5 hours ago, chron44 said:

Hopefully this work-declaration can be understood. From other engaged physicists.

It’s very apparent that what you're discussing is philosophy, so I’m not sure why you expect engagement from physicists

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

You need to say what these quantities u, g, f are. I am also a bit dubious about the value of an expression that contains an infinity symbol multiplied by a quantity and equates that to what looks like a sum of energies.

You seem to have copy-pasted this from somewhere. What is the source you are quoting?

---------------------------------------------------------------
The post refining and correction time isn't on my side ...
----------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully I here can make my arguments valid, so ....
---------------------------------------------------------

Of course, it's from my own homepage in physics, with some other stuff by me in the last 25 years.

And I did refine the the edges of the *.jpg which I copied and pasted here, that's why the first past of it is absent in their comments, if ppl were hasty in answering this last post from me.

Ppl usually have some problems if inserting an "infinity" symbol in formulas. Still in the manner "infinity" is used here it should be Okay. -It doesn't involve renormalization as physics normally do in similar cases.





This "expression" is trying to - depict - the assembling function of "infinity" of the most "natural" and possible electric/gravitational components by default. In the most early tendencies of the "void" with one single complex "dual character" component behaving accordingly to statistical normal distribution. Which is lacking in this expression, but is ontologically written in text. The u/g entity correspond to a very early, pre t=0, before-plasma and before-particle epoch of a t<0 condition. This and arguably more ontological reasonable depicting exist in the homepage writing.

I understand that this is very unorthodox physics, still a general ontological possible scenario for microcosm exotic "energy" or entity realizing to reality conditions. Some proof of this can be the finding of a second physics - correct - vacuum regulation formula, which not yet is presented here. Although it passes several physics "stress" tests, and still haven't collapsed to "rubbish".

Let this take time to either throw it on the scrap heap, or to reconcile such ideas for a second chance.

/chron44

13 minutes ago, chron44 said:

---------------------------------------------------------------
The post refining and correction time isn't on my side ...
----------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully I here can make my arguments valid, so ....
---------------------------------------------------------

Of course, it's from my own homepage in physics, with some other stuff by me in the last 25 years.

And I did refine the the edges of the *.jpg which I copied and pasted here, that's why the first past of it is absent in their comments, if ppl were hasty in answering this last post from me.

Ppl usually have some problems if inserting an "infinity" symbol in formulas. Still in the manner "infinity" is used here it should be Okay. -It doesn't involve renormalization as physics normally do in similar cases.





This "expression" is trying to - depict - the assembling function of "infinity" of the most "natural" and possible electric/gravitational components by default. In the most early tendencies of the "void" with one single complex "dual character" component behaving accordingly to statistical normal distribution. Which is lacking in this expression, but is ontologically written in text. The u/g entity correspond to a very early, pre t=0, before-plasma and before-particle epoch of a t<0 condition. This and arguably more ontological reasonable depicting exist in the homepage writing.

I understand that this is very unorthodox physics, still a general ontological possible scenario for microcosm exotic "energy" or entity realizing to reality conditions. Some proof of this can be the finding of a second physics - correct - vacuum regulation formula, which not yet is presented here. Although it passes several physics "stress" tests, and still haven't collapsed to "rubbish".

Let this take time to either throw it on the scrap heap, or to reconcile such ideas for a second chance.

/chron44

You have not answered my question, which is what quantities do u, g, and f represent? They must each stand for some quantitative property if your expression is to make any sense.

If first answering on swansont's issue about physics versus philosophy .... (Having trouble of pasting his comment.)

My own comment of some earlier post by me:
It though gives an astonishing "ontological" reasonable answer on the BB's a bit "constructed" but widely accepted inflation add. -Mainly through an alternative on the BB idea's complex solution of the Horizon problem, as a first major congruence. The alternative, with a thoroughly presented ontology, is not suitable for hasty and brief encounters like in forums. However, if being most "pro" physicist like, which I not am, I can briefly there present a BB parallel ontological answer concerning the steps before universal recombination, and how it affects the Horizon problem, more rationally handled there than the inflation add in the BB theory. After the recombination "incident" the alternative ontology cannot in - essence - be separated from QM, QFT, SM, and so on.

