4 minutes ago, joigus said:

"Quantum-scale confinement and energetic saturation" is a wording that strikes me as word salad

If "quantum confinement" is unclear, I'm happy to rephrase — the core mechanism stands.

As you've said you don't want to get into Planck scale discussion again, I’ll keep it simple.

In this model, there's no initial gravity — just high-energy photons in extreme conditions (density, temperature, energy). Under those conditions, photons interact in a way that leads to the formation of gravitons.These conditions were first met at the very of beginning of big bang and all photons didnt become graviton.

Those gravitons then give rise to gravity.

That’s the simple version — no fancy terminology.

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

Methinks this whole thing is a giant leg pull.

No leg pulling here. I’m serious about the framework — but I do admit some of the phrasing may have come off more complex than necessary.

All I meant was: at extremely high energy density (like near Planck scale), a large number of photons in a small region may transition into a new field state — the graviton — which then generates gravity.

I’ll keep the terminology simple from now on.
Thanks for the push to clarify.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

No leg pulling here. I’m serious about the framework — but I do admit some of the phrasing may have come off more complex than necessary.

All I meant was: at extremely high energy density (like near Planck scale), a large number of photons in a small region may transition into a new field state — the graviton — which then generates gravity.

I’ll keep the terminology simple from now on.
Thanks for the push to clarify.

The thing is that if you actually know what you are talking about then it should be the simplest thing in the world to produce a (short) derivation of just one of the several claims you have made that you can predict/calculate.

Let us say Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Then I would have more confidence in following this thread further.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by studiot

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

The thing is that if you actually know what you are talking about then it should be the simplest thing in the world to produce a (short) derivation of just one of the several claims you have made that you can predict/calculate.

Let us say Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Then I would have more confidence in following this thread further.

1 minute ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I didnt want to show it yet but my brain starts lagging when someone questions,yes i used AI to help me in maths,which i openly admit as my goal is to create something new not proving myself everywhere.I have derived values too but i will like to not show yet.It is work done by a kid around 15yr old of age so it might have flaws.But dont be soft even a bit and be honest.

some examples from paper

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Dhillon1724X

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

Methinks this whole thing is a giant leg pull.

I've been thinking of a giant leg-pulling mechanism to explain confinement of opinions and saturation of patience in this particular thread too:

✅ Clarified the misguidance of foundational principle (circular falacy)
✅ Added comments on basic confusion gravity/non-gravity
✅ Checked it lacks basic understanding of gauge principle (void gauge parlance)
✅ Confirmed the level of understanding fits current post-AI gibberishness
✅ Clarified the difference between knowing something and not having a blooming idea of what is means

27 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

If "quantum confinement" is unclear, I'm happy to rephrase — the core mechanism stands.

As you've said you don't want to get into Planck scale discussion again, I’ll keep it simple.

Oh, thanks for dumbing it down for me. I'll reply in kind:

Planck scale implies gravity. It does, it does, it does!

1 hour ago, Dhillon1724X said:

As i said now i have to go to school,now i have limited time,

🧠 This is about the sanest thing you've said so far.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by joigus
minor correction

40 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

photons interact

Not a physics guy, but aren't photons massless and chargeless? How would they interact?

21 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

i used AI to help me in maths

🫣

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Not a physics guy, but aren't photons massless and chargeless? How would they interact?

They don't. Only at very high energies photons scatter other photons in QED. If you introduce gravity, they do interact gravitationally, but very softly.

Photons can do very funny things without interacting though. They can form optical skyrmions, and other topological quasiparticles, as has been found recently.

You are doing a great job, but it is build on so many assumptions that its usefulness seems dubious. We do not know what happens at Planck scale.

It takes a lot to persuade Seniors, but don't be discouraged.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Not a physics guy, but aren't photons massless and chargeless? How would they interact?

Something similar was preached in "the theory of everything". This theory is really hard to take seriously.

2 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Those gravitons then give rise to gravity.

Their field gives rise to gravity, according to quantum mechanics. Most gravitons must have flown into deep space from the Big Bang.

Which just goes to prove how poor your AI is at maths.

You have just managed to demonstrat @joigus ' point about a circular argument.

I you are deriving something the something to be derived is the last thing stated except of course the famous

QED

or Quod erat demonstrandum

7 hours ago, Postdam said:

Their field gives rise to gravity, according to quantum mechanics

Sir you are right but as I mentioned there,it’s simple explaination.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Which just goes to prove how poor your AI is at maths.

