scifimath

The act of Observation/Measurement is a request of quantum wave information to Spacetime

Recommended Posts

Just now, scifimath said:

How's your theory of everything going for ya?

The one I use is limited, but I can use it to calculate the height of a geostationary orbit. Can yours do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, scifimath said:

How's your theory of everything going for ya?

I'm not daft enough to claim I have one. Nor are any scientists. 

That doesn't validate your idea.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want this if you have it "guesses that contradict known experimental results"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scifimath said:

Yes, meaningless, with 4,500 views for three days.

 

You shouldn't confuse "views" with "accolades".

There is a Youtube compilation of Stupid People Fails that has 1.3 million views. People aren't viewing that video because they admire the actions of the people involved, and people aren't viewing this thread because they realize they are witnessing a major breakthrough in science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for sharing

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is just some handwaving guesses that contradict known experimental results.

yeah, ahh, you don't get to say this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, scifimath said:

I want this if you have it "guesses that contradict known experimental results"

Sigh. As you seem to have forgotten, lets pick a small sample of things from this thread that are either factually incorrect or just wrong. Most of the remaining posts are pretty much incomprehensible because of your poor grasp of English, I'm afraid.

On 8/11/2019 at 1:04 AM, scifimath said:

The state of the particle is decided before it leaves the gun.

On 8/11/2019 at 3:55 AM, scifimath said:

The interaction is someone placing a detector wanting a particle to be physical. Observation is magical ..deal with it.

On 8/11/2019 at 8:46 AM, scifimath said:

Observation is the reason spacetime exits.

On 8/11/2019 at 3:06 PM, scifimath said:

Particles won't be a duality at the same time.

On 8/11/2019 at 3:06 PM, scifimath said:

The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that the entire life of the particle is known. It will know if it will pass through a detector in its path.

On 8/11/2019 at 6:38 PM, scifimath said:

Unobserved Quantum waves are not part of spacetime.

On 8/11/2019 at 6:45 PM, scifimath said:

No, it's the entire life of both particles. The first particle knows if the partner will ever be observed.

5 hours ago, scifimath said:

I want to add that I think there is a good chance a black hole is a spherical gap in spacetime with the unobservable quantum realm exposed.

2 hours ago, scifimath said:

The mass in a blackhole is unobservable.

1 hour ago, scifimath said:

I'm upsetting the apple cart with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what I asked for

you don't have experimental results

What you have, is what was drilled into your head to never question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scifimath said:

What you have, is what was drilled into your head to never question.

He has critical thinking skills, which allows one to question EVERYTHING.

What you seem to have is laziness wrt formal study. You've justified it as "I'm so intuitive I don't need it". You're wrong. You're being offered the accumulated knowledge of humankind, reviewed using the most powerful methodology we've ever discovered, and you're saying, "No thanks, I can make up more believable garbage than THAT!"

Really, best of luck to you. I'm so very sorry you can't see the trees because you don't know what a forest is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scifimath said:

That's not what I asked for

That was a selection of your random guesses that contradict known science (or just make no sense). 

In response to: 

Quote

I want this if you have it "guesses that contradict known experimental results"

But maybe your English is worse than I thought, and you didn't mean you wanted examples of your guesses that contradict known science.

1 hour ago, scifimath said:

you don't have experimental results

Science is entirely based on using evidence to confirm theories. So that is a ludicrous statement.

1 hour ago, scifimath said:

What you have, is what was drilled into your head to never question.

As I have seen several major changes in science in my lifetime, which have overthrown "what was drilled into my head", I have learned that all science is always open to question. This requires evidence, of course.

The idea that science is dogmatic is one of the more idiotic tropes of the crackpot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If I had experimental results going against what I'm saying ..I wouldn't be saying them.

Edited by scifimath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scifimath said:

If had experimental results going against what I'm saying ..I wouldn't be saying them.

Presumably, you are just ignorant of the scientific evidence that contradicts your claims. People here have tried to explain some of your errors but you refuse to listen. You have demonstrated yourself to be closed-minded and unwilling to learn, so I am not surprised by your ignorance of the evidence.

It would have been more productive to study some science, instead of wasting your time making up random nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scifimath said:

If had experimental results going against what I'm saying ..I wouldn't be saying them.

You claimed "the mass in a black hole is unobservable", yet we have tested them, and found we have methods for determining their mass. For instance, the SMBH at the center of our galaxy is approximately 4.6 million times the mass of our own sun.

So why did you say what you did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you didn't read my clarification then? Maybe try attacking my actual theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, scifimath said:

so you didn't read my clarification then?

So what you meant was that matter is not observable in a black hole? That is not exactly a surprise to anyone; it is obvious from the definition of a black hole.