To me this cite reasoning of the second "phase" of the BB parallel ontology, on a hasty glance resembles of average physics for Okay physicists.

/chron44

Edited Monday at 02:02 PM5 days by chron44

16 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You have not answered my question, which is what quantities do u, g, and f represent? They must each stand for some quantitative property if your expression is to make any sense.

Generally we are, or at least I am, talking about pre universal most early conditions. Where neither fields nor particles exist. In the strict BB alternative ontological scenario also time and space are nor yet established. Still, my intention is to "decrypt" (let's say quasi physically) the source of electromagnetism and gravity. Where "preliminary", u stands for tension, this exactly phrase. And g stands for gravity, as it is physically expressed at this very early pre "void" stance. This IS philosophy in a broader sense, I admit this. But, in the vicinity of the "famous" 3000K recombination cooling level (this also occur in the parallel BB ontology at the exactly same temperature and with exactly the same particles). -My QEB initial energy assembling "expression" in this first QEB universal phase, is not in action any more. The universal vacuum regulation condition, with the big charge neutrality from exactly same amounts of electrons and protons, is fine tuned by the photon/electron complementary interaction. -We cannot in a physics basic tradition make any form of measurements behind the t<0 wall. We therefore cannot specify u nor g in a the realms of what we consider to be true physics. This is the sad t<0 situation. We can only theoretically interpolate and extrapolate behind the t<0 wall. Your issue is by default impossible to answer on without quasi physics, or extrapolating on what we can measure. T<0 looks like a form of a Schrödinger cat in such specific issues.

So, my answer is u stands for "tension" in the pre universal t>0 epoch, which BB never can depict. Neither can g be physically looked on behind the t<0 BB wall. Such quasi physics is the only manner to solve the latest anomalies and negative BB observations. -As the too smooth CMB, too big first galaxies. Small but significant different universal ages depending on internal parallel BB math. And as mentioned in some posts earlier from me about the BB "inflation" add, it is not even necessary for explaining the Horizon problem. In the, BB parallel ontology's, regulated universe it never is a problem. It seems to be the "natural" geometry, identity and the dynamics (the regulation characteristics) of the start of the t=0 vacuum.

So, much speaks for a need of some "quasi physics" for to handle the latest BB negative observations.

/chron44

Edited Monday at 03:30 PM5 days by chron44
spelling

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

Generally we are, or at least I am, talking about pre universal most early conditions. Where neither fields nor particles exist. In the strict BB alternative ontological scenario also time and space are nor yet established. Still, my intention is to "decrypt" (let's say quasi physically) the source of electromagnetism and gravity. Where "preliminary", u stands for tension, this exactly phrase. And g stands for gravity, as it is physically expressed at this very early pre "void" stance. This IS philosophy in a broader sense, I admit this. But, in the vicinity of the "famous" 3000K recombination cooling level (this also occur in the parallel BB ontology at the exactly same temperature and with exactly the same particles). -My QEB initial energy assembling "expression" in this first QEB universal phase, is not in action any more. The universal vacuum regulation condition, with the big charge neutrality from exactly same amounts of electrons and protons, is fine tuned by the photon/electron complementary interaction. -We cannot in a physics basic tradition make any form of measurements behind the t<0 wall. We therefore cannot specify u nor g in a the realms of what we consider to be true physics. This is the sad t<0 situation. We can only theoretically interpolate and extrapolate behind the t<0 wall. Your issue is by default impossible to answer on without quasi physics, or extrapolating on what we can measure. T<0 looks like a form of a Schrödinger cat in such specific issues.

