Mordred

Doubtful that setup would allow detectability of cpt violation. Photons being symmetric bosons seldom self interfere. You would likely have a better chance with including parametric down conversion of monochromatic light with beam splitters. You will want a limited range of frequency modes.

You still need the mathematics they are essential claiming those equations are in your diagrams isn't proving that they are.

You need to mathematically show you can model the above with well tested physics. Not merely claim such....no relevant math to make testable predictions equals no theory. How would you mathematically define consciousness ?

Here is a few details to consider. The mathematics I provided above show the following. 1) spacetime field 2) spin 2 statistics derived via gravitational waves of the graviton 3) the propagator equation of the graviton field (aka virtual gravitons as virtual particles reside on the internal lines of a Feymann diagram just as does the field propogator.) 4)The GR related details provided is in the weak field limit of GR which may surprise you also work with the Schwartzchild metric. albiet QFT uses the field as an operator where all particles are field excitations whereas virtual particles are field fluctuations. So you have your wavefunctions included. The Langrangian equations include the uncertainty principle, the harmonic oscillator as well the probability functions for all possible paths. So in essence I provide all the essential details needed to describe accurately a graviton using QFT. (granted we don't have a cross section) to derive a mass term. What most people do not realize is physics already has an effective quantum gravity model. (numerous of them). However none of the effective quantum gravity models will function at all scales. They are only effective up to \(10^{19} \) GeV without divergences. This coincides with the singularity condition of a BH as well as the \(10^{-43} \) singularity limit of the BB model. This is often described as a problem with no- renormalization. However we can normalize gravity without divergences up to that point on one loop integrals. 2 loop integrals are still problematic, however its very rare for any field theory to be renormalizable beyond 2 loop in the first place. it is these reasons why quantum gravity is considered an effective field theory as opposed to a fundamental field theory. Unfortunately very few forum members have a chance to understand the equations involved in renormalization. So my posting them wouldn't help explain how the regulator operator is used for renormalization. No fault to any member, one has to have a solid understanding of Feymann integrals and QFT to have a hope in understanding the relevant equation. this is a very basic coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group

Try getting any indication of a spacetime particle out of your thoughts... Then adopt the terminology spacetime field. Now it's clear your dealing with a mathematical field describing geometry. Keep all forms of particle fields separate and separate into individual fields. Mathematically you can then connect the other fields example christoffel connections. You can individually describe any particle in its own field ie its common to hear of photon field in your case perhaps graviton field.

Well your correct on needing the mathematics. When you do that you will better understand the coordinate aspects.

The spacetime fabric is nothing more than a useful analogy. There is no medium or corpuscular or particle composition to spacetime itself. It is not a rubber sheet or any other form of medium. Expansion is just a reduction in density over a larger volume of the standard model of particles. We simply use commoving coordinates as a convenience to maintain symmetry relations. Virtual particles are off shell particles that have insufficient mass to be a real particle of the specific type ie an offshell photon has less than a quanta of action. All particles add to the blackbody temperature both relativistic and non relativistic. This includes quasi and virtual particles (example zero point energy due to uncertainty principle) So your use of virtual particles would do the same more so if the are relativistic.

With due respect there is no such thing as spacetime particles. That would further imply a Lorentz type eather. M&M type experiments show that as being invalid. Spacetime is just geometry. A set of coordinates. Gravitational waves affect all force and matter fields of the standard model where spacetime is simply the geometric distribution of those fields.

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)

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

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.

Assuming this is for college research. You may be able to contact any local research programs on aphantasia. Many organizations are willing to aid students on a given study as it helps raise awareness... If so you may be able to get a hold of other researches that you can find correlations supporting and countering your theorem on a statistical weighted averaging basis. Keep in mind that the steps taken in a given research is often more important than the actual results. An instructor usually considers the steps taken to validate or invalidate a given research as the priori of importance rather than the results. In essence the preliminary steps needed to meet funding proposals for further research. Funding is never given without preliminary research and relevant studies

A strong foundation in mathematics is essential for theoretical physics. QFT for example uses integrals and canonical operators. So you want a good understanding of variations calculus. Conformal methods such a relativity, string theory etc make good use of differential geometry and partial derivatives. Anything involving probability makes good use of statistical mechanics. So a strong math background is essential in any physics theory. A solid good textbook to give you a general idea is Mathematical methods for Physicists by Arfgen https://shop.elsevier.com/books/mathematical-methods-for-physicists/arfken/978-0-12-384654-9?country=CA&format=print&utm_source=google_ads&utm_medium=paid_search&utm_campaign=capmax&gclid=Cj0KCQjw4NujBhC5ARIsAF4Iv6fpYklEnPTD1vVayu0_DYREjaF-Bl7abZopsJTJdLBdnklws7g5NTIaAhTqEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Why would you believe they stay stable when bombarded with highly energetic neutrons ?

