remaining polarizations are reducable. (Traceless) They increase the strength of gravity briefly where the perturbation wave is. This is one example gravity requires using a tensor that linearizes a non linear curve. It does so through curvilinear coordinates and via covariant and contravariant vectors and spinars under a tensor field. The requirement of using tensors for gravity is precisely due to the non linear nature of spacetime curvature. Another way to see this is via the stress energy momentum tensor.

As Studiot noted earlier your idea had merit what was lacking was the correct terminology and application. Unlike many we see posting personal hypothesis you show a willingness to learn and adapt so for that were more than willing to work with you to improve your knowledge +1

Lol your welcome

Good article I enjoyed reading it as well though I've always enjoyed anything written by Sean Carroll. +1. In regards to particles being field excitations we have a pinned thread covering @StringJunky has a link to an excellent Sean Caroll In this thread in his first post of the thread it's an excellent lecture you may enjoy. PS you will note the lecture video will coincide with the article posted by Studiot.

My wife would kill me if I got more textbooks, have a bunch in storage already. Otherwise I would jump at the opportunity

One can readily treat deceleration as an acceleration depending on the observer. Yes that is correct. Velocity is the speed plus the direction so it is represented by a vector. This is an important distinction from speed which is a scalar quantity (magnitude only). Momentum is the velocity plus the mass. This will become important when determining the amount of force delivered when an object strikes another object.

I understand that Minkoskii via SR isn't important but where it does become relevant is on how your defining the IFR particularly for causation. Now when I saw the first equation my question that came to mind is what is it about A(t) that is operating on the state that determines the decay rate and try though I might except out of a scattering decay that ionizes the atom I could not think of any possibility. Particularly since a neutral atom is also subjective to radioactive decay. Now its also apparent that your causation doesn't involve the usage of determinism as opposed to the relevant probabilities Am I correct on the last Keep in mind it isn't so much not understanding what's involved but challenging the article to see how well you can answer any issues and points raised. As well as pointing out portions that don't make alot of sense or lends to confusion.

What KJW is referring to is the symmetry under change in sign for different observers. One observer will see a deceleration while another observer at the opposite end of the object being measured will see acceleration. In essence deceleration is symmetric to acceleration Constant velocity is extremely important to master. Study Newtons three laws of inertia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion This should help with the lecture your learning. Acceleration cam be in two forms change in velocity or change in direction. This is also important to recognize.

If only renormalization of gravity were that easy. It would have been accomplished long ago. Here is the Hoof.t paper showing one loop divergence renormalization where he further states in the conclusion that it does not renormalize the second order terms. https://bpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/websites.umass.edu/dist/e/23826/files/2014/11/thooft-and-veltamn.pdf This might give you some idea of the complexity. For the record there is different types of normalization, Position normalization as well as momentum normalization as two other examples. The equation you have is the position renormalization. The link you got that equation from also has the momentum normalization relation.

As your new to this forum latex on this site uses \.[latex].\ simply remove the periods I used to prevent activation. So previous to the word latex \[ for inline latex \.( latex\.) By the way the reason I was asking on Galilean as opposed to SR/GR is nowhere in your paper do I see any reference to proper time I only see coordinate time. I also don't see any second order time derivatives but we can ignore acceleration for now. Then we have this statement "Some events cannot affect other events, since they are separated by a space-like interval. In quantum physics, this is expressed as the absence of correlation of measurement results at points separated by a space-like interval." true on spacelike separation but I am curious on what your understanding is on a correlation function which doesn't require any causation to begin with

Yes I see problems that are not being addressed so is everyone else seeing the same problems. Let me know when you distinguish between an Observer and a reference frame or for that matter a global metric from a local metric in terms of causality. Ask yourself the following under SR/GR light-cones which of the following does causality apply. Timelike events Spacetime events Null events Past/present/future. Yes I recognize your trying to avoid relativity in particular SR but ignoring invariant quantities, the speed limit of information exchange to different observers which your entire paper mentions while not applying any of the transformation rules (either Galilean or Lorentz ) makes no sense whatsoever. Well I'm simply going to chalk this up to ignore all verbal descriptives and apply strictly the mathematics. lets start with your math statement \[\psi(t+dt)=A\psi(t)\] you state A is some operator, \(\psi) being a state. Which you describe in the following statement "includes the set of values that are necessary to describe the system. For example, to describe a system of objects based on Newton's law of universal gravitation, if we consider objects as material points, the masses, velocities and coordinates of objects are sufficient to describe the state. Accordingly, the value should consist of mass, velocity vector and object coordinates. According to the principle of causality, events without a cause do not exist. Someone might think that, for example, the radioactive decay of the nucleus of an atom has no cause. Let's look at equation 1. The radioactive decay of a nucleus is obviously described by this equation. Therefore, it also corresponds to the principle of causality. The principle of causality does not mean determinism. There are many discussions on this issue. Note that if there were at least one phenomenon that violates the principle of causality, then this would mean a refutation of this principle." so How does the equation one describe radioactive decay of an atom ? Simply by being a state ? what state or system is causing the state above to change ? to give radioactive decay eliminating any uncertainty or probability function in determining its rate of decay ? answer this with the following definition of causation. Particulalry since its been argued radioactive decay is acausal and not causal yet you claim otherwise above with the following statement " According to the principle of causality, events without a cause do not exist." since when ? where is the reference that makes this declaration ? Other than your own Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] While causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy and physics, it is operationalized so that causes of an event must be in the past light cone of the event and ultimately reducible to fundamental interactions. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its future light cone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

How ? You haven't included time dependency that I can determine. No where have I seen any reference to the speed limit of information exchange. Nor have you at any point specified a coordinate system. Is your examination strictly Cartesisn with no speed limit of information exchange where time is absolute or are you at some point applying causality in accordance to the lightcones of Minkowskii metric ? In your article you do not have either the Galilean transformations nor the SR transformations so how are you determining causality in accordance to anything applying relativity ?

I noted you haven't addressed my questions yet

Ok try not to think of particles as little solid balls. Solid is an illusion generated by our senses. Under QFT all particles are field excitations so it's not little balls splitting but rather constructive and destructive interference of a waveform. A waveform can also be split off into seperate waveforms such as a monochromatic light beam splitter performing parametric down conversion of a beam into two separate beams each with their own photons. Conservation laws still apply so the two beams will be half each of the original beams waveform. For quarks you have 3 generations the names are simply placeholders denoting the fractional charges. The names aren't particularly important except as a label. It's the particle quantum properties that's relevant not the name. Details here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

It may seem confusing but one has to keep in mind these a brief loose descriptions. The real detail is the mathematics. Those mathematics are what's needed to explain experimental results and the truth is the experimental results involve scattering experiments. Such as produced by particle accelerators or other detectors. In essence there are very practical reasons the formulas are designed the way that they are. For example those formulas include probability functions involving scatterings and angles to specific observers.