So, my answer is u stands for "tension" in the pre universal t>0 epoch, which BB never can depict. Neither can g be physically looked on behind the t<0 BB wall. Such quasi physics is the only manner to solve the latest anomalies and negative BB observations. -As the too smooth CMB, too big first galaxies. Small but significant different universal ages depending on internal parallel BB math. And as mentioned in some posts earlier from me about the BB "inflation" add, it is not even necessary for explaining the Horizon problem. In the, BB parallel ontology's, regulated universe it never is a problem. It seems to be the "natural" geometry, identity and the dynamics (the regulation characteristics) of the start of the t=0 vacuum.

So, much speaks for a need of some "quasi physics" for to handle the latest BB negative observations.

/chron44

What is f?

And what is E?

Hi, again

I myself find these BB alternative issues most interesting. Probably some of you are initially sound skeptic, this is how physics is "made". I therefore have to adjust the BB t<0 and t=0 related time stances to correlate with the BB parallel universal evolutionary "frames. Since these are "synchronized" and has the "same" "QM" general physics starting from the 3000K cooling procedure. The BB parallel ontology's time frame of t=0, does "naturally" start when photons are freed from the electrons and start producing hydrogen atoms with the protons.. This cannot be changed at in the BB challenger.

One interesting coincidence is that in this manner the ever first universal observable event, of the CMB blackbody radiation, in fact becomes to our universal birth. Early BB "ideas", like the inflation and the inflaton, interpolating/extrapolating birth of elementary particles, plasma and even singularity points of exceptional density. -Which, all similar events in standard BB physics are not fully confirmed "ideas", stays as advanced "guesses" to the BB widely accepted theory. Unfortunately lately some disproven and, in a puzzled novel astrophysics stance, not fully acknowledged in recent more and more refined observations of long range and high tech data of universe's very early stages. When, the parallel BB ontology in a physics manner does answer on these latest observed universal anomalies, with rational precision. This is the true strength of the BB challenger. -In this manner we can look behind t<0 time, the formerly BB inflation epoch, still with advanced guesses, now at least better correlated with recent observations.

I really will try to continue my QEB postulate and my vacuum regulating physics, when time is on its side.

/chron44

48 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What is f?

And what is E?

The QEB postulate:





These are frank issues, and I try to answer in a "frank" "QEB" manner:

f_infinity, function of infinity, is the physical view on infinity. Which not is to be swapped or mixed with mathematical infinity.

E is the classical and the relativistic energy frame also seen in SR.

In the QEB "expression" E stands for the energy frame seen into (conceptually transformed to) the forthcoming the t=0 start and further on to present time. Since the QEB "expression" is active in t<0, t=0, and continually to t0 time frame. QEB is active in all existed and existing time stances as a source for energy.

/chron44

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

The QEB postulate:





These are frank issues, and I try to answer in a "frank" "QEB" manner:

f_infinity, function of infinity, is the physical view on infinity. Which not is to be swapped or mixed with mathematical infinity.

E is the classical and the relativistic energy frame also seen in SR.

In the QEB "expression" E stands for the energy frame seen into (conceptually transformed to) the forthcoming the t=0 start and further on to present time. Since the QEB "expression" is active in t<0, t=0, and continually to t0 time frame. QEB is active in all existed and existing time stances as a source for energy.

/chron44

So this is all gibberish, then. None of the quantities in your equation have any defined physical meaning at all.

37 minutes ago, exchemist said:

So this is all gibberish, then. None of the quantities in your equation have any defined physical meaning at all.

Of course it's gibberish, which is why the OP can't or won't put forward any relationship between Physics and Geometry to explain the thread title.

Do anyone who "name" any physics formula, expression or postulate to "gibberish" that include "infinity" being able to differ on physical versus mathematical variants of "infinity"? For to note that this difference is real and comprehended? Observe that I don't claim the QEB "expression" to be physics in the scholar sense. The QEB is a mind and an otological starting help of the impossible measurement reality of early BB and other initial BB challengers. We can never measure t<0 stances. -Only observe large scale events and make more or less "advanced" predictions via extrapolations and interpolations with different methods. Still present physics does search in similar and adjacent types of postulates. Mainly because recent "BB" high tech data over universal most early evolution tries to reconcile the small but puzzling observations. Can anyone else confirm or disprove my posting here in this sense?