You have just managed to demonstrat @joigus ' point about a circular argument.

I you are deriving something the something to be derived is the last thing stated except of course the famous

QED

or Quod erat demonstrandum

Thanks for the feedback. To clarify — I’m not assuming Newton’s law, I’m showing that in the low-energy limit, when the number of gravitons scales with mass via E=mc2E=mc2, the gravitational interaction becomes identical to Newton’s form:

FGG=G(m1c2Eg,0)m2r2=Gm1m2r2FGG=r2G(Eg,0m1c2)m2=r2Gm1m2

This is meant to demonstrate consistency, not a circular derivation. If there's a clearer way you'd suggest structuring the logic to make that distinction sharper, I'm open to improving it.

6 hours ago, studiot said:

I you are deriving something the something to be derived is the last thing stated except of course the famous

Understood. My intent was to show that the expression from my model reduces to Newton’s Law when framed in classical terms — not to derive Newton’s Law from scratch.

But yes, in standard format, I could rephrase it like:

Start with:

FGG=G(m1c2Eg,0)m2r2FGG=r2G(Eg,0m1c2)m2

Then, substituting Eg,0=c2Eg,0=c2, we arrive at:

F=Gm1m2r2Q.E.D.F=r2Gm1m2Q.E.D.

Thanks for the suggestion — I’ll format it more traditionally going forward.

15 hours ago, joigus said:

Planck scale implies gravity. It does, it does, it does!

I now see that mainstream physics includes gravity inherently at the Planck scale. My theory tries to generate gravity from photon behavior instead. That may be non-standard — but I’m working on strengthening the math and logic to make that pathway consistent.

Look, I want to make something clear — I’m completely serious about my work. If there are mistakes or missing elements, I’m willing to fix them.

If someone had told me earlier — clearly and without sarcasm — that my theory lacks proper gauge structure or doesn't align with how gravity is treated at the Planck scale, I would’ve corrected it by now. I’m here to learn as much as to propose.

What I’ve done isn’t a joke, nor is it AI-generated nonsense. It’s a developing framework grounded in real physics: Planck thresholds, photon collapse, energy density, spin-2 coupling, and redshift effects — all mathematically supported. It’s not perfect yet, but it’s not gibberish either.

I’m continuing to refine it, and I’m taking all valid critiques seriously — as long as they’re framed as science, not mockery.

In my model, spacetime did not exist before the Big Bang.
Gravity did not pre-exist either — it emerged when energy density reached the Planck threshold, leading to the formation of gravitons. These gravitons generated curvature, and spacetime emerged as a result of that curvature.

This idea is not unphysical — it's consistent with what standard cosmology already tells us. General Relativity does not define a ‘before’ the Big Bang because time itself begins at t=0t = 0t=0. The Friedmann equations show that space had zero volume at that instant. The Hawking–Penrose theorems predict a spacetime singularity under realistic conditions. As Stephen Hawking famously said: asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what’s north of the North Pole. Even Steven Weinberg, in The First Three Minutes, states that the universe wasn’t expanding into anything — it was space itself expanding.

To be clear, this graviton model is only one part of a larger theoretical framework I’m developing. I chose to present it first, since it requires a focused paper of its own before introducing the full structure.

I do full research before replying too.
I will welcome any further critiques

13 hours ago, Postdam said:

It takes a lot to persuade Seniors, but don't be discouraged.

Thank you — I completely understand that. I’m not here to claim I’ve solved everything, but I’m committed to building this step by step. If I’m wrong, I’ll fix it. If I’m right, I’ll prove it. Either way, I’m here to learn and improve.

2 hours ago, Postdam said:

It takes a lot to persuade Seniors, but don't be discouraged.

Yeah, once someone changes our diaper we become much more open-minded.

3 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I now see that mainstream physics includes gravity inherently at the Planck scale. My theory tries to generate gravity from photon behavior instead. That may be non-standard — but I’m working on strengthening the math and logic to make that pathway consistent.

Look, I want to make something clear — I’m completely serious about my work. If there are mistakes or missing elements, I’m willing to fix them.

If someone had told me earlier — clearly and without sarcasm — that my theory lacks proper gauge structure or doesn't align with how gravity is treated at the Planck scale, I would’ve corrected it by now. I’m here to learn as much as to propose.

