24 minutes ago, Unified Field said:

No... In order, to test my idea, I will confront it with observations/experiments - so there's no need for any virtual calculations... I prefer practical science...

Alright, Static BH or Schwarzchild Black-hole has no rotation it has a radius with mass inside it and less mass then its rotating cousins, Kerr BH as rotation happens it expands against the Schwarzchild Radius, so even with more mass which should decrease that radius the Radius increases because of the Vector of its mass against gravity.

Which is formed from escape velocity equation, which everyone knows is true, Jump, do you fall to the ground, then you haven't reach escape velocity of this gravitational field.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/blahol.html

This man however did then landed on the moon, Proof of this.

Proof of BH Rotation.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/science/supermassive-black-hole-spinning-at-speed-of-light/article4462397.ece

Oh my, I am going to have to explain the Schwarzchild metric and Kerr Metric again the same way, if he doesn't stop. So, he will understand how all that works, which are solutions to the Einstein Field Equations.

12 minutes ago, Unified Field said:

Here's a nice movie. Most important things are being told beginning from 7:53

In shortcut, entire mass of the star has to be compressed inside Schwarzchild radius, to make a BH. Inside a star, object which is placed at the distance of this radius, will be affected only by the mass, which is placed between the center and the object - mass of the star, which is placed beyond this distance won't add to the mass inside and will pull the object to the outside...

Anyway, I spent some time thinking about the density of gravity source and the orbits of objects, which move around the center of mass. I think, that I managed to find the solution. Those two images should explain everything...

As I said before, mass of the source is responsible for the "amount" of produced gravity, while it's size defines the size of g. field. As we know, distribution of magnitude in a g. field is varied - attraction is getting stronger, the closer we get to the center of mass. 2 Objects with equal mass and different densities should create fields with the same "amount" of gravity, but with different sizes - so the same "amount" of force, has to be distributed over different areas of space. Force, which is distributed over a large area for the bigger source, has to be "compressed", to fit into a smaller space for a more dense object. As a result, force of attraction is stronger for the smaller source, but it's influence doesn't reach so far, as in the case of larger object. This is why, galaxies can interact with eachother as 2 objects over a huge distance, even if their g. fields are rather weak...

But what with the orbit of a body, which is rotating around the source? Well, according to simple logic and to those 2 drawings, orbits should be affected by the change of source's density, but I have a plan to make a 3D simulation of this model (I just started working on it) and a real-life simulation (using rubber surface and some marbles) - so I should be able to confront my logic with reality...

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

He's saying the only reason people here so completely and consistently refute his points (as opposed to recognizing how profoundly brilliant and paradigm shifting they truly are) is because we're all bobble-heads blindly following the orthodoxy and we lack enough courage to honestly explore challenges to the system.

He's full of shit, but that's the point he seems to be making.

No, I was saying it takes no thought to blindly accept something, it takes thought and effort to refute something.

Well, I fused all this.

You know what, For a reason way different than any of this,  I will stay, for only this reason, would you rather have a bunch of people that just blindly accept something as fact or would tell you that you are wrong. Well, honestly the people that would tell you that you are wrong due to the fact that, that it actually takes effort and courage.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

I haven't seen anything I want to steal from someone who doesn't understand what "I will not be back EVER!" means (or much of QM)

 

Lol, Swan is one of the good mods, whomever split that all into the trash can go to hell.

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

Bye. No mods are going to apologize for enforcing the rules.

You can't copyright ideas, only expressions of those ideas. And you have no patents here — in fact, what you've posted would create "prior art" making patents invalid.

I'll put it to you this way, would you really try to steal something from the guy that designed  Viral Bio-machinery or a Black Hole gun. You would have to be dumb to do that.

It is registered at, Later.

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Biomachinery_(SMAC)

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Controlled_Singularity_(SMAC)

I am leaving, Some of the Mods can go take a long walk off a short cliff. I will not be back EVER! Don't ever use any of my models or Creations that are posted here or I will get you for copyright infringement in federal court or Patent Infringement.

17 U.S. Code § 501 - Infringement of copyright

11 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You can't solve it, because you don't know how space and time are quantized...

 

Let say in this universe it is VERY Large electron with no movement , then and Dark Energy is Constant @ 500 km/s/Mpc 

∑_x=0 ∑_y=0∑_z=0^{x+y+z = 9.8917379797077367667245997437072 x 10^107} (-1,0,1,0.511 MeV - 0,0 - 500 ,1/2 - 0) 

all values of ∑_x=0 ∑_y=0∑_z=0^{x+y+z = 9.8917379797077367667245997437072 x 10^107} (-1,0,1,0.511 MeV - 0,0 - 500 ,1/2 - 0)  will be the same.

