joigus

I concur with the argument shared by many here that science generally gives us a better understanding of Nature. In a nutshell, and as said before, how we use that is rather a matter of scientific, engineering, etc ethics. Perhaps however it's worth pointing out that there is a hypothesis currently undergoing study in anthropology and peripheral sciences that posits the possibility that a slow adaptive process of self-taming has been going on for a long time (in terms of human evolution, so think 10⁴-10⁵ years). This is known as the self-taming hypothesis or self domestication. Were it confirmed at some point, that would mean that the answers to those problems the OP mentions are subject to some kind of self-correcting adaptive process that science itself can study, confirm, or falsify. That would mean science can even help us understand whether or not we're going (or likely to be going) in the direction the OP hopes for.

It's "divergence", not "diversion". And that only accounts for half the nature of light. The other half is: "The four-dimensional divergence of the dual of the previous tensor is the 4-current of electric charge". The second one account for the sources of light. In other words, \[ dF=0 \] \[ d^{*}F=\mu_{0}j \] (Not only light, I must say, but every other electromagnetic phenomenon, like the properties of capacitors). Not very droll, I know...

A similar question would be, "is space point-like?" We prefer to say, "is time a continuum, or is it discrete (ie, made up of little 'jolts' of time)"? @geordief , IMO, asked the right question. It is perhaps telling that the HUP doesn't allow us to "see" this point-like structure of time, provided it makes any sense.

Again: What time symmetry? I'm not asking what it is about, but which particular transformation you are thinking of. Eg, Lorentz transformations are about space and time, but they are a very specific type of symmetry. We need you to be more specific.

The best way I know of overcoming gravity is to jump in a vacuum in the field of a massive object. Automobiles don't usually do that. Generally you must get as far away from a road as it's possible to get. Special planes do, and spaceships. Like this: The flight that brings space weightlessness to EarthYou don’t have to go to space to feel the weightlessness of orbit. Sue Nelson joins a special flight that puts its passengers into zero gravity – at least for a few seconds.You're mixing up overcoming gravity with opposing gravity. Very different. @studiot is right. You don't sound like an engineer at all.

Do you mean that the no-communication theorem would be violated and signaling between distant factors of an entangled state would be possible? If that were the case, I wouldn't call it a "communication theorem". It would simply be that the no-communication theorem doesn't hold. Eg, we don't have a theorem that says 7-body systems exist. The context of the quantum NCT I think is very different. If I remember correctly, communication back and forth through the ER bridge is not possible. All of this is, of course, just theoretical speculation, but if I had to bet, I'd say "no, it doesn't happen".

What time symmetry? Translational? Reparametrisations? Inversions? Combinations of some/all/a few of those? You see, "time symmetry" doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

I must say I haven't leafed through many of those, but I get the picture... YT thumbnails can be pretty awful. But Veritasium's content is worth the aesthetic displeasure.

I've been saying this for several years on these forums (also others like @MigL or @swansont, and probably others still). My words then were "energy is only a useful concept in small patches of ST": For the benefit of OP, here's a nice video by Veritasium explaining it: Long times are also "big patches of space-time", which fits the leading example by Veritasium. Very, very, very misunderstood concept, that of energy. Sigh! Only when the system is Lagrangian and the context is time-independent does something like an energy arise. Otherwise... not.

Agreed. What's the matter? 🤭

Thank you for adding more context. May I ask you what particular problem led you to this integral?

Space pre-exists to what exactly? Matter?

In none of the standard formulations of QM is the uncertainty principle presented as a postulate. It can be proved as a theorem from the relation between observables, states, and probabilities defined in the postulates. It is also confirmed in its statistical sense from experiments. Furthermore, it has explanatory power in that particular sense in a wide range of phenomena, from Josephson junctions to polarisers, etc. It's nothing to do with a winding number, but indeed refers to statistical frequencies. If space-time coordinates are maximally determined, energy-momentum is minimally determined, how could space-time be energy? You seem to be using some kind of LLM or chatbot to generate what feels like a linguistic version of the shell game.

Among other things already pointed out to you, there are robust quantum mechanical reasons why E=ST cannot make sense. Such variables are complementary in quantum mechanics (canonically conjugate). Meaning: when one of them is precisely determined, the other becomes "infinitely fuzzy". Only that consideration should be enough to make you cease and desist on the whole thing. So..., again, no.

You're waxing esoteric now. Honestly, I can't get past your spacetime \( \equiv \) energy mathematical nonsense.