What I’ve done isn’t a joke, nor is it AI-generated nonsense. It’s a developing framework grounded in real physics: Planck thresholds, photon collapse, energy density, spin-2 coupling, and redshift effects — all mathematically supported. It’s not perfect yet, but it’s not gibberish either.

I’m continuing to refine it, and I’m taking all valid critiques seriously — as long as they’re framed as science, not mockery.

In my model, spacetime did not exist before the Big Bang.
Gravity did not pre-exist either — it emerged when energy density reached the Planck threshold, leading to the formation of gravitons. These gravitons generated curvature, and spacetime emerged as a result of that curvature.

This idea is not unphysical — it's consistent with what standard cosmology already tells us. General Relativity does not define a ‘before’ the Big Bang because time itself begins at t=0t = 0t=0. The Friedmann equations show that space had zero volume at that instant. The Hawking–Penrose theorems predict a spacetime singularity under realistic conditions. As Stephen Hawking famously said: asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what’s north of the North Pole. Even Steven Weinberg, in The First Three Minutes, states that the universe wasn’t expanding into anything — it was space itself expanding.

To be clear, this graviton model is only one part of a larger theoretical framework I’m developing. I chose to present it first, since it requires a focused paper of its own before introducing the full structure.

I do full research before replying too.
I will welcome any further critiques

Thank you — I completely understand that. I’m not here to claim I’ve solved everything, but I’m committed to building this step by step. If I’m wrong, I’ll fix it. If I’m right, I’ll prove it. Either way, I’m here to learn and improve.

I'm sorry if I've offended you by being sarcastic. But please be aware you're gonna find a lot of that, so take it as a form of training. Many important physicsts have been known to be sarcastic. I'm sure like none of them, but one needs some sharp tool to slash through the nonsense sometimes. I'm reminded of the great Sidney Coleman with "quantum mechanics in your face".

It's very difficult to take your idea seriously because it's obvious you don't fully understand the physical ideas involved.

You said something to the effect of "I'm not assuming gravity, I'm just assuming the Planck scale". I already told you, or implied, that if we have a Planck scale it's only because we have gravity. If you had classical gravity (Newton), SR, and QM, you would already have a Planck scale. It wouldn't be very consistent theoretically, as Newton's gravity is consistent with Galilean relativity, not with SR and the Lorentz group, but you would have that scale and ponder about what it means. It would be pointing you towards the need for a general theory of relativity. And of course, there is such possibility.

If you already had GR and QM, that would automatically define a Planck scale too. And so we are forced to ponder what it means. You see. Universal theories have universal constants.

I could devise a problem in Lagrangian mechanics in which an oscillator is somehow or other forced to oscillate only in integer multiples of the Planck action, like a constraint. The whole thing would be completely classical, and yet Plancks constant would be there. There is no QM, but I've forced Planck's constant into the problem.

Fundamental constants, universal constants, don't come from a mechanical constraint, they're always telling us something much deeper.

You also say in your theory there is no pre-existing space-time, either. But then you talk about a density. Swansont asked you where your density came from, and he asked you for a reason.

So let's rephrase: Where does G come from if there is no gravity and where does a density come from if there's no space time?

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

Yeah, once someone changes our diaper we become much more open-minded.

I'm sorry if I've offended you by being sarcastic. But please be aware you're gonna find a lot of that, so take it as a form of training. Many important physicsts have been known to be sarcastic. I'm sure like none of them, but one needs some sharp tool to slash through the nonsense sometimes. I'm reminded of the great Sidney Coleman with "quantum mechanics in your face".

It's very difficult to take your idea seriously because it's obvious you don't fully understand the physical ideas involved.

You said something to the effect of "I'm not assuming gravity, I'm just assuming the Planck scale". I already told you, or implied, that if we have a Planck scale it's only because we have gravity. If you had classical gravity (Newton), SR, and QM, you would already have a Planck scale. It wouldn't be very consistent theoretically, as Newton's gravity is consistent with Galilean relativity, not with SR and the Lorentz group, but you would have that scale and ponder about what it means. It would be pointing you towards the need for a general theory of relativity. And of course, there is such possibility.

If you already had GR and QM, that would automatically define a Planck scale too. And so we are forced to ponder what it means. You see. Universal theories have universal constants.