Quote

Maybe try attacking my actual theory.

Show us some quantitative, testable predictions (using mathematics) and we will see if you have a "theory".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, scifimath said:

present something and I'll fight it.

Alright I'll present something approaching a GUT without being one. We still have to keep gravity renormalizeable .We already have the EM strong and weak fields unified...

[latex] \mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/latex]

 [latex]D_\mu[/latex] minimally coupled gauge covariant derivative. h Higg's bosonic field [latex] \chi[/latex] is the Goldstone boson (not shown above) Goldstone no longer applies after spontaneous symmetry breaking [latex]\overline{\psi}[/latex] is the adjoint spinor

[latex]\mathcal{L}_h=|D\mu|^2-\lambda(|h|^2-\frac{v^2}{2})^2[/latex]

[latex]D_\mu=\partial_\mu-ie A_\mu[/latex] where [latex] A_\mu[/latex] is the electromagnetic four potential 

QCD gauge covariant derivative

[latex] D_\mu=\partial_\mu \pm ig_s t_a \mathcal{A}^a_\mu[/latex] matrix A represents each scalar gluon field

 

 

Single Dirac Field

[latex]\mathcal{L}=\overline{\psi}I\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-m)\psi[/latex]

under U(1) EM fermion field equates to 

[latex]\psi\rightarrow\acute{\psi}=e^{I\alpha(x)Q}\psi[/latex]

due to invariance requirement of the Langrene above and with the last equation leads to the gauge field [latex]A_\mu[/latex]

[latex] \partial_\mu[/latex] is replaced by the covariant derivitave

[latex]\partial_\mu\rightarrow D_\mu=\partial_\mu+ieQA_\mu[/latex]

where [latex]A_\mu[/latex] transforms as [latex]A_\mu+\frac{1}{e}\partial_\mu\alpha[/latex]

Single Gauge field U(1)

[latex]\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

[latex]F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\nu A_\mu-\partial_\mu A_\nu[/latex]

add mass which violates local gauge invariance above

[latex]\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{2}m^2A_\mu A^\mu[/latex] guage invariance demands photon be massless to repair gauge invariance add a single complex scalar field

[latex]\phi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_1+i\phi_2[/latex]

Langrene becomes

[latex] \mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+|D_\mu \phi|^2-V_\phi[/latex]

where [latex]D_\mu=\partial_\mu-ieA_\mu[/latex]

[latex]V_\phi=\mu^2|\phi^2|+\lambda(|\phi^2|)^2[/latex]

[latex]\overline{\psi}=\psi^\dagger \gamma^0[/latex] where [latex]\psi^\dagger[/latex] is the hermitean adjoint and [latex]\gamma^0 [/latex] is the timelike gamma matrix

the four contravariant matrix are as follows

[latex]\gamma^0=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&-1&0\\0&0&0&-1\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\gamma^1=\begin{pmatrix}0&0&0&1\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&-1&0\\-1&0&0&0\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\gamma^2=\begin{pmatrix}0&0&0&-i\\0&0&i&0\\0&i&0&0\\-i&0&0&0\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\gamma^3=\begin{pmatrix}0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&-1\\-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

where [latex] \gamma^0[/latex] is timelike rest are spacelike

V denotes the CKM matrix usage

[latex]\begin{pmatrix}\acute{d}\\\acute{s}\\\acute{b}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}V_{ud}&V_{us}&V_{ub}\\V_{cd}&V_{cs}&V_{cb}\\V_{td}&V_{ts}&V_{tb}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}d\\s\\b\end{pmatrix}[/latex] 

[latex]V_{ckm}=V^\dagger_{\mu L} V_{dL}[/latex]

the CKM mixing angles correlates the cross section between the mass eigenstates and the weak interaction eigenstates. Involves CP violations and chirality relations.

Dirac 4 component spinor fields

[latex]\gamma^5=i\gamma_0,\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3[/latex]

4 component Minkowskii with above 4 component Dirac Spinor and 4 component Dirac gamma matrixes are defined as

[latex] {\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu}=2g^{\mu\nu}\mathbb{I}[/latex] where [latex]\mathbb{I}[/latex] is the identity matrix. (required under MSSM electroweak symmetry break}

in Chiral basis [latex]\gamma^5[/latex] is diagonal in [latex]2\otimes 2[/latex] the gamma matrixes are

[latex]\begin{pmatrix}0&\sigma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}\\\overline{\sigma^{\mu\dot{\alpha}\beta}}&0\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\gamma^5=i{\gamma_0,\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3}=\begin{pmatrix}-\delta_\alpha^\beta&0\\0&\delta^\dot{\alpha}_\dot{\beta}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\mathbb{I}=\begin{pmatrix}\delta_\alpha^\beta&0\\0&\delta^\dot{\alpha}_\dot{\beta}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

