Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

[Vmedvil]

5 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

No, it's a matter of mathematical complexity having to account for number of interactions everything is governed by EFE

Prove it

This term. i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j 

Basically, any term of this ψ

Edited November 29, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

You wouldn't understand the math nor the proof. So I won't bother wasting my time.

Google Action under QFT. Or better yet read a previous post on this thread where I already posted the relevant equations.

Simple enough to confirm just Google "Action, physics and include pdf for better quality articles.

[SuperPolymath]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

You wouldn't understand the math nor the proof. So I won't bother wasting my time.

Google Action under QFT. Or better yet read a previous post on this thread where I already posted the relevant equations.

This math wouldn't be based on the same assumptions behind whatever math you could show me

This is speculations, & earlier in this thread Vmedvil was attempting to use these speculations but you steered him away

[Mordred]

!

Moderator Note

Our Speculations forum has rules, that must adhered to read the pinned threads at the top of this Forum. One of those requirements is mathematical rigor.

 

[Vmedvil]

22 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

This math wouldn't be based on the same assumptions behind whatever math you could show me

This is speculations, & earlier in this thread Vmedvil was attempting to use these speculations but you steered him away

No, but you don't understand I used a fractal form and it still does it, no, that uncertainty principal is valid no matter how you do it, which sucks.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

4 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

No, but you don't understand I used a fractal form and it still does it, no, that uncertainty principal is valid no matter how you do it. 

 The uncertainty is a fundamental property of our universe. It isn't a measurement error as much a many would like to think so.

The distiction between virtual and real particles under QM and QFT arise from this. The internal lines on all Feyman diagrams are the propogators that act on the external lines (Operators). An Operator requires a minimal 1 Quanta. A Planck unit is a unit of action.

[SuperPolymath]

8 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

No, but you don't understand I used a fractal form and it still does it, no, that uncertainty principal is valid no matter how you do it, which sucks.

Are you sure you got the math right?

Try getting Mordred to help you build a model based on the assumption:

54 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

QM is based on action at distance. EFE governs the behavior of commutative quantum automation once you've applied the respective lorentz transformations in scale relativity.

I liked your comments on teleparallelism & QM's incompatibility with it, the mathematical incompatibility itself should tell you something.

You have to define sub-planckian curves by assuming smaller components such as the pseudo-particles or fractional-photon, generating the waves of fractional-graviton (abrupt accelerations cause frame dragging of  the EM field linking polarities) when a solid particle goes solid to wave. It's called particle scattering.

But he won't do it, the main part of his job as a physicist is apparently to keep the truth a secret.

We should call this Einstein: post-SR; declassified

[Vmedvil]

1 minute ago, SuperPolymath said:

Are you sure you got the math right?

Try getting Mordred to help you build a model based on the assumption:

But he won't do it, the main part of his job as a physicist is apparently to keep the truth a secret.

We should call this Einstein: post-SR; declassified

I will explain this way.

 

[SuperPolymath]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 The uncertainty is a fundamental property of our universe. It isn't a measurement error as much a many would like to think so.

The distiction between virtual and real particles under QM and QFT arise from this. The internal lines on all Feyman diagrams are the propogators that act on the external lines (Operators). An Operator requires a minimal 1 Quanta. A Planck unit is a unit of action.

Yes but if there's action occuring at 1/n planck lengths, this changes everything & these changes have to be accounted for

[Vmedvil]

6 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Yes but if there's action occuring at 1/n planck lengths, this changes everything & these changes have to be accounted for

They are too unstable to be accounted for, do you see those complex Big O notations that the computer went through like a bunch of different series and was unable to solve, that were like Big O notation rank 6 that is like saying SO(NNNNNN)

Edited November 30, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

10 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

They are too unstable to be accounted for, do you see those complex Big O notations that the computer went through like a bunch of different series and was unable to solve, that were like Big O notation rank 6 that is like saying SO(NNNNNN)

Yet it's all still dictated by the same laws of motion. You'll just have to be more mathemically precise & innovative with the notation.

[Vmedvil]

2 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Yet it's all still dictated by the same laws of motion. You'll just have to be more mathemically precise & innovative with the notation.

Hell, no its not.

O(n×n×n×n×n×n)

Edited November 30, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

Just now, Vmedvil said:

Hell, know its not.

n×n×n×n×n×n

Lorentz transformations & scale relativity change rates & lengths, not how everything under those rates & lengths behave with each other.

6 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Hell, know its not.

n×n×n×n×n×n

Lorentz transformations & scale relativity change rates & lengths, not how everything under those rates & lengths behave with each other. Gravity is gravity, hyperbolic time or not.

[Vmedvil]

7 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Lorentz transformations & scale relativity change rates & lengths, not how everything under those rates & lengths behave with each other.