I could devise a problem in Lagrangian mechanics in which an oscillator is somehow or other forced to oscillate only in integer multiples of the Planck action, like a constraint. The whole thing would be completely classical, and yet Plancks constant would be there. There is no QM, but I've forced Planck's constant into the problem.

Fundamental constants, universal constants, don't come from a mechanical constraint, they're always telling us something much deeper.

You also say in your theory there is no pre-existing space-time, either. But then you talk about a density. Swansont asked you where your density came from, and he asked you for a reason.

So let's rephrase: Where does G come from if there is no gravity and where does a density come from if there's no space time?

Thank you for the detailed response. I really respect the clarity and seriousness you bring to this discussion — and I’m taking your feedback seriously.

You're absolutely right that Planck units (like Planck energy and length) involve GGG, which is a gravitational constant. I should have clarified that when I refer to the Planck scale in my theory, I'm not treating it as a derived scale from pre-existing gravity — but rather as a natural boundary condition that marks the limit at which classical physics (including geometry) breaks down, and quantum behavior dominates.

In my model, gravity emerges from photon collapse at or beyond this threshold — so in a way, I'm treating the Planck scale not as "caused by gravity", but as the critical energy boundary where a new field (gravity) begins to manifest. You’ve made me realize I need to be clearer about that assumption.

As for the point about density and spacetime: I acknowledge that it seems contradictory to refer to energy density before spacetime exists. My intention was to describe a quantum precursor phase, where the idea of space is not classical or continuous, but instead exists in a primitive, high-energy quantum state — possibly like a pre-geometric background, similar to what's discussed in approaches like loop quantum gravity or causal sets.

In that sense, when I speak of "density," it’s a shorthand for energy-per-cell within a minimal quantum domain — not classical volume. But I agree: I need to define this better and make the transition from pre-geometry to emergent spacetime more rigorous.

I’m still developing the mathematical structure to properly formalize this, and your feedback helps me identify weak spots I need to strengthen.

Again, I appreciate the critique. I’m not claiming to have solved everything — just that I’m committed to building this out as clearly and carefully as I can.

and i dont mind even if you mock me as you are way experienced then me,you know more

18 hours ago, Postdam said:

It takes a lot to persuade Seniors, but don't be discouraged.

Don't worry. I've changed my diaper and I'm all ready to think again.

57 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I'm not treating it as a derived scale from pre-existing gravity — but rather as a natural boundary condition that marks the limit at which classical physics (including geometry) breaks down, and quantum behavior dominates.

What boundary condition? There is no fundamental length scale in electromagnetism. How come a boundary condition for the electrodynamic field produces a fundamental length scale without gravity being involved? Show me that magic.

What kind of "collapse" is that if there is no gravity? Electromagnetic collapse? Do you even understand what collapse means?

This is just plain silly. I think I've had enough. You don't seem to understand any of the arguments. Bad ideas cannot be fixed by incrementally changing them invoking new magic words.

34 minutes ago, joigus said:

Don't worry. I've changed my diaper and I'm all ready to think again.

What boundary condition? There is no fundamental length scale in electromagnetism. How come a boundary condition for the electrodynamic field produces a fundamental length scale without gravity being involved? Show me that magic.

What kind of "collapse" is that if there is no gravity? Electromagnetic collapse? Do you even understand what collapse means?

This is just plain silly. I think I've had enough. You don't seem to understand any of the arguments. Bad ideas cannot be fixed by incrementally changing them invoking new magic words.

I understand your frustration — I’ll try to clarify my intent more carefully.

When I refer to a “boundary condition,” I don’t mean a classical geometric boundary. I’m referring to an energetic threshold — a point at which the behavior of the system transitions from classical to quantum. In my model, the Planck scale is used not as a length derived from pre-existing geometry, but as an abstract limit where quantum gravitational behavior becomes dominant — and curvature (spacetime) emerges.

“Collapse” in my framework refers to a quantum energy concentration process, not a classical gravitational collapse. It's similar to how energy can collapse into matter-antimatter pairs in QED — a quantum effect, not requiring classical gravity beforehand.

I’m not claiming all of this is complete — just that I’m working toward a model where gravitons emerge from high-energy photon states, and gravity is a result, not a starting assumption. I appreciate your critique and agree that the theory still needs refinement, especially in how I define these transitions more rigorously.