How can we differ on t<0 stances with postulated not-time and non-space stances including non-measurable physics quantities if not making "reasonable" postulates for such environments? It is in need of "out-of-the-box thinking.

Novel physics or mind leading postulates, whether gibberish or not in essence, often meet skepticism by default first encounter.

/chron44

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

Novel physics or mind leading postulates, whether gibberish or not in essence, often meet skepticism by default first encounter.

Being met with skepticism is not any indication that your material has validity.

“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

―Carl Sagan,

8 hours ago, chron44 said:

Do anyone who "name" any physics formula, expression or postulate to "gibberish" that include "infinity" being able to differ on physical versus mathematical variants of "infinity"? For to note that this difference is real and comprehended? Observe that I don't claim the QEB "expression" to be physics in the scholar sense. The QEB is a mind and an otological starting help of the impossible measurement reality of early BB and other initial BB challengers. We can never measure t<0 stances. -Only observe large scale events and make more or less "advanced" predictions via extrapolations and interpolations with different methods. Still present physics does search in similar and adjacent types of postulates. Mainly because recent "BB" high tech data over universal most early evolution tries to reconcile the small but puzzling observations. Can anyone else confirm or disprove my posting here in this sense?

How can we differ on t<0 stances with postulated not-time and non-space stances including non-measurable physics quantities if not making "reasonable" postulates for such environments? It is in need of "out-of-the-box thinking.

Novel physics or mind leading postulates, whether gibberish or not in essence, often meet skepticism by default first encounter.

/chron44

Yes indeed, "whether gibberish or not". And this, I'm sorry to say, is gibberish. It is certainly not novel physics, nor does it contain any identifiable "mind leading" postulate. It is just a jumble of words.

I've tried to give you a chance to clarify what you are saying, recognising English is not your first language (at least, I fervently hope that it is not!), but I have had to give up.

It is useless for you to waffle pompously about "ontology" if you cannot express an idea clearly.

It is also inexcusable to post a mathematical formula without being able to define the quantities it purports to relate to one another. Mathematics is used to describe quantitative relationships between entities that can take mathematical values. Familiar examples would include things like energy, momentum, mass, electric charge, mechanical force, etc. If you are not describing entities of this kind you have no business posting mathematical formulae.

Edited Tuesday at 07:51 AM4 days by exchemist

8 hours ago, exchemist said:

t is also inexcusable to post a mathematical formula without being able to define the quantities it purports to relate to one another. Mathematics is used to describe quantitative relationships between entities that can take mathematical values. Familiar examples would include things like energy, momentum, mass, electric charge, mechanical force, etc. If you are not describing entities of this kind you have no business posting mathematical formulae.

I' not a professional physicist, I'm a interested layman. Still, I obviously am at least not "picking" on ppl who tries to search and make thesis out of impossible physics. If you are a physicist with any knowledge of universal science on t<0 to t=0, up to about 1 second of alpha physics you should be supporting any similar postulates or thought efforts.

I am an ordinary human with human spontaneous and interested projects and search for the world and its conditions. Being supporting should be a standard approach in t<0 physics.

/chron44

9 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes indeed, "whether gibberish or not". And this, I'm sorry to say, is gibberish. It is certainly not novel physics, nor does it contain any identifiable "mind leading" postulate. It is just a jumble of words.

I've tried to give you a chance to clarify what you are saying, recognising English is not your first language (at least, I fervently hope that it is not!), but I have had to give up.

Furthermore, I can just only copy an earlier post from me, to this above comment:

On 5/4/2026 at 5:24 PM, chron44 said:

-We cannot in a physics basic tradition make any form of measurements behind the t<0 wall. We therefore cannot specify u nor g in a the realms of what we consider to be true physics. This is the sad t<0 situation. We can only theoretically interpolate and extrapolate behind the t<0 wall. Your issue is by default impossible to answer on without quasi physics, or extrapolating on what we can measure. T<0 looks like a form of a Schrödinger's cat in such specific issues.

