1 hour ago, Mordred said:

2 hours ago, Genady said:

 

A good example if one were to plot the probability function for the quantum uncertainty principle. One wouldn't get a bunch of wavy sinusoidal lines. It would look more like a probability cloud around a vacuum potential baseline 

Back to my point....

On 5/23/2023 at 9:45 PM, MJ kihara said:

 

 

On 5/23/2023 at 9:45 PM, MJ kihara said:

🤩

Leave the emoji and consciousness....the diagram is having CLOUD like layer....it just not waves....I think nothing I can write here will make sense because people around are defending their perceptions fiercely.... anyway those clouds have a lot to say.

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Remember those five diagrams....if not the explanation...I hope they will defend themselves for a long time to come

Your diagrams are not as informative as you seem to think they are. They might make sense to you, but that doesn’t mean they make sense to anyone else.

52 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Back to my point....

 

Leave the emoji and consciousness....the diagram is having CLOUD like layer....it just not waves....I think nothing I can write here will make sense because people around are defending their perceptions fiercely.... anyway those clouds have a lot to say.

Let's see virtual particles falling back to consciousness hue .

Incorrect that would describe a vector field not a scalar field regardless of what consciousness hue means.

Cloud like layer where no layer walls would exist. Dark matter and dark energy in the same layers 

Nothing correctly described.

Edited June 3, 20232 yr by Mordred

33 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Let's see virtual particles falling back to consciousness hue .

Incorrect that would describe a vector field not a scalar field regardless of what consciousness hue means.

Cloud like layer where no layer walls would exist. Dark matter and dark energy in the same layers 

Nothing correctly described.

Pliz don't misrepresent and manipulate the concept...just to wash it under.....I understand the importance of mathematics,it's an indisputable fact...that doesn't mean any kind of reasoning is useless.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

You obviously don't understand the "simple" formula E=mc^2, too.

Tell me about your understanding of E=mc^2 so that I see how my understanding is wrong.

No you specifically described stable virtual particles falling up with unstable particles falling down to two layered zones.

Where is the misrepresentation when you clearly show that in the image with the statements on the LHS .

Obviously the image gives errors you never intended..

Get the point you wouldn't get that with actual math 

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No you specifically described stable virtual particles falling up with unstable particles falling down to two layered zones.

Where is the misrepresentation when you clearly show that in the image with the statements on the LHS .

Obviously the image gives errors you never intended..

Get the point you wouldn't get that with actual math 

You posted the answer...as I said I hope those diagrams will defend themselves for a long time..

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

cloud around a vacuum potential baseline

I think am done with what I was to discuss concerning the thread.

 

 

46 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Tell me about your understanding of E=mc^2 so that I see how my understanding is wrong.

No, we did this exercise before with the Moon receding from the Earth, and at the end of it you lied about your own answer. I'm not doing it with you again. It is enough that you call this formula "simple" to know that you don't understand its meaning.

They don't if anything a physicist would take one look and completely ignore it. Just as I did.

4 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

 

I think am done with what I was to discuss concerning the thread.

 

 

So am I sounds like a good time to close the thread

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

would take one look and completely ignore it. Just as I did.

If that is the notion...good luck while you try to look for answers about issues of the Universe like baryogenesis...hope you won't take forever.

Lmao, you can trust one thing. I will stick to my university degrees and the methods that those degrees professional trained me in.

 You can also trust images and descriptions will never solve any physics related topic.

 Just a side note virtual particles are never stable...they have insufficient mass/ energy to be stable.

That can be mathematically proved using Breit Weigner cross section with regards to decay rate and mean lifetime.

Edited June 3, 20232 yr by Mordred

The red marks/ticks won't change what is the reality....17 February 1600 Giordano Bruno burnt for going against the establishment of his time.... always happen when people forget history,and become overconfident of themselves that they can not stomach challenges... nothing new.

20 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

....17 February 1600 Giordano Bruno burnt for going against the establishment of his time...

Don't worry you're safe; not that many people will see this thread and I am quite sure none of them will repeat what they saw here.

25 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

The red marks/ticks won't change what is the reality....17 February 1600 Giordano Bruno burnt for going against the establishment of his time.... always happen when people forget history,and become overconfident of themselves that they can not stomach challenges... nothing new.

OT.

G. Bruno has nothing to do with quantum gravity.

32 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

 that they can not stomach challenges... nothing new.

I love challenges, why do you think I enjoy physics so much ? It's challenging. One can accurately model any system or state using the mathematics of physics and subsequently test those theories. There are plenty of non textbook physics theories that attempt to counter well established theories. The difference is they still apply actual physics and mathematics 

You keep ignoring just how important testability is.

Edited June 3, 20232 yr by Mordred

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

I think am done with what I was to discuss concerning the thread.

Promises, promises...

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

If that is the notion...good luck while you try to look for answers about issues of the Universe like baryogenesis...hope you won't take forever.

I can quarantee I won't solve baryogenesis. My research is simply studying where the research currently is on that issue.

Lol too many people think the only job of a physicist is to invent new theories. Most of the work is research.

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Lol too many people think the only job of a physicist is to invent new theories. Most of the work is research.

And a lot of experimental research is finding vacuum leaks and ground loops.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And a lot of experimental research is finding vacuum leaks and ground loops.

Lol currently studying vacuums 

👀😎

😴🤐🤐

Is there any practical application for simplifying Quantum Gravity other than making the Grand unification Theory to make a simulation for our Universe?

Edited June 4, 20232 yr by HawkII

Let's put it way, we have a very good working effective quantum field theory of spacetimes aka gravity for any every day application. It's only the extreme mass density such as the GUT scale that we run into problems with unification.

🤯

GR mathematics part of what i have been outlining partially on this concept...linearised gravity...

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearized_gravity&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi5ys_77q3_AhWrVqQEHSgCARAQFnoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw096VvVCGNwhJPrAQ9b42ne

 

Good way to start, you may note the math I posted earlier uses the same for the GR portion. Well technically including the QFT portion as well.

It also greatly simplifies the math to set \( g=\hbar=c=1\) and work in normalized units. Keep the permutations with \(h_{\mu\nu}\) that's this tensors primary function.

Edited June 6, 20232 yr by Mordred

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

🤯

GR mathematics part of what i have been outlining partially on this concept...linearised gravity...

No, it is not.

On 6/3/2023 at 9:27 PM, Genady said:

No, we did this exercise before with the Moon receding from the Earth, and at the end of it you lied about your own answer. I'm not doing it with you again. It is enough that you call this formula "simple" to know that you don't understand its meaning.

If you  could not get my explanation on moon receding away from Earth after I referred you back to my answer...I thing it's difficult for you to get my thinking on this. Be contended with that... don't be bothered by my thinking.