I am very-very sorry sir but if i have started then i will end it too.The end can be either birth of a complete theory or just a failure.

On 7/6/2025 at 5:10 PM, Dhillon1724X said:

As for the line “I don’t have to think about the details” —
To be honest, that made you sound amateur and arrogant in my view.

Just a quick note from someone who's been around a while: I tend to approach comments like that a bit differently: with curiosity.
When someone knowledgeable, like @joigus, casually sets something aside within their area of expertise, and I can’t immediately follow why, I take it as a sign that they’re drawing on insights or theories I might not yet be familiar with. That usually prompts me to ask: What am I missing since this seems straightforward to them? How could I go about understanding that better given that I already have a basic grasp of the topic? And from there: Am I curious enough about this particular subject to explore it further?

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Just a quick note from someone who's been around a while: I tend to approach comments like that a bit differently: with curiosity.
When someone knowledgeable, like @joigus, casually sets something aside within their area of expertise, and I can’t immediately follow why, I take it as a sign that they’re drawing on insights or theories I might not yet be familiar with. That usually prompts me to ask: What am I missing since this seems straightforward to them? How could I go about understanding that better given that I already have a basic grasp of the topic? And from there: Am I curious enough about this particular subject to explore it further?

Thanks for that perspective — I really appreciate the way you explained it. You're right, I could’ve approached it with more curiosity instead of sounding dismissive myself. I’ve always tried to take critiques seriously and reflect on them, and in fact, a lot of the feedback I received earlier played a big role in shaping Version 2 of my theory — which will be published soon. So I definitely see the value in listening and re-evaluating.

Sometimes when something doesn’t immediately make sense — especially in areas I’ve been deeply involved with — my response can come off sharper than intended. But your approach of asking “What am I missing?” instead of jumping to conclusions is something I’ll keep in mind moving forward.

Thanks again — I’m still learning, and I genuinely value being part of discussions like this.

Ghideon is known for his engineering common sense. +1

Just looking at what underlies your ideas.

17 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

causal sets.

17 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

n that sense, when I speak of "density," it’s a shorthand for energy-per-cell within a minimal quantum domain

17 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

My intention was to describe a quantum precursor phase, where the idea of space is not classical or continuous,

A few comments.

1) Energy is not a substance. At its simplest is is a property possesed by something, by virtue of its relation to something else. There is no such thing as a cell or bag of energy.

2) You appear to be going from the discret (or granular) to the continuous. Mathematicians like something they call 'disjoint sets'. That is they like to isolate 'elements or members' of a set each into their own subset, which contains nothing else. One of the aspects of all quantum theory is that each 'cell' or level in the system can contain many objects with the same energy. An important part of quantum theory involves studying the consequences of this fact.

3) Personally I am not very interested in what came before the big bang, what came at the big bang, or what came after the big bang - if there ever was one which is not certain.
It is just so easy to imagine/postulate almost anything at all for these times and we see several such proposals most weeks.

Over the past days, several foundational aspects of the original GraviGenesis framework have significantly evolved. As a result, there's a possibility that the theory may soon be renamed to reflect its broader scope — which now extends well beyond gravity alone.

I am still in the process of consolidating these developments, so I won’t reveal details just yet. However, I can say that most of the earlier critiques — including those related to consistency, mathematical structure, and conceptual clarity — have either been resolved or absorbed into deeper formulations.

Thank you to everyone who challenged the model early on. Your critiques genuinely pushed this framework into much more advanced territory.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

1) Energy is not a substance. At its simplest is is a property possesed by something, by virtue of its relation to something else. There is no such thing as a cell or bag of energy.

Sir you are right as always and its my mistake in explaining.But i have fixed this in paper.I keep making mistakes in explanation as i dont have any formal training and sometime use wrong words too.
I will try my best to improve.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

3) Personally I am not very interested in what came before the big bang, what came at the big bang, or what came after the big bang - if there ever was one which is not certain.
It is just so easy to imagine/postulate almost anything at all for these times and we see several such proposals most weeks.

I understand your point, and I agree — it’s easy for Big Bang-related ideas to drift into speculation.
Just to clarify, I’m not developing a new Big Bang theory at this stage. My current work only touches that era because of somethings involved.
It’s hinting toward something deeper, which I’m not ready to reveal yet.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

2) You appear to be going from the discret (or granular) to the continuous. Mathematicians like something they call 'disjoint sets'. That is they like to isolate 'elements or members' of a set each into their own subset, which contains nothing else. One of the aspects of all quantum theory is that each 'cell' or level in the system can contain many objects with the same energy. An important part of quantum theory involves studying the consequences of this fact.

