Quantum gravity simplified.

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

The issue is that anything new, stones are thrown to it....can you speculate about old already proven fact...there seems to be a taste of how things should be.

All the time but the difference is I can validate or invalidate any personal theory of mine with proven mathematical methods.

Latest example is proving to myself sterile neutrinos would be insufficient to account for baryogenesis. All done mathematically.

The mathematics I used are those in this thread involving to majorana mass terms for sterile neutrinos

 

See the difference in methodology? I can validate or invalidate ant personal theory. I regularly do so.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Latest example is proving to myself sterile neutrinos would be insufficient to account for baryogenesis. All done mathematically.

What are sterile neutrino?...i.e their properties briefly,of course not using mathematical symbols just explanation ,so that I see how I can deal with them using this concept.

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

What are sterile neutrino?...i.e their properties briefly,of course not using mathematical symbols just explanation ,so that I see how I can deal with them using this concept.

Google it.

[MJ kihara]

I will do it of course..however

10 minutes ago, Genady said:

Google it.

What about this,

4 hours ago, Genady said:

I can speculate in good faith. You don't do it in good faith, this is a point.

 

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

What about this,

4 hours ago, Genady said:

I can speculate in good faith. You don't do it in good faith, this is a point.

 

What part don't you understand?

[Mordred]

37 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

What are sterile neutrino?...i.e their properties briefly,of course not using mathematical symbols just explanation ,so that I see how I can deal with them using this concept.

Sterile neutrinos = right hand =anti neutrinos. They are predicted by the standard model but we have yet to detect them. One of the reasons is they have a different cross section with the Higgs interaction via the seesaw mechanism it is predicted to be far more massive.

[MJ kihara]

After reading Wikipedia article to have an overview of sterile neutrino...is that they are massive,they interact only through gravity,they are supposed to be right handed,they are candidate of dark matter.

From my concept is that they don't exist in this universe,may be exist in parallel universe if there is such a thing.

They are not candidate for dark matter,if we follow that route to search for dark matter we may end up spending another millennium searching for it.

Fundamental understanding of gravity should be through entanglement... dark matter mass should not be expected to be obtained through the normal mechanisms..i.e Higgs mechanism e.t.c

Those points are from my understanding of the concept am trying to lay out.

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

baryogenesis

What are the issues of baryogenesis? Of course just explanations.. just a few.

[Bufofrog]

22 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

if we follow that route to search for dark matter we may end up spending another millennium searching for it.

Another 1000 yrs?  What are you talking about?

23 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Fundamental understanding of gravity should be through entanglement... dark matter mass should not be expected to be obtained through the normal mechanisms..i.e Higgs mechanism e.t.c

You are clearly just making up things that sound like science to you.  That is not science however, that is more like idle guessing based on nothing.

[MJ kihara]

5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You are clearly just making up things that sound like science to you.

Am just visualizing those diagrams that you dismissed, to give me answers and help me interpreting issues such as sterile neutrinos.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

Fundamental understanding of gravity should be through entanglement...

Do you have a rigorous treatment of this, or are you just offering up buzzwords?

Entanglement is a particular correlation of states. It’s not its own interaction.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

Am just visualizing those diagrams that you dismissed, to give me answers and help me interpreting issues such as sterile neutrinos.

This is not true. What you do throughout this entire thread is making up pseudo-scientific statements and declaring them resulting from your diagrams.

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

After reading Wikipedia article to have an overview of sterile neutrino...is that they are massive,they interact only through gravity,they are supposed to be right handed,they are candidate of dark matter.

From my concept is that they don't exist in this universe,may be exist in parallel universe if there is such a thing.

They are not candidate for dark matter,if we follow that route to search for dark matter we may end up spending another millennium searching for it.

Fundamental understanding of gravity should be through entanglement... dark matter mass should not be expected to be obtained through the normal mechanisms..i.e Higgs mechanism e.t.c

Those points are from my understanding of the concept am trying to lay out.

What are the issues of baryogenesis? Of course just explanations.. just a few.

Your point of view doesn't really account for much. Baryogenesis relates to the question " why is there more positive matter than antimatter in our universe " that is the unsolved question. The issue is we still do not know the reason.

