hipster doofus

When something doesn't have time, gravity, and 3D ..what makes you think spacetime is involved? I'm talking about QM objects when they are unobserved and are considered waves (the unobservable). Have you considered QM might not exist within the fabric of spacetime until observation?

The Wave function wouldn't result in probabilities if it was possible to include spacetime. QM waves do not need anything from spacetime to continue existing.

Entanglement is obviously not a property of Spacetime. Spooky action at a distance can happen because QM doesn't have time like we experience and the particles are likely connected via a QM wave that could stretch to infinity if needed.

Abbe's diffraction limit is the cutoff we have been looking for. Anything smaller doesn't have to adhere to the laws of relativity. It's waves until it is observed. Observation seems to be a property of spacetime.

When a ginormous star collapses on a single point, the force is so extreme that it causes a QM bubble to scale in Spacetime that does not have to adhere to the rules of the QM/Spacetime divide. Like typical QM objects, it can't be observed but can pull in anything close to it. When two black holes merge, it's just the QM bubble getting more massive. It would then make sense for dark matter to also be overgrown QM objects.

Please tell me why you think spacetime is capable of performing quantum weirdness acts. I was told I was allowed to ask questions on this forum.

Anything smaller doesn't have to adhere to the laws of relativity. It's waves until it is observed.

Can you stop being mean to me now?

Observation seems to be a property of spacetime. Or they are one and the same, can't tell yet.

Those events scream they have nothing to do with spacetime, so why are you refusing to let them go? I say let them be their own thing, they don't work with time or gravity anyways.

I know what you are going to say:

Quote

Quantum field theory is defined on a spacetime manifold. Everything described by QFT can always be represented as a field on spacetime, even a single particle state.

A QFT is an operator valued field on spacetime. In the simplest case of a discrete lattice field, there is a Hilbert space representation of each lattice site, and the whole field is a tensor product of these Hilbert spaces, which have adjacency relations and form a simple grid over spacetime. The theory is always defined on (usually Minkowski) spacetime, there's no "floating above" spacetime.

Your answer is built on a man-made excuse/mistake to include QM in spacetime. Yes, it has math going for it, but it isn't sharing what the reality is. Spacetime is under no obligation to include the scale of QM. QM existed before the big bang: https://phys.org/news/2019-05-stabilizing-no-boundary-universe-quantum.html

Do you have a paypal account? Ever think of renting out your brain? I would need you to read my grunts, pretend that you think it's possible, and write an equation smart enough to pacify another physicist just as angry as you to new ideas. Here's the hypothesis:

The QM/Spacetime Divide

Spacetime = classical/relativity
QM = waves

Our singularity (big bang) initiated in an existing Quantum Field of virtual particles.

If everything in the beginning was waves, does it help explain the insane expansion rate right after the singularity? Spacetime didn't exist until after inflation? ..maybe when the singularly became large enough to be observed? Was the very first observable event the creation of Spacetime?

This is about the half of QM that physicists don't like to talk about, when an object in superposition can only be described as math waves. The question of what matter is while in that state has chewed away at me for years. I think I found the answer; Quantum objects literally swap to waves when disconnected from Spacetime. Yes, that's right, I'm saying QM floats above the fabric of Spacetime. Observation grants quantum objects partial/temporary Spacetime. 

An unspecified/unknown number of chemically bounded atoms are always anchored to Spacetime. (user studiot claims it's to do with the level of complexity)

When we zoom into a large object, those atoms bonded together are not going to display quantum weirdness. If we separated a single atom from that object, it is suddenly too small to inhibit Spacetime. I knew it was losing a dimension of some type and originally assumed a 3D object was turning into 2D (something without depth is invisible to us) ..but then the math said it actually retains its 3D (u/racinreaver). It dawned on me that objects without Spacetime are also invisible to us. I then looked at the uncertainty principle and realized that the particle was not completely inhabiting Spacetime.

If my hypothesis is correct, something should be strange about time for quantum objects ..and it is. 
Maybe something in superposition doesn't age. 
They won't ever find quantum gravity. 

I like to think doing an experiment that shows the Uncertainty Principle also shows a dimension not fully realized (wave isn't fully collapsed ..or doesn't fully possess the full dimension of Spacetime.)

We are looking in the wrong place to quantize time and gravity. We should be able to find the QM/Spacetime divide by sending larger and larger groups of bonded atoms into an Uncertainty principle experiment, when groups with momentum stop being fuzzy, we will have our number.

