MJ kihara

Can someone tell us how does discovery comes about?

Putting religious beliefs aside...you must have spent a good part of your life thinking about nature... I know this might be off topic...since you are a monk and at the same time a scientist where do you think people go after dying? What do you think will be the role of AI in religion esp after it outsmart humans?

Rotation curve of galaxies stays flat for millions of light years with no end in sight. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240617173533.htm Someone coming up with something that can provide understanding for such issue and do it in a manner that can even be intuitive to a layman. Does that person fit in your explanation of a stereotype; typically, not long lived 'in these here part's'... 😉 ????

Yes it is...let me stop...you people in the forum have a good time.

Very little and basic math...you don't use heavy math on laymen...after getting the essence,math follows.

...mmm...

Go Amazon and search for it there...if you are able...go through it patiently then it will give intuition to a lot of things.

Am a simple man..not the description your are using,in our culture arguing with a young person is bad...all the same,personal traits like calmness has nothing to do with reasoning to everyone.

I have already developed the theory...and published a book using simple layman language that even if another less developed civilization come about they would update themselves to the current level rather quickly.I was patiently outlining critical issue before all the picture come out...for instance if I tell you those virtual particles have a connection to the rotation curve of Galaxy what will you say...just laugh and say am hallucinating. I was barely scratching the surface...I was laying the ground work...I came to these place coz it is a community of mostly scientist...I never thought personal issues will be put upfront...like someone has pride... what's that? Am from humble background....where I am, getting time to chat all the day is not a cup of tea.

Which people? don't bundle me with other crack pots....you seem to know physics a lot...you could have helped joigus in your understanding of 'metric emerging'...you don't even have a clue...there was enough reason why I enquired about residential expert before i went back to the thread...simple mathematics but not enough understand it...I don't engage in fancy talks...go back to my threads. Please stop these nonsense....am deriving A TOE..then you say I don't know Planck's constant....which virtual particles off shell particles...start a thread on the virtual particles you are talking about an you how far we go....pliz stop accusing me with weird things without evidence,In the thread i was barely starting...and I could have explained all those issues.

Swansont the moderator....If am not wrong history will judge you harshly..that is,if you care... knowledge should be shared however uncomfortable it .....am referring to your closure of the thread.. Parameters of a theory of everything....such theory can't be created over night or in a span of a year and some few months... and a few thread page posts. Quantum mechanics started a century ago...my thread;what's a mere year and a few months?. I while tell you something in Swahili...among the native language that I come from....I won't translate for you; ..."Akufukuzae akuambii toka!".. Your issue is more than knowledge...and don't bring issues of freedom of speech here since knowledge is universal regardless of language. To the negative red mark: Whoever posted the negative mark should elaborate to us what hubris has got to do with science...when you have uncontrollably power of shutting people down for mere misunderstanding or forcing corrections before you finish what someone is doing that is hubris. Don't try to turn reality upside down to favor your mental status quo. My writing style has proven unique to me..we are at the Age of AI... uniformity doesn't distinguish you from the rest of others or from an AI agent.

I understand you are young. It reaches a point when you have more knowledge of a particular area that you lack peers to challenge you. There is where Orion1 is... again many people fear math and don't like overthinking.

I even lack words to describe your situation....How many times have I told you to not jump the gun? Particles that go off shell for fleeting times,what intuition description do you have about that? Am yet to account for that, infact with more clarity and according to me, with more intuition,I mean,the origin of that phenomenon that ends up demystifying phenomenon of quantum fluctuation. It pains me to see someone becoming personal coz of lack of comprehension of someone else understanding?...the irony is that it might be your own description you are doing... don't reflect yourself on someone else then come into weird conclusions about them. We are discussing science and of course new ideas in science....you are privileged to be witnessing new development in science in real time...How many science forums in the world are having such discussion concerning what am putting across at this particular in time? In you brackets when you say...that's not exactly what we mean...My question you and who? Is there any caveat of how someone is supposed to think or reason? It's a constant and there is more than enough reason that infact suite my arguments...tending to one,you can't see any sense at these juncture of my arguments....I don't want to jump the gun....I will stick to myself and let the discussion have a natural flow to that point that it will make sense. Yes it's a constant..there is an explanation atleast in my arguments that outline the importance of it being a constant...am not near that point of illustrating the importance of that. The device am using and autosuggestions...and my way of putting facts across...hope don't change the essence of the ideas am having. Let me hope the intention was not to make others gag me prematurely before the consistency of what am putting across comes clear. I have not made any such claim...either you are misunderstanding me or you are making wrong conclusion...am just using polarization to give us position operator or rather to give us direction of the vector...surely polarization is not momentum. Just replace equals sign with equivalency sign...thanks for noting that...in my device of communication getting the equivalency symbol is a headache..given the heated conversation prevailing at the moment...I was clearly a ware of that. In terms of energy...Higgs boson energy is far off that that mark. 6.62607015×10−34 J⋅Hz−1 which is equivalent to Planck's constant....where is h=1 coming from in this case? When in my arguments you see this ℏ→1 what should come across your mind is normalization. You need to have the evidence of it being foolish,and funny enough in this case, even before it has been consistent.