Dark matter and dark energy are place holder terms. Regardless of the name both have been confirmed through a wide range of observational tests. This is why your opinion on that is irrelevant..

Observational evidence takes precedence.

It is clear you don't understand the major theories with regards to cosmology. Instead of trying to reinvent physics in regards to quantum gravity. Perhaps your time would be better spent through study of GR QM and cosmology.

Here this might help better understand cosmology without being too math heavy.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.

[MJ kihara]

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Dark matter and dark energy are place holder terms. Regardless of the name both have been confirmed through a wide range of observational tests. This is why your opinion on that is irrelevant..

The issue is that you didn't not look at my diagram and you are judging based on that...put the issue of consciousness aside, dark energy and dark matter is fundamental not just found somewhere else in the universe,it's at the core of elementary particles i.e dark matter has dark matter particle...not just a place holder term....it's there in the diagram....infact as per this concept  as the universe was evolving from past to present those early galaxy left behind dark matter (dark matter particles) at the centre of their blackholes which formed cosmic voids.

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Baryogenesis relates to the question " why is there more positive matter than antimatter in our universe " that is the unsolved question. The issue is we still do not know

The concept am outlining has an explanation on that,and it has something to do with universe expansion...I have diagrams to illustrate that...all that, it's in a book...I know the rules doesn't allow book advertising,it's there a 125 pages, i just put here samples of what i see relevant....the main point,is that, it has to do with expansion of the universe and thermodynamics equilibrium.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Entanglement is a particular correlation of states. It’s not its own interaction.

Not just buzzwords, Yes a correlation of states,for us it's just a correlation of state since we are limited by measurements problems but for spacetime particles(a.k.a virtual particles) correlation indicate extend of exchange of information through their eigen space.

7 hours ago, Genady said:

This is not true. What you do throughout this entire thread is making up pseudo-scientific statements and declaring them resulting from your diagrams.

To me saying just a field and not explaining it's source,why and where from? sounds not just pseudo-scientific but magic.

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

The issue is that you didn't not look at my diagram and you are judging based on that.

 

  Diagrams are rather pointless, they don't do much good in physics. The exceptions being those directly related to mathematical representations, example Feymann diagrams

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

..infact as per this concept  as the universe was evolving from past to present those early galaxy left behind dark matter (dark matter particles) at the centre of their blackholes which formed cosmic voids.

The concept am outlining has an explanation on that

 

this is all a diagram is good for. Concepts......

 The mathematics is the steps needed to go from concept of imagination to testability with observational evidence. Mere concepts do not good. I always find the avoidance of the mathematics needed surprising in so many that try to do so.

 The very job of a physicist is to have the tools needed to make testable predictions of cause and effect. The mathematics performs that job. If you ever wish to truly develop your model, your going to need them. I recommend starting with the FLRW metric. Its a good stepping stone to modelling fields.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

it has to do with expansion of the universe and thermodynamics equilibrium

Those diagrams I didn't dream about them I used simple mathematics....up quark charge +2/3 and down quark charge -1/3 I tried to come up with a diagramatical way of understanding such issue...it worked that way....I wonder what is wrong with using simple mathematics over complicated math to understand the working of nature.

All said and done...as you have already said.

11 hours ago, Mordred said:

Observational evidence takes precedence.
 

Those simple math,simple diagrams and simple concepts helps me understand the way nature work...at least I sleep knowing am not in the wilderness of the unknown...the universe, am part of it...no issue of being born and no issue of dying...it's just the way it is.

Its unfortunate to some, nature doesn't work the way they feel it should or would want to force it to work.

[Genady]

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

To me saying just a field and not explaining it's source,why and where from? sounds not just pseudo-scientific but magic.

It is not what you don't say that makes your blabbering pseudo-scientific. It is what you say.

You repeatedly say wrong things. You use words from science, but you don't understand their meaning in science. 

The worst symptom is that when others point to your mistakes and to your misunderstandings you reply that it is them who don't understand.