This will probably give new insights into virtual particles, dark energy, dark matter, and the big bang.

It seems replicating my theory is the best approach to making a quantum computer:
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-continuum.html

I like turtles

objects we can see are too big to go into superposition

I don't think its a dumb idea if it can't be proven wrong. I know you are joking about the copyright, I think the timestamp saves me.

When my name becomes synonymous with the discovery of; Mass turning to waves when disconnected from spacetime (QM floats above the fabric of spacetime), I'll use my celebrity to change some things around here. 

Who made this rule? How is someone coming up with a new idea supposed to have an equation ready to go? Let alone having a scientific background. Shouldn't you be embracing new ideas? Is the intention for only people in the field to claim discoveries?

well, amount of mass could equal complexity.

Set whatever equations you got to say unmeasured QM objects are devoid of spacetime.

I'm either drunk or you edited your post ..doesn't matter. Do you want me to beg?

The bigger question is why you didn't declare your discovery already.

You told me to write an equation for an idea that turned out to be wrong. Not sure how sucking at math was being rude to you.

we are now talking, tell me why I am both right and wrong

I thought you were doing some kind of superposition joke

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

A pity you are not talking to me since you are both right and wrong here.

 

 

Part of you problem is you start talking about non particulate things, like spacetime for example, but then switch to particles for your discussion.

Why do you do this, it makes no sense.

You are saying I'm a quantum object? There is an obvious divide between spacetime and quantum.

The whole point is that spacetime doesn't touch particles until they are observed.

13 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Quantum physics is a complicated topic. It contains concepts and properties that might look counter intuitive from our daily macroscopic perspective. It means that analogies and pop-sci comparisons are of limited use to explain and predict behaviour at quantum level. Progress is made by understanding an applying mathematic tools and concepts (inside and outside of the box) and by performing rather complicated experiments. Reaching such a level of mathematic knowledge at age 15 is definitely not impossible but probably very unlikely. That, in combination with rather vague posts without math in this thread, makes it unlikely that the ideas stated will lead to profound levels of progress at this point. But since genuine interest in fundamental physics have been displayed it might be good to pause the posting of new ideas and take some time posting questions in the mainframe sections?

 

Why does this need to be considered a new theory when it's obviously been present since the big bang?

Yes, screw joe blow for having a unique idea. That dude didn't waste his life like i did searching dead leads.

I'm saying quantum weirdness has something to do with spacetime. How was my original statement not clear enough? You really can't see what I'm pointing at because I'm not using the precise terminology? Pretend I'm 15yo making the statements.

It's frightening how little you guys are willing to think outside the preconfigured box. This might be the answer to the biggest question in QM. You would rather put on your graduation cap and monocle and call me a peasant.

My evidence is quantum gravity being nonexistent.

Evidence is also quantum weirdness events.

Please don't close this, I want constructive criticism.

They partially inhabit spacetime while we are observing them.

Fuzziness implies something is missing from the object.

I feel pretty good about this if that's your only problem with this so far.

You want evidence that quantum objects can sometimes only be described as math?

Quantum objects are not large enough to inhabit spacetime. When a particle is in a state that can only be described as math ..it is not part of spacetime. If something was tiny and didn't inhabit spacetime ..I'd say it would probably do quantum weird things. The math says the physical object remains 3D when in superposition, so the only avenue left to detach is spacetime. In math, it is waves, in reality, it has lost a dimension. Something that has lost a dimension is crazy to us.

What is the Uncertainty Principle telling us? Is it saying the power of observation/measurement of a quantum object is not enough to make it a genuine 3D + 1 space-time object? If something on our scale was partially fuzzy depending on how many measurements you made (at the same time) ..would you say it was a full fledged three dimensional object? No, you'd say isn't fully here, its Space-Time element is being partially held back. Wave collapse doesn't appear to be completely collapsing. If a particle is fuzzy while moving, it suggest that particle is on a different timeline than you or the object doesn't posses the properties needed. If it doesn't have momentum and becomes clear, it's because time isn't required to take a still shot.

This is also the reason they are not going to find quantum gravity.

from your example 
 

Quote

Thus, in the superposition of states the resonator is never really in two totally distinct places

and in a Bose Einstein condensate ..come on man

We can see it in math ..whoopty do. When have you seen superposition in real life?