MigL

What ? The 'source' of gravity is energy and momentum. For systems that have trivial momentum, their energy is the main contributor to their gravity, and since energy is conserved ( even when a star collapses to a Black Hole ), their gravity does not 'travel'. If the system is re-arranged, by introducing momentum, then the 'changes in gravity' would travel outwards at the SoL, and if the 'changes in gravity' are asymmetrical, then gravitational waves would be produced. IOW, Black Holes retain the relic gravitational field of the mass-energy that collapsed to form the BH, and would have little, effect on a regional basis. I hope that wasn't supposed to be the supporting evidence, Professor ...

Does PRE not indicate a time, or sequence, prior to the concept of time and sequence being established ? Your argument isn't just grammatically incorrect; it is non-sensical, as there was no PRE-anything. You cannot speak of time before there was time.

OH, you are so immature ...

I don't even know WHAT we are discussing. The link has been removed, as per our rules. Doesn't anyone read the rules before posting on the forum ? I bet these guys don't get invited over very often; they seem to think they can do whatever they want in other people's homes.

I read this as ... 10o North of the North pole, Chortons activate: there is no geometry, no metric, no spacetime. As you go further North of the North pole, limits are reached or cross the Planck threshold: Chortons emerge as quantized curvature nodes on a pre-spacetime quantum graph. As you keep going North, more Chortons form and align: they collectively give rise to a coherent geometric lattice. This lattice defines the emergent latitude and longitude. There is NO space-time. All these things could have happened all at once, in reverse order, or still waiting to happen after trillions of years. Because the concept of time, duration, and sequence, is non-sensical without geometry. What you may have shown is that sufficient local energy density produces a localized curvature of the geometry, but that is well established. You then used AI, in all its 'wisdom', to extend this globally, using stationary but massless 'particles' ( not imaginary in the standard mathematical sense, but rather figment of the imagination ), all while keeping the universe from being still-born from collapsing in on itself at Planck energies and scales. Has anyone else noticed the amount of new advanced theoretical Physics proposals being posted lately ? I guess AI makes every layman think they are a theoretical Physicist these days.

??? Sexual orientation is not a personality trait. What used to be called 'gay behavior' is ( limp wrist, lisp, flamboyance, etc. - sorry about the obvious stereotypes ), but it is not an accurate indication of sexual orientation

You will probably take this the wrong way ( again ), but you have these questions because you don't understand the foundations, and so, ascribe 'deeper meaning' to simple ratios. You know, using AI, I could probably construct an argument that the '=' sign in a relation is a 'property of the variables and constants in that relation, that would sound perfectly acceptable to a non-mathematician. Do you, knowing some math , see a point to that ?

Better to stay 'free thinking' and wrong than constrained by facts/observational evidence and right ??? Yor idea falls apart at the seams; that's where the 'nit-picking' is done. That is commendable, and I applaud your enthusiasm to learn, but why not ask questions instead of asserting 'theories' with questionable assistance from AI ? You don't know how to swim and yet, are jumping into the deep end of the pool. It is easier to 'nit-pick' all the little reasons why your idea is flawed on a forum, than to give you several years of university education so you can see why your idea is flawed ( although Studiot, to his credit, often tries ). Unfortunately, on a forum, we can guide you towards understanding the basics, but you need to do the hard work yourself to understand and put them together.

Just to add my two cents ... Mike should realize that we use mathematical models to describe the workings of physical reality. These models have to be mathematically self consistent, otherwise they are useless. Pi, along with other mathematical constants, and the whole of mathematic theory, are the building blocks and tools used to build the models. The tools and building blocks are not a result of the physical reality. Oh great ... Add more AI content to get further down the rabbit hole.

These are the wrong metrics to use when this type of decision is necessary. If the harm they can do to themselves or society is greater than the 'damage' done to them, then the 'treatment' may be necessary. This is controversial because mental conditions are what make us who/what we are, and some people would extend this to other 'mental conditions' outside the 'normal' ( if psychopathy, why not sexual preference ? ), so I generally don't agree with such 'treatment'. But I can see the need for such in cases, for example, where a person may be cutting, or otherwise damaging, themselves, due to mental instability, or taking street people into shelters against their will in -30o winter conditions. However, this idea is more easily understood if we were to use a physical condition, other than mental, such as infectious diseases like COVID, I, and most other members of this forum, would agree that vaccination be mandatory, to prevent harm to self and society. Even if it has the potential to cause a very small percentage of adverse effects.