Complex logarithms are marvelous beasts, but they're sharp-toothed. They have something called "branch cuts", which come from "branch points", meaning loci where the function becomes discontinuous in a very non-trivial way, giving rise to so-called Riemann surfaces (the complex plane splitting into infinitely many copies of it, each for one prescription of the polar angle in the argument that the function accepts). Trying to perform a definite integral involving a product of logs with branch points in different places on the complex plane would be hard enough. These integrals normally involve integration paths that need to be extended to closed loops involving infinity in order to be able to use Cauchy's theorem and thus make sense of them just numerically. You need to start with things like \( \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \) or \( \int_{0}^{\infty} \) and then analitically continue (so-said) the path to go through infinity. I shudder to think what kind of an ill-defined mess trying to propose them as functions (indefinite integrals) would lead us to. For starters, there are the best reasons to expect them to adopt infinitely many functional values. Think about it: Numerical methods are really really advanced today. If you've found a mathematical object that resists analysis by using them, it's probably because of some fundamental theoretical reason. I hope that was helpful. I'm sorry I can't help you with your Fortran.

I apologise for I did misunderstand something you said. Your circular angle is not the standard hyperbolic "angle" of relativity, or any analogue of it for that matter. Rather, it is what to me looks like a circular definition (no pun intended). Thus, you present the kinematic / gravitational-potential quantities as functions of a respective points on respective copies of a \( S^{1} \), otherwise known as circle. You declare, eg, \[ \theta_{1}=\arccos\beta \] and, \[ \theta_{2}=\arcsin\kappa \] And, what are \( \beta \) and \( \kappa \)? Just the inverse functions of those. No mystery there. The \( \kappa \) trigonometric function, BTW, does not apply on the whole of \( S^{1} \), but only on half of it (the part where the sine of \( \theta_2 \) is positive. You do need a metric to talk about angles and distances (or pseudo-distances). If you want to do away with a metric altogether, I agree with @studiot that you should try something like projective geometry or the like. But physics is about metrics, distances and angles. It just is. So you would have to come up with a way to define what you understand by measuring thing, for lack of metrical properties. Saying it sounds hard is an understatement. May I remind you, Einstein didn't base GR on tensor analysis just on a whim, but because of the principle of general covariance, that many people tend to disregard. You cannot dispose of tensors just like that. Equations of physics must be generally covariant for very robust reasons: They must transform in a way that makes all observers agree on what they measure when everything is expressed in terms of invariants, even though the particular numbers they get on their rules and clocks might differ. "Covariance" (and thereby tensors) is nothing but a fancy name for that prescription. We don't tell students they're dealing with tensors in pre-university physics, as well as many other university courses, but unbeknown to them, they're most of the time dealing with order-1 or order-2 Euclidean tensors, Galilean tensors, Minkowski tensors, or (in GR) even higher-order diffeomorphism-covariant tensors. There's kind of an unwritten rule not to tell students of physics that's what they're actually doing most of the time. The quantities you're using, on the other hand, seem to be observer-dependent, which goes against the principle of general covariance. Or it seems to be very hard to reconcile with it. (Please refresh the page for LateX display.)

This is the "describe a simple instance" that I like to use from time to time. You started taking it personal. Here: You implied that all the answers were mere "posturing" (and not "genuine") and so that legitimised your theory. If the bundle of nonsense you are proposing were correct, energies and momenta would be periodic quantities of their arguments (circular topology), instead of being hyperbolically fashioned, so to speak. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. You still haven't answered this. And there is little doubt in my mind you never will. Unless you correct your blunder at some point.

Well, yes. I copied it and pasted it, but it lacked gravitation. I'm still getting up to speed with most of the arguments here, BTW.

Good. As your work --it seems-- has reached a point of maturity, now it's time you take it to a professional publication and see how it fares. Don't waste another minute with people of our ilk. The Nobel Prize could be just around the corner. BTW, your geometry is still circular, not hyperbolic, as you have not made any precisions concerning the complex plane, which would turn your trigonometric relations into hyperbolic ones, as they should. Good luck!

The author must have taken that from some book on relativistic physics with choice c=1 among preliminary conventions, without realising. That's my guess, anyway. In any case, it's bound to go badly wrong when it assumes circular geometry, while relativistic kinematics is known to comply with hyperbolic geometry rather --as said by yours truly. PS: Sorry, I thought I had answered, but my answer had been cached by my browser all this time without me actually publishing it.

Chrome issue?

Please, stop using technology to dress up your vision. No good new physics can come out of it. "spacetime = energy" makes as much sense as "I am my bank account". And I also suggest to stop being so substantival. During the first stages of an idea it's far more useful to be "adjectival". Foundational principles are not derived for obvious reasons: They would be neither foundational nor principles, would they? Unless you want to build a logical loop. Then it doesn't matter where you start. You're also conflating the compact topology of a circle (trigonometric functions, angles) with the well-known non-compact hyperbolic topology of relativity of motion (hyperbolic functions, rapidities). Again a terrible start.

Infographics doesn't really help this kind of thing. Einstein's field equations do not say "spacetime = energy". "Spacetime = energy" is a meaningless statement. AAMOF, energy is not conserved in GR. Energy is only a useful concept in small patches of ST.

I've got humble powers of observation based on network commands. Now everyone's personal Nostradamus seems to be ChatGPT. :)