Thanks — you’ve touched on exactly the tension I’m working through.

I did bring up causal sets as a partial analogy, since my framework also builds from discrete quantum elements (gravitons), and tries to recover a smooth geometry from localized causal/curvature nodes.

But you’re absolutely right: unlike strict causal set theory, my model allows overlapping energy states — multiple gravitons can share the same energy level or even coexist within overlapping regions, possibly obeying bosonic statistics.

So instead of strictly disjoint sets, the model is starting to explore field-style degeneracy and quantum stacking, which makes the discrete-to-continuum transition more subtle.

This is one of the next consistency questions I’m trying to formalize. I appreciate your comment — it’s a sharp reminder that not all discreteness is equal, especially when quantum behavior comes into play.

---

On 7/9/2025 at 4:07 PM, Dhillon1724X said:

When I refer to a “boundary condition,” I don’t mean a classical geometric boundary. I’m referring to an energetic threshold — a point at which the behavior of the system transitions from classical to quantum.

That's not what "boundary condition" means in physics. Neither is it a "classical geometric boundary". It is about fixing the value of a field subject to a differential equation at the boundary of a given region.

You must mean something like a phase transition. There's no phase transition from classical to quantum. Those are not different temperature regimes, and no phase transition that I know of transforms a numerical value into an operator. They are different toolkits altogether.

What is this, a Socratic dialogue?

4 hours ago, joigus said:

That's not what "boundary condition" means in physics. Neither is it a "classical geometric boundary". It is about fixing the value of a field subject to a differential equation at the boundary of a given region.

You must mean something like a phase transition. There's no phase transition from classical to quantum. Those are not different temperature regimes, and no phase transition that I know of transforms a numerical value into an operator. They are different toolkits altogether.

What is this, a Socratic dialogue?

You're right — I used “boundary condition” too loosely. I didn’t mean it in the strict PDE sense (like Dirichlet or Neumann conditions on a field). I was referring to a physical threshold — such as energy density or confinement scale — where classical descriptions (like continuous trajectories or fields) become invalid, and quantum behavior (discreteness, uncertainty, operator algebra) becomes necessary.

Maybe “transition of regime” or “quantum activation threshold” would be a better phrase. I also appreciate your point that classical and quantum aren’t different phases like water and ice — it’s not a thermal phase transition but more of a framework switch

Thanks for the correction — it helps me communicate more precisely.

Mind you,

\[ \lim_{\textrm{number of corrections}\rightarrow\infty}\textrm{Bad theory}\neq\textrm{Good theory} \]

I hope you know enough calculus to get the point.

Please refresh the page for LateX display.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Mind you,

limnumber of corrections→∞Bad theory≠Good theory

I hope you know enough calculus to get the point.

Please refresh the page for LateX display.

Yes,you are right.I will not defend it as a good theory.But i will to turn it to one.

I respect you.

56 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Yes,you are right.I will not defend it as a good theory.But i will to turn it to one.

Please come clean.

I would not expect any student of your age to know calculus, least of all to understand what Dirichelet conditions or PDEs are.

I have been responding upon this assumption.

Actually boundary conditions in the widest sense, are vitally important in the real world as you cannot solve anything without them, so they are everywhere in applied maths.

If you want to understand these basic processes you would far better served by asking here than going away and asking an ill informed so called AI.

As @joigus said some while back, mostly you do not need to be able to work out the maths, just to recognise it when you see it or use it.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

If you want to understand these basic processes you would far better served by asking here than going away and asking an ill informed so called AI.

Sir i dont learn from AI.I watch lectures,videos and use google now.I will appreciate if you explain.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

As @joigus said some while back, mostly you do not need to be able to work out the maths, just to recognise it when you see it or use it.

I will keep that in mind.

I do foolish things sometime.
Afterall i am just average student.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

Sir i dont learn from AI.I watch lectures,videos and use google now.I will appreciate if you explain.

So how much calculus do you actually know ??

I can make good use of this knowledge in deciding how to reply (as with the curve sketching).

Do you know for instance that there are many 'calculuses' in Maths ? - It isn't just one thing.