Nonetheless either way it leads to the same outcome when the result is zero. In the thought experiment we were using a photon for parallel transporting, initial photon polarization times(×) it's momentum measurements is used to indicate a in this case, therefore,we can either measure first measure polarization followed with momentum or first measure momentum followed with polarization.then we parallel transport the photon through parallelogram loop back to the origin make final measurements of polarization then momentum or final measurements of momentum then polarization,multiply the two this will give us b...then apply commutation relationship [a,b] = ab-ba we expect if the manifold is flat we should get zero. We get Planck's constant from measurements....it doesn't tell us why exactly that number..the phenomenon that leads to that is the one am trying to clarify...Note that it's a theory being developed,at this juncture consistency matters a lot. Lets use h. 6.62607015×1034 Virtual particles=6.62607015×10−34 J⋅Hz−1 Therefore, one virtual particle will have 1×10−64 J⋅Hz−1 Michelson–Morley experiment could not detect such a particle. To ensure it meets the condition; ℏ→1 If one virtual particles has 1×10−64 J⋅Hz−1 Then 6.62607015×1034 Virtual particles will have 6.62607015×10−34 J⋅Hz−1 which is equivalent to Planck's constant.

Just do a simple math given the dimensions of energy times time for ℏ...and given the number of virtual particles am talking about...calculate the energy of a single virtual particles and you will start to see the essence of me calling them VIRTUAL particles. Then multiply them given the same dimension with ℏ to see the essence of ℏ→1. I haven't just walked out of the bush then magically started to formulate all these...I advised you not to panic without a cause and recklessly jump the gun. There is No going back to the drawing board...the number is as it is specifically,their is no negative there! Not by mistake...it's by design ( not me however...mmm.....) to suite the arguments,the idea,the theory e.t.c..what am working on, it works like that.

IN CAPITAL LETTERS YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG. Don't bring trivial issues of misspelling here,I can't have reached at this point of discussion without knowing what is a Planck's constant...am not owning, I haven't owned any words of yours esp given that it's clear to me you haven't grasped what I have been explaining. I feel sorry 😔 for you given the fact that am talking about metric emerging...and you still holding on connections and curvature,when the discussion is past that...mmm....GR is already developed, Einstein did the job. My ADVICE TO YOU GO THROUGH AGAIN THIS THREAD to atleast comprehend what am saying. Are you seeing any negative in this 1.054571817...×1034 The irony....you should say that to yourself, coz so far you haven't comprehended what have been doing after several pages of the thread. You are at the meaning of Planck's constant...I'm at the source of Planck's constant.

The arguments and conclusion that I have presented,in one way or the other begs the question:-what are this virtual particles? Okay by using canonical commutator essentially I have been using the Heisenberg picture that has led me to the Big deal that when ℏ→0...ℏ doesn't just disappear but to the conclusion that; ℏ don't just reduce to zero it decomposes/decays to virtual particles,that become elements of the metric that according to the idea am putting across. Therefore,let us look from Schrodinger's picture perspective to see if the identify of the virtual particles am talking about will be revealed...I will use Schrodinger's equation.

My friend...you are wrong on you conclusion....from my arguments of GR being an overlay while constructing it's tensor field i.e the Riemann/ pseudo Riemann manifold what did you get out of it? For me what am getting from you is that your not getting what am doing...I while tell you once again am not repeating the the the route that has always been used. Similar quantities are the same quantities unless you're introducing other quantities that am not aware of. How many definitions are there for a position and momentum? The issue of infinitesimal close points are your idea not mine. I am talking about the same point in a manifold not close points or infinitesimal close points. Am yet there,you are jumping to the gun. Corrections to any misspelling brought by auto suggestions...I will tell you...not I while tell you.....and lots of repeating the the the. The bridge has already been constructed... ℏ→0...this process is not a permanent process i.e once off event..it's a continuous cyclic process at Planck's time scale..ℏ→0.....ℏ→1.....ℏ→0.....ℏ→1.... Don't for get the issue of zero point energy...it's always there in the background. The same lie bracket used in derivation of Riemann tensor (...from classical world....) is the same that am using in quantum mechanics (... quantum world canonical commutator..) following the correspondence arguments that I made earlier on the thread.