Lol by recalling in other formats [\ilatex] was uses to stay inline as opposed to [\latex]. Then recalling the site uses a structure similar to mathjax. Once I recalled that it was just a quick search on mathjax commands that gave me the inline command. https://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/input/tex/delimiters.html

figured it out use \( instead of \[ demo \(G^{\mu\nu}\) stays inline as opposed when you the latter above it designates a separate line \[G^{\mu\nu}\]

abc \[ G^{\mu\nu}\] test abc \(G^{\mu\nu}\) trst

At one time we could keep small latex such as \[G^{\mu\nu}\] inline without requiring a separate line. This aided readability and allowed a cleaner presentation when simply designating variables or values etc. I have been using the \[ command structure. Is there anyway to get the example above inline ?

future references with regards to Einstein-Hilbert action one loop integrals and two loop integrals. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.02622.pdf https://cds.cern.ch/record/261104/files/CM-P00049196.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.2302 https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9605057.pdf Quantum geometrodynamics https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0295 loop quantum gravity https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4598 https://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/IntroductionLQG.pdf

That's useful info, the other method and not positive on the compound used was a mix of water and sodium bicarbonate (if I recall been a few years ) setup in a water fall type scenario with air pushed through it. One problem was what to do with the captured CO2 the article years ago suggested placing it in old oil wells lol. I do know lithium hydroxide can be used to filter co2. I was close sodium bicarbonate was one of the byproducts. Used sodium hydroxide. https://www.eeer.org/upload/eer-21-3-297.pdf Lol can you imagine telling China or one of the other world major producers. " were going to fire a bunch of nukes to clean your atmosphere "........

I can think of several far more practical ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The methodology I read that seems far more practical and safer to boot is to use long tunes attached to a flotation device with a one way flap. This pumps nutrients from the sea floor enhancing algea growth in the immediate region. Algea like plants filter co2 and return oxygen to the atmosphere. The added advantage is that it also aids in fish production.

IQ is meaningless without the required education and research

You may be referring to the Alcubierre drive though poorly described as it doesn't involve antigravity.

Reminder notes Curl of a vector field definition if vector F equals P,Q,R as a vector field in R^3 and \[P_x,Q_y, R_z\] all exists the the curl F is defined as curl \[\vec{F}=(R_y-Q_z)\hat{i}+(P_z-R_x)\hat{J}+(Q_x-P_y)\hat{k}=(\frac{\partial R}{\partial y}-\frac{\partial Q}{\partial z})\hat{i}+(\frac{\partial P}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial R}{\partial x})\hat{J}+(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial P}{\partial y})\hat{k}\] the curl of a vector is a vector field in contrast to divergence given as \[div \vec{F}=\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{F}\] \[\vec{\nabla}x\vec{F}\] \[\begin{pmatrix}\hat{i}&\hat{j}&\hat{k}\\\frac{\partial}{\partial x}&\frac{\partial}{\partial y}&\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\\P&Q&R\end{pmatrix}\] with determinant loosely defined as \[(R_y-Q_z)\hat{i}-(R_x-P_z)\hat{j}-(Q_z-P_y)\hat{j}=(R_y-Q_z)\hat{i}+(R_x-P_z)\hat{j}+(Q_z-P_y)\hat{j}=curl \vec{F}\] above definitions from https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Calculus/Calculus_(OpenStax)/16%3A_Vector_Calculus/16.05%3A_Divergence_and_Curl pursuant next study gravity is divergent free on one loop integrals but divergent on 2 loop

If I ever give you a recipe for baking (any) you would want to throw it into the nearest blackhole and count the information loss a blessing.