Mordred

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.

seesaw mechanism righthand neutrino states with Higgs coupling \[f^v \varepsilon_{ab}\overline{L}^aH^bV_r\] which gives rise to Dirac mass term \[M_D(\overline{V_L}V_R+\overline{V}_RV_L\] Majorona mass terms \[M_{m1}\overline{V_L}V^c_L+M_{2}M^{-c}_RV_R+c.c\] \[\begin{pmatrix}\overline{V_L}\\\overline{V^c_R}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}M_{m1}&M_D\\M_D&M_{M12}\end{pmatrix}(V^c_LV_R)\] eugenvalues \[\lambda^2=(M_{m1}+M_{M2})\lambda(M_{M1}M_{M2}-M_D^2)=0\] solution \[\lambda=\frac{(M_{M1}+M_{M2}\pm\sqrt{M_{(M1}-M_{M2}^2+4M_D^2}}{2}\] as one eugenvalue increases the other decreases. set \[M_{M1}=0,,,,M_{M2}>>M_D\] gives \[\lambda=M_{M2}(\frac{1\pm\sqrt{1+4}(\frac{M_D}{M_{M2}^2})}{2})\] \[\lambda_1\approx M_{M2},\lambda_2\approx \frac{M^2_D}{M_M^2}\]

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.

yes to blazars the difference between the two is the orientation As you described. Try thinking of it this way the infalling material is the shared material of the surroundings. you have two BH in a region does not increase the available material. That material must be already available in that region. Lets say you have a solar mass of available plasma of material in a 1 light year radius. In the center you have a single BH. In the other scenario you have 2 BH of the same mass. Which scenario would produce the most luminous accretion jet ?

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

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.

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

Found the paper I was looking for. Bunn and Hogg examines cosmological redshift in context of both gravitational redshift (would thus include time dilation) and Doppler shift. (Only involves time dilation in the relativistic scenario). He concludes that as free fall observers and emitters apply, then the latter case is more accurate than the previous. https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081 One of the problems with the former and latter case is that you end up applying a large number of infinitesimal calculations between observer and emitter.