The reason I keep pushing is because the idea am developing keep leading me to things that have already been done and things I haven't learned, for instance I had said; to clarify this Paul Dirac developed correspondence between poisson brackets and commutator.... wikipedia canonical quantization; Classical and quantum bracketsDirac's book[2] details his popular rule of supplanting Poisson brackets by commutators: {A,B}⟼1iℏ[A^,B^] . One might interpret this proposal as saying that we should seek a "quantization map" Q mapping a function f on the classical phase space to an operator Qf on the quantum Hilbert space such that Q{f,g}=1iℏ[Qf,Qg] It is now known that there is no reasonable such quantization map satisfying the above identity exactly for all functions f and g. For me,am making correspondence to the lie bracket arguments used in the derivation of Riemann tensor with the reasoning that since GR is already established once quantum mechanics couples to GR the rest fall in line including newton's laws. Also am learning what am doing is somehow tantamount to geometric quantization. A good theory should lead you to what you know, don't know(has been established or not yet established), what is to be known and what will be known.

Don't conclude it's wrong because it doesn't make sense...the math is there for you to see,the correspondence argument is there for you to follow...the confusion you are talking about ain't there...am doing what has not been done, it's not that am repeating what has been established...pliz it could be more helpful if you follow my arguments keenly from that point I introduced the issue of Riemann tensor,the issue of overlay as the manifold is being constructed i.e the tensor field. Remember Ricci tensor is a contraction of Riemann tensor, therefore,by dealing with Riemann tensor am dealing with GR..the correspondence joins GR and QM...how else do you think should be done? As I have stated prior the result of all this argument is metric is emergent leading to what you are saying 'you cannot define a sensible position operator for photons'...metric is emerging from uncertainty developing on surface of graviton inform of perturbations...just look at my prior argument..it's not just photon any other massless particle can be used instead, provided it has something measurable as polarization is for a photon.Initial measurements provide for x and of course,photon has momentum that is being affected by presence of any curvature,that will a have eventually an effect on initial photon polarization measurements.i.e your are taking initial measurements let the photon go through the parallelogram loop back to the origin then you make the final measurements...this is done at every point of the manifold...mmm...doing this physically can be challenging therefore a thought experiment is appropriate. That's how strange it is...how else do you explain expansion of the universe...the metric itself is changing..as stated in the prior conclusion metric is emergent....the manifold is expanding...the universe is expanding.

The arguments am presenting hereafter I think will tend to be controversial,anyway,we are still dealing with TOE... welcome back. Let's take a photon to be the vector to be parallel transported hence it's polarization will be taken to be the indicator of this vector direction.we are still using parallelogram loop in this argument. Sides of parallelogram is X,Y and the vector parallel transported (in this case a photon) is Z. As we take the limit of X and Y side to zero to obtain Riemann tensor...the lie bracket [X,Y] significance increases.. therefore,when the manifold is flat [X,Y]=0, however,there is still zero point energy in the background. Let's make a correspondence between the lie bracket used in derivation of Riemann tensor and the canonical commutation lie bracket used in quantum mechanics,that's according to my thinking.The photon being parallel transported it's initial measurements of polarization indicates it's position and as it moves a long the parallelogram loop it's momentum will be affected by presence of any curvature, therefore,it's final polarization measurements difference to the initial measurements,back to the origin point will be not be zero.However,if the manifold is flat the difference will be zero. In canonical commutation the lie bracket is non zero i.e [x^i,p^j]=iℏδij By establishing this correspondence i will equate to X and j will equate to Y.... earlier in my arguments I introduced issue of uniformity of information by that I meant i=j=1 . However perturbation on surface of graviton decouple this relationship i=j=1 leading to i=1=j=-1=0 and therefore,δij=0. This leads to [x^i,p^j]=iℏ*0.hence,[x^i,p^j]=0 therefore,x^i=p^j. This condition reduces ℏ→0. From quantum world of uncertainty to the classical world where observables commute. " THE BIG DEAL is,this ℏ don't just reduce to zero it decomposes/decays to virtual particles i.e 1.054571817...×1034 virtual particles or 6.62607015×10^34 virtual particles for for h "...mmm..! Is it strange?...yes...it's strange somehow. Continuous operation/measurements on every point of the manifold the same thing happens. THE IMPLICATIONS of this;virtual particles becomes elements of the metric tensor... metric is emergent! I intend to include all this on next edition of my book. [x^,p^x]=iℏI I=δij. Where l is the unity operator. In this reasoning these equates to graviton i.e l≡ δij≡graviton.