If these 'Chortons' ( from which space-time emerges ) don't propagate, how do they manage to establish causal connectivity throughout the universe and the resulting homogeneity and isotropy ?

Before ??? There was no before, as there was no space-time. One could assume that there was also enough energy density to spontaneously create green leprechauns driving pink cadillacs ... Where is the evidence, or the need, for this 'flight of fancy' ?

I noticed you gave some excellent critique and advice to another poster presenting an outlandish idea in another thread. And I thought "great, He's starting to think critically about presented ideas based on whether they correlate with accepted science". But it seems, other than platitudes about advice, you keep forging ahead ( down a dead end road ) and conveniently moving goal posts from a graviton theory ( about which little is known by anyone ) to a possible new particle ( about which nothing is known by anyone ). For what it's worth ... Good luck.

Seems to have happened again with all these questions and contact info posts. its probably a lot to ask of moderators, but maybe new members should not be allowed to post until they reply to a PM from Moderation after submitting an inquiry to join. It would crack down on these 'drive-by' spam posts.

+1 ... compensated for. Reasonableness and a willingness to learn and share knowledge are greatly appreciated.

I don't know if they 'explode', but they do 'pop' a bit when you focus sunlight on them with a magnifying glass. ( yes, I was a cruel child )

It's amazing... That an AI, capable of accessing a wealth of information and misinformation, can come up with support for any ill conceived idea. I suspect we'll get more and more of this; crank ideas, supported by an AI, and taken as factual by the person proposing them.

Not a Physicist Studiot, although I did get an undergraduate degree on Physics over 40 years ago, and have kept an interest. I have been working in the Chemical field for about 40 years; not very interesting, but it pays the bills. And I'm not retired yet; that will happen next April 30th. But thank you for the 'respected' comment 🙂.

Isn't formic acid ( HCOOH ) naturally produced by ants ? But why kill the poor creatures ? Ants follow trails of pheromones which are left by previous ants; that's why they follow winding trails across your floor. Wipe the floor with a mild bleach solution and they lose their way, so they don't come back to the same place.

In 1930 P A M Dirac proposed the 'Dirac Sea', as the relativistically consistent Dirac equation required an equal ( infinite ) number of negative energy states as there are positive, and keep electrons from descending into ever lower energy states without limit. This 'sea' was full of negative energy electrons, and if one was missing it could be considered a positive 'electron', or positron, which was later observed by C Anderson. The Dirac sea interpretation has been replaced by a QFT for the electron, but is that what you had in mind ?

I like to sip good vodka. I don't put drugs in my eyes anymore, but I am on a light blood pressure drug. If any woman is willing to 'engage' with this single old man I am usually agreeable. I'm one of the laziest people I know. Just what are you implying ... 😄 😄

Something @Dhillon1724X should keep in mind ... These fundamental particles ( gauge bosons and fermions, virtual or otherwise ) are the Lego blocks we use to build our models. These models act in accordance to what we observe and measure in reality, in specific areas of application, and invariably all fail outside that area of applicability. ( because reality is not composed of Lego blocks, so we will never observe a 'free' quark and may never observe a graviton ) What observations/experiments do you have that would lead you to think hi-energy photons would 'collapse' to gravitons ? Is this just a mathematical exercise ( as verified by an AI ) unrelated to the physics ? If so, it might be worth exploring ( without the AI ) for your own personal benefit, but it will never be a 'good' theory which models some aspect of reality.

IF gravitons exist, they have an energy density and momentum, both of which gravitate, or bend/curve space-time. These quantum particles are the requirement of quantum field theories, such as QED and QCD. Unless we have a quantum field theory of gravity, we don't have gravitons.

This is absolutely right, however ... When the energy density exceeds the Planck energy within a Planck volume You have gravitational collapse, and an event horizon is formed. I don't know what effect the collision of two hi-energy photons, to produce the required greater than Planck energy density, would produce, but I would assume the momentum simply adds to the energy density to produce the gravitational collapse. Accepted Physics has a mechanism for this. What mechanism do you propose for the creation of a hypothetical particle, the Graviton, which may not actually exist ?

OOPS ! Sorry reading comprehension issues. I had thought you posted we could see galaxies farther back in time than the (origin of ) CMBR, and you had written both in millions of years ( you hadn't ). But observing further back, whether using neutrino emissions or gravitational wave detection, will not be possible for a while, and most certainly will nor observe galaxies.