Lorentz group identifiers in [latex](\frac{1}{2},0)\otimes(0,\frac{1}{2})[/latex]

[latex]\sigma\frac{I}{4}=(\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu)=\begin{pmatrix}\sigma^{\mu\nu\beta}_{\alpha}&0\\0&-\sigma^{\mu\nu\dot{\alpha}}_{\dot{\beta}}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\sigma^{\mu\nu}[/latex] duality satisfies [latex]\gamma_5\sigma^{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}I\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\tau}\sigma_{\rho\tau}[/latex]

a 4 component Spinor Dirac field is made up of two mass degenerate Dirac spinor fields U(1) helicity 

[latex](\chi_\alpha(x)),(\eta_\beta(x))[/latex]

 

[latex]\psi(x)=\begin{pmatrix}\chi^{\alpha\beta}(x)\\ \eta^{\dagger \dot{\alpha}}(x)\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

the [latex](\alpha\beta)=(\frac{1}{2},0)[/latex] while the [latex](\dot{\alpha}\dot{\beta})=(0,\frac{1}{2})[/latex]

this section relates the SO(4) double cover of the SU(2) gauge requiring the chiral projection operator next.

chiral projections operator

[latex]P_L=\frac{1}{2}(\mathbb{I}-\gamma_5=\begin{pmatrix}\delta_\alpha^\beta&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]P_R=\frac{1}{2}(\mathbb{I}+\gamma_5=\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\ 0&\delta^\dot{\alpha}_\dot{\beta}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

 

Weyl spinors

[latex]\psi_L(x)=P_L\psi(x)=\begin{pmatrix}\chi_\alpha(x)\\0\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\psi_R(x)=P_R\psi(x)=\begin{pmatrix}0\\ \eta^{\dagger\dot{a}}(x)\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

 

 

also requires Yukawa couplings...SU(2) matrixes given by

[latex]diag(Y_{u1},Y_{u2},Y_{u3})=diag(Y_u,Y_c,Y_t)=diag(L^t_u,\mathbb{Y}_u,R_u)[/latex]

[latex]diag(Y_{d1},Y_{d2},Y_{d3})=diag(Y_d,Y_s,Y_b)=diag(L^t_d,\mathbb{Y}_d,R_d[/latex]

[latex]diag(Y_{\ell 1},Y_{\ell 2},Y_{\ell3})=diag(Y_e,Y_\mu,Y_\tau)=diag(L^T_\ell,\mathbb{Y}_\ell,R_\ell)[/latex]

the fermion masses

[latex]Y_{ui}=m_{ui}/V_u[/latex]

[latex]Y_{di}=m_{di}/V_d[/latex]

[latex]Y_{\ell i}=m_{\ell i}/V_\ell[/latex]

Reminder notes: Dirac is massive 1/2 fermions, Weyl the massless. Majorona  fermion has its own antiparticle pair while Dirac and Weyl do not.  The RH neutrino would be more massive than the LH neutrino, same for the corresponding LH antineutrino and RH Neutrino via seesaw mechanism which is used with the seesaw mechanism under MSM. Under MSSM with different Higgs/higglets can be numerous seesaws.  The Majorona method has conservation violations also these fermions must be electric charge neutral. (must be antiparticles of themselves) the CKM and PMNS are different mixing angels in distinction from on another. However they operate much the same way. CKM is more commonly used as its better tested to higher precision levels atm.

Quark family is Dirac fermions due to electric charge cannot be its own antiparticle. Same applies to the charged lepton family. Neutrinos are members of the charge neutral lepton family

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this an argument against something I said or are you just being a jerk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scifimath said:

nope, you already said everyone proved me wrong somehow

Taking your ball and going home? 

How can you seriously read the responses you've been given and NOT see where your arguments have fallen short? While you're making up shit, others have been trying to teach you some science.

WHY DID YOU COME HERE IF YOU AREN'T INTERESTED IN SCIENCE??? It's. A. Science. Discussion. Forum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, scifimath said:

Maybe try attacking my actual theory.

"Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

2 minutes ago, scifimath said:

Is this an argument against something I said or are you just being a jerk?

Please learn to use the Quote function so we can tell who your are insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, scifimath said:

Is this an argument against something I said or are you just being a jerk?

Settle down. A GUT is a Grand Unification Theory, what you've been calling a Theory of Everything. It's just in a language you don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, scifimath said:

nope, you already said everyone proved me wrong somehow

 

3 minutes ago, scifimath said:

Is this an argument against something I said or are you just being a jerk?

We really need to set an age limit on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scifimath said:

I gave responses to your out-of-date history lessons

Who is that addressed to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.