When a member qualifies to be referred to as residential expert in the forum there should be some element of updates from him/ her...or atleast the moderators to update us about the expert absentia. Specifically am asking about Modred he has been absent for long... anyone with updates?

I think it depends on how local it is...remember to derive Riemann tensor we take a loop where we are parallel transporting a vector on, in this case a parallelogram,all this information is condensed/ compressed as we take the limit of basis vector of the parallelogram to zero..therefore,it's like we are constructing an overlay that becomes our manifold to give us a tensor field, that is,at every point of this manifold a value is assigned depending on the value of Riemann tensor...My argument is that, whatever is on the parallelogram loop, including uncertainties, all is condensed to a point, therefore,if it's effects are negligible on the loop,it's effects will be useless when we condense it to a point by taking the limit to zero...hence..our so called Riemannian manifold or pseudo Riemannian manifold the bed rock of GR becomes insensitive to the most local things(quantum issues)....we should remember by the time GR was developed by Einstein, quantum theory was not fully developed,therefore, I doubt all this is by design..it depended on the information that was there at that particular time, otherwise,they could have stated this manifold is an overlay. It hasn't gotten complicated yet...we have to know how spinors form,the source of electromagnetism, superconductivity, how entanglement is related to gravity...e.t.c...e.t.c..I know you think am mad...it's a TOE..you know,I was once advised to take baby steps in this forum,I was furious at that time,however,it has somehow rewarded me...I never thought I will fully understand GR mathematics...but now I can argue using it ...it has been a reward.

Ha ha ha😂...to get that it was somehow a headache...thanks to repeated online lectures. given that experience...am afraid to get stuck... however,I have do where I can before Age start interfering with my mental strength and memory. Let's take the torsion free formula for example using parallelogram loop...we subtract covariant derivatives along the vector fields after parallel transporting a vector a long the basis vector of infinitesimal loop in this case parallelogram...if the parallel transported vector using a given connection closes we get lie bracket equals zero....now the point is here,to satisfy special theory of relativity the transported vector transfer has to be limited to the speed of light...now the universe is expanding at every other point, however it's effects is negligible at such a point...by the time you are parallel transporting the vector to the other basis vector the length will be different hence as you are doing that uncertainty develops in measurement and therefore,there will be uncertainty in covariant derivatives being commutating or non commutating...all this plays out at the surface topology of a graviton according to what I have... Yes somehow ,maybe to some limit,It will need further clarification,am not there yet. The free parameters of standard model will have to be shown how its related to the graviton and how those parameters contribute to the uncertainty happening on surface topology of a graviton then how graviton is related to being quantum of gravity..i.e related to gravity...for gravity GR is a master.... according to what am doing the link between the two worlds might be or is through lie bracket.. However since we are working with infinitesimal loop parallelogram...approximating lie bracket to zero will give the correct answer for a flat manifold locally.

It depends on the information we have about it...to the necked eyes far away stars are just bright points in the night sky...use a powerful telescope you gain more information and they cease being just bright points. It's true. Am not trying to change GR,am scrutinizing it's framework...a manifold is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space near each point.according to Wikipedia. Unfortunately,this is fundamental to what am saying...hope misspelling is not the cause(out of auto suggestion) Uncertainty from the principal of uncertainty;quantum mechanic....from what you have said, it's then uncertainty in commutation and non commutation. The idea is already developed what am doing is that am in the process of formalizing it... gaining established terms ..so far, as long as am concerned it has helped me unimaginably to get understanding within a short period and have deep intuition about concepts of physics...am scrutinizing the basic framework of physics...I will keep following math but not to the point of losing interest to what am doing .... The details are so huge, to the point of not getting to what I want to achieve if I dip down to the ocean of mathematics.....the best thing is,what is correct is correct irregardless of the mathematics formalism used..I will strive to use simple mathematics concepts where possible(Occam's razor be my guiding principle)