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

at least I sleep knowing am not in the wilderness of the unknown

If your misunderstandings help you sleep better, it is an issue between you and your therapist and it has nothing to do with a science forum discussion.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Not just buzzwords, Yes a correlation of states,for us it's just a correlation of state since we are limited by measurements problems but for spacetime particles(a.k.a virtual particles) correlation indicate extend of exchange of information through their eigen space

1. That’s not entanglement, which has no information exchange after the entanglement is in place

2. Virtual particles are already identified in quantum physics. If that’s what you mean, use that terminology rather than introducing new terminology.

3. “exchange of information through their eigen space” is just more word salad

4. A model and/or evidence are required in speculations. You’ve not provided anything substantial 

[MJ kihara]

Remember those five diagrams....if not the explanation...I hope they will defend themselves for a long time to come...they are easier to visualize,when writing pages and pages of mathematics becomes hectic...let's have the spirit of making science accessible and universal to the crackpots,laymen and strawmen and to the majority without degrees in physics.

[Mordred]

You don't need to be a physicist to understand physics.  Nor do you have to be a mathematician. The major formulas aren't that complex. 

 We have plenty of members that have a solid understanding physics without knowing beyond the basic equations.

 Those equations however are essential when modelling. Diagrams and verbal descriptions is not modelling.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Mordred

[Genady]

29 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Remember those five diagrams....if not the explanation...I hope they will defend themselves for a long time to come...they are easier to visualize,when writing pages and pages of mathematics becomes hectic...let's have the spirit of making science accessible and universal to the crackpots,laymen and strawmen and to the majority without degrees in physics.

If it were correct, I would be all for it. But it is wrong. It does not promote the spirit of making science. It promotes only misunderstandings and false illusions of understanding. Knowing that one does not understand something is better than wrongly believing that they do.

[Mordred]

24 minutes ago, Genady said:

If it were correct, I would be all for it. But it is wrong. It does not promote the spirit of making science. It promotes only misunderstandings and false illusions of understanding. Knowing that one does not understand something is better than wrongly believing that they do.

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 

One of the most common mistakes is people trying to draw a particle wavefunction is to draw a symmetric sinusoidal waveform. That looks nothing like what a detector would show for a particles wavefunction.

Another highly inaccurate visual representation is spacetime drawings. They are never accurate.

Hence pictures are useless they are never accurate. Accuracy comes from making plots of test results. Not random drawings.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Mordred

[Genady]

I think that this video describes very accurately the case of this thread and many others of this kind. Most or all of the features and elements she talks about in the video are present in and characterize the constant stream of theories of everything these forums experience, by the form and by the contents. Our main advantage compared to her is that we are hidden. Or are we?

 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Mordred 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 

One of the most common mistakes is people trying to draw a particle wavefunction is to draw a symmetric sinusoidal waveform. That looks nothing like what a detector would show for a particles wavefunction.

Another highly inaccurate visual representation is spacetime drawings. They are never accurate.

Hence pictures are useless they are never accurate. Accuracy comes from making plots of test results. Not random drawings.

Amen.

All of this reminds me of the famous letter from Pauli to Heisenberg:

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

If it were correct, I would be all for it. But it is wrong. It does not promote the spirit of making science. It promotes only misunderstandings and false illusions of understanding. Knowing that one does not understand something is better than wrongly believing that they do.

It is seems I don't know what to say...what am doing is not some kind of a movy or a video...look at this....

On 5/14/2023 at 12:29 PM, MJ kihara said:

 

 

Am NOT wrong...you refuting those diagrams you ARE dead wrong...that single diagram....its just a wonderful summary...of how many physics mathematical formulars? Just count.

You want to make me think am hallucinating...am not ... simplicity make science accessible to the masses just like a simple formular E=mc^2.

 

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

It is seems I don't know what to say...what am doing is not some kind of a movy or a video...look at this....

Am NOT wrong...you refuting those diagrams you ARE dead wrong...that single diagram....its just a wonderful summary...of how many physics mathematical formulars? Just count.

You want to make me think am hallucinating...am not ... simplicity make science accessible to the masses just like a simple formular E=mc^2.

 

Yes, this diagram is not wrong. It is empty of contents. It is not a summary of anything in physics. It is just nonsense.

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