12 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..per single particle...

Then show equation of integrating them together for the all particles of the Universe at the same time..

ps. Damn, you love intercepting threads with your own stuff...

 

Okay, lets solve this then Sensei.

(Universe Volumetric Planck State @ size of universe in radius) =(3/4)π ((R_Universe/(t_pC)) L_universe )³

R_universe = 10 meters

Shortly, after the BB.

L_p = 1.616229(38)×10⁻³⁵ m

Total Strings = (4/3) 3.14 (10/1.616229(38)×10⁻³⁵ m)³

Total Strings = 9.8917379797077367667245997437072 x 10¹⁰⁷

So, that many values of  ∑_x=0 ∑_y=0∑_z=0^{x+y+z = 9.8917379797077367667245997437072 x 10^107} (Q,Ψ_c,Y,M - M_Λ,Φ - Φ_Λ,S - S_Λ) 

It reads (Q,Ψ_c,Y,M - M_Λ,Φ - Φ_Λ,S - S_Λ) Very Relevant to the question.

13 hours ago, Bill Angel said:

Could the entire universe be considered as having a single quantum mechanical wave function?
At the time of the Big Bang the universe was extremely small, of dimensions in which quantum phenomena were dominant compared to gravity, as the entire universe was smaller than a proton.
As the universe expanded, matter filled a much larger region, but particles whose wave functions were entangled would have remain entangled. A textbook analogy would be what happens when two elections with equal but opposite momentum are emitted from a source.  The resultant particles can become separated by the size of the universe, but their total wave function won’t collapse from its range of probabilities until a measurement is made determining the properties of one of the electrons, such as its position and its direction of spin. 

Likewise as the universe expands, would its properties such as the total amount of matter, dark energy, etc. be probabilistic unless some observation could be made of the universe as a whole that would measure that property?

And would the measurement of that property result in the quantum wave function for the entire universe collapsing to yield a single resultant measurement as happens when a measurement is made on an election as described above?

This above questions are related to the issue of whether our universe is really one possible universe in a manifold of universes that would make up a multiverse. 

Okay, to directly answer your question.  Yes, the entire universe can be considered as having a single quantum mechanical wave function.

Yes a single observation could be made for the entire universe @ a time slice.

Something, like that electron but on a much larger object.

Yes, it is very related, I agree.

7 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Vmedvil, you're in the middle of "Bill Angel" thread.. You should concentrate on answering "Bill Angel" questions, or questioning his speculation (using Standard Model of quantum physics) etc.. Instead of introducing your own, or String Theory.. Moderators consider it as "thread-hijacking", and your posts should be split to separate thread if you want to continue it this way..

 

My Model uses the Standard model, Those states are Ψ values and other Quantum Numbers in QCD, Hypercharge, Charge, and Spin along with Energy-mass.

56 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Dunno why, you're introducing to this String Theory....

 

Harmonic Manifold is a much easier String Theory than Actual String Theory, here is the equations for both types in Actual String Theory and not Harmonic Manifold, "My String Theory"

https://stringtheory4kids.wordpress.com/

https://www.quora.com/What-is-string-theory-How-can-I-gather-a-clear-concept-about-the-string-theory

A single Universe splits into two parallel Universes change in causality or state on the same brane.

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

Feynman Diagram to String Transformation for Universes Splitting into Parallel Universes.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Point%26string.png

Alternate Universes on two different branes linked by a D-brane "Wormhole", which may have different Force Dimensions.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16248/d-brane-lagrangian

http://www.geoset.info/presentation/black-holes-wormholes-and-time-travel/

Which are caused from different Big Bangs with a Different set of dimensional parameters. 

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/238279-oxford-scientists-call-into-question-the-idea-that-the-universes-expansion-is-accelerating

Many Alternate Universes existing in Hyperspace.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-physicists-ever-prove-multiverse-real-180958813/

10 minutes ago, Sensei said:

1) Multiverses have different particle's rest-masses, different physical constants, than this Universe. Analogy: chess vs draughts (different figures, different rules (~ physical laws) ).

2) Parallel Universes have different history, past and future one (one particle traveled there, the other one traveled somewhere else, in random directions, repeat as many times as you have particles in the entire Universe). The all possible results inside of single multiverse-universe cell. Physical constants remaining the same. Analogy: chess with the all possible solutions.