Like dude if this is SU(n) = ∑_1.......∑_nx_1.........x_n......n_n  then that is like SU(2xnxnxnxnxnxn) = ∏₁∑_1....2∑_1.......∑_nx_1.........x_n......n_n6

Edited November 30, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

34 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

No, but you don't understand I used a fractal form and it still does it, no, that uncertainty principal is valid no matter how you do it. 

 The uncertainty is a fundamental property of our universe. It isn't a measurement error as much a many would like to think so.

The distiction between virtual and real particles under QM and QFT arise from this. The internal lines on all Feyman diagrams are the propogators that act on the external lines (Operators). An Operator requires a minimal 1 Quanta. A Planck unit is a unit of action.

For Super

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)

Look at the definition of action. Ie no action no motion no change in state.

[SuperPolymath]

3 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Like dude if this is SU(n) = ∑_1.......∑_nx_1.........x_n......n_n  then that is like SU(nxnxnxnxnxn) = ∏₁∑_1.......∑_nx_1.........x_n......n_n6

Someone like Daniel Tammet, or a room of Daniel Tammets, might have found a way around the uncertainty principal because certain people can process information differently, obviously if they had it wouldn't be public knowledge.

[Vmedvil]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 The uncertainty is a fundamental property of our universe. It isn't a measurement error as much a many would like to think so.

The distiction between virtual and real particles under QM and QFT arise from this. The internal lines on all Feyman diagrams are the propogators that act on the external lines (Operators). An Operator requires a minimal 1 Quanta. A Planck unit is a unit of action.

For Super

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)

Look at the definition of action. Ie no action no motion no change in state.

Well, whatever it is is defined as the most horrible 1 Series 2 Series Infinite Series of Series  and a Product Series of series.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 The uncertainty is a fundamental property of our universe. It isn't a measurement error as much a many would like to think so.

The distiction between virtual and real particles under QM and QFT arise from this. The internal lines on all Feyman diagrams are the propogators that act on the external lines (Operators). An Operator requires a minimal 1 Quanta. A Planck unit is a unit of action.

For Super

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)

Look at the definition of action. Ie no action no motion no change in state.

Wow,

31 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Yes but if there's action occuring at 1/n planck lengths, this changes everything & these changes have to be accounted for

Deja vu

[Vmedvil]

11 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Wow,

Deja vu

Yes, but it is completely undefinable whatever that is which is uncertainty like manifest like Dubblesiox said, Dubblesiox are you trying to define this crap.  ∏₁∑_1....2∑_1.......∑_nx_1.........x_n......n_n6 , well it is ∑∑∑∑∏(2,∞,∞,∞,6) Well, No I thought you were trying to define something else; that there is like impossible to define.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

2 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Yes, but it is completely undefinable whatever that is which is uncertainty like manifest 

Just because it hasn't been determined doesn't mean it can't be under commutation between adjacent qubit cells NOT QM's non-locality

8 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

 that there is like impossible to define.

You might get it right enough times to build a quantum cellular automated entanglement gate in the lab if you are looking at a super-computer's animated-graph of a continuously iterating operation and you are this guy:

There are ways.

Edited November 30, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Sigh, this is science not wishful fantasy land

[SuperPolymath]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Sigh, this is science not wishful fantasy land

This is the truth, there is no need for action at a distance (other than the fact that nature is too complex) to explain quantum effects, but this action at a distance is the foundation of QM: math that could be based on a lie.

Edited November 30, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Vmedvil]

4 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

This is the truth, there is no need for action at a distance (other than the fact that nature is too complex) to explain quantum effects, but this action at a distance is the foundation of QM: math that could be based on a lie.

No EFE, Anderson's , My equations, Mordred's equations,Fermilab's equations, Freidmann's, and  Even the Mandelbrot all agree on that it is there.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

22 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Yes, but it is completely undefinable whatever that is which is uncertainty like manifest like Dubblesiox said, Dubblesiox are you trying to define this crap.  ∏₁∑_1....2∑_1.......∑_nx_1.........x_n......n_n6 , well it is ∑∑∑∑∏(2,∞,∞,∞,6) Well, No I thought you were trying to define something else; that there is like impossible to define.

For this model, I wouldn't worry about defining anything. I'd just leave it at notation. The world needs incalculable model, because all options need to be investigated not just those of popular mainstream assumptions.

[Mordred]

I already explained action at  a distance is a misunderstanding popularized by pop media.

 There is no such thing as FTL communication between entangled particles as there is no need for it..However you ignored my reply which is the real science behind entanglement.

I"ve performed some of these experiments myself using the quantum dot detectors and particle entanglement diodes from Toshiba laboratory.