 

Yes, this is for Parallel Universes of this Brane, not Other Universes in the Hyperspace Brane being Alternate Universes which would not have our same dimensions of Forces and Etc. Those are impossible to model as I do not know what Dimensions of forces it uses in Alternate Universes.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Your model is not the topic here. Replies should be mainstream physics, or questions regarding clarification.

 

It is relevant here, He asked if it were possible in a Multiverse manifold, which is what this is, which those are the Standard model Particle states including GR with Cosmological's states, which would collapse the wave-function into a bunch of quanta particles.

Oh, ya, I Think it does have a Dimensional frequency in a dimensionless form which would be the certain state this universe is in compared to other universes.

I actually have a version of this in my model.

(Universe Volumetric Planck State @ size of universe in radius) =(3/4)π ((R_Universe/(t_pC)) L_universe )³

L_universe = (∇_Charge,∇_Color,∇_flavour,∇_gravity  - ∇_{Dark Energy})

charge possible states per point (1,2/3, 1/3, 0,-1/3,-2/3,-1)

Color Possible states per point(R,B,G,0,G,B,R)

Flavour possible states per point (I,II,III,0,III,II,I)

Gravity/Dark Energy possible states per point of space (Energy,Mass,Spin,0,Energy,mass,spin)

If you were to construct it, it would look something like this.

The Universe at a radius

Per point in the universe to planck length  L_p  or T_pC = L_p  or each cube in that sphere has 5 values.

Does anyone  know what a Sqaure Radians  sqaure meter per Hypersecond means in the same context as momentum density?

Radian² Meter²  / Second⁴  = ??? 

What is that a unit of?

9 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Does anyone  know what a Sqaure Radians  sqaure meter per Hypersecond means in the same context as momentum density?

Radian² Meter²  / Second⁴  = ??? 

What is that a unit of?

Oh I see what this is screwed up LOL
 

This wrong algebra mistake.

ω_x²V_x² = dx²

ω_y²V_y² = dy²

ω_z²V_z² = dz²

Which is another form of this.

(ω_z²V_z²)+ (ω_y²V_y²) + (ω_x²V_x²) - ((σ_xxA_xx/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_xyA_xy/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_xzA_xz/M) * dt²)² - ((σ_yxA_yx/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_yyA_yy/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_yzA_yz/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_zxA_zx/M) * dt²)²  -((σ_zyA_zy/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_zzA_zz/M) * dt²)²  = dx_Tuv² + dy_Tuv² + dz_Tuv²

Corrected form which actually makes sense.

ω_x²/V_x² = dx²

ω_y²/V_y² = dy²

ω_z²/V_z² = dz²

Which is another form of this correct.

(ω_x²/V_x²) + (ω_y²/V_y²) + (ω_z²/V_z²) - ((σ_xxA_xx/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_xyA_xy/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_xzA_xz/M) * dt²)² - ((σ_yxA_yx/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_yyA_yy/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_yzA_yz/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_zxA_zx/M) * dt²)²  -((σ_zyA_zy/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_zzA_zz/M) * dt²)²  = dx_Tuv² + dy_Tuv² + dz_Tuv²

1 minute ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Is there a point to this, or are you just posting a bunch of equations?

 

Oh, I am playing with something.

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's not a vibration

Well, whatever it is.

http://hydrogen.physik.uni-wuppertal.de/hyperphysics/hyperphysics/hbase/rotq.html

I am starting to realize another useful equation. 

ω_x²V_x² = dx²

ω_y²V_y² = dy²

ω_z²V_z² = dz²

Which is another form of this.

(ω_z²V_z²)+ (ω_y²V_y²) + (ω_x²V_x²) - ((σ_xxA_xx/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_xyA_xy/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_xzA_xz/M) * dt²)² - ((σ_yxA_yx/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_yyA_yy/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_yzA_yz/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_zxA_zx/M) * dt²)²  -((σ_zyA_zy/M) * dt²)²  - ((σ_zzA_zz/M) * dt²)²  = dx_Tuv² + dy_Tuv² + dz_Tuv²

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

That doesn't make this relevant. 

It kinda does because

http://hydrogen.physik.uni-wuppertal.de/hyperphysics/hyperphysics/hbase/rotq.html

Just now, swansont said:

I wasn't responding to you 

Sorry, Swan I didn't see that, my bad, I answered anyways.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

There is no "inside" an electron.

I get that

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206276/why-are-electron-wavefunctions-standing-waves

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/Schr2.html

Just now, swansont said:

We're talking about rotation, not vibration.

Well, there is another solution to 1/dt  which is f