/chron44

50 minutes ago, chron44 said:

I' not a professional physicist, I'm a interested layman. Still, I obviously am at least not "picking" on ppl who tries to search and make thesis out of impossible physics. If you are a physicist with any knowledge of universal science on t<0 to t=0, up to about 1 second of alpha physics you should be supporting any similar postulates or thought efforts.

I am an ordinary human with human spontaneous and interested projects and search for the world and its conditions. Being supporting should be a standard approach in t<0 physics.

There is no t<0 physics. “alpha physics” is also, AFAICT, not a thing, but that could be because you’re not using standard terminology (so it is, quite literally, gibberish, though that does not mean it is meaningless) You have to communicate more clearly.

Being supporting does not mean being credulous.

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

I' not a professional physicist, I'm a interested layman. Still, I obviously am at least not "picking" on ppl who tries to search and make thesis out of impossible physics. If you are a physicist with any knowledge of universal science on t<0 to t=0, up to about 1 second of alpha physics you should be supporting any similar postulates or thought efforts.

I am an ordinary human with human spontaneous and interested projects and search for the world and its conditions. Being supporting should be a standard approach in t<0 physics.

/chron44

Furthermore, I can just only copy an earlier post from me, to this above comment:

/chron44

Don't make up nonsense maths then. It makes you look at best a fool or at worst a charlatan.

I'm as happy as anyone to be supportive of people who can articulate an idea sufficiently clearly that readers can understand it. But at the moment you are nowhere close to meeting that standard. So the best service I can do you is to point that out, so that you can get your act together and learn to communicate well enough to be taken seriously.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

There is no t<0 physics. “alpha physics” is also, AFAICT, not a thing, but that could be because you’re not using standard terminology (so it is, quite literally, gibberish, though that does not mean it is meaningless) You have to communicate more clearly.

Yes, I'm using my "own" physics vocabulary, so I try to explain what I mean with t<0 physics. -In my own parallel BB, depicted with a better proved and hence better reasoned, "ontology".

The time scales between the "ordinary" BB and my parallel BB "challenger" are "shifted in their synonymous time phases". The ordinary BB idea reason with "inflation" the phase where the dense "singularity" energy "point" during a very short time frame in an extreme eruption goes through several phases. Via its energy "field" called inflaton, that among some other aspects explains the Horizon problem. Where thereafter, at large, the main particles of photons ,electrons and protons are created, maybe in different order. At the cooling temperature of 3000K hydrogen is made via "recombination", which manifests in the present first possible observable universal- birth "sign", of the CMB radiation.

-In "ordinary" physics this is the time where the dimensionless charge coupling - constant - "alpha" in a still "unknown" physics manner settles as a probabilistic ratio for the photon-electron interaction. -And in my BB "challenger" ontology this moment also occur at the same cooling temperature of 3000K with the same particles at the same interaction "ratio". I call this moment in my BB "challenger for t=0.

Where the ordinary BB idea sets the t=0 when the singularity energy "point" is activated with the inflation in a following start of universal geometric evolution and production of the main entities mentioned among other elementary particles and fields. Hence, the ordinary BB idea cannot go before t=0, cannot "see" behind the t<0 wall. Where the BB challenger, the parallel BB "ontology", with much written "explanation","by definition start at the 3000K/"recombination" phase, start at t=0. -And hence can "see" before t=0, see behind the t<0 wall.

Because, with the BB "challenger", the inflation phase with its inflaton field, never occur. But is "explained" in a much otherwise manner. -By an "ontology" that is more "rational" and has recent, early universal empirical, "observations" that matches astonishing - better - than the ordinary BB "idea" does.

Or for short, I use my own concealed "ontological" vocabulary. Unfortunately in a bit or a rather "unfair" manner towards ppl who not are "familiar" with this "explanation".

Still, it's my work we are dealing with. However, physics is for the concerned group. These are the "parameters" which may be involved with the "emotions" expressed from the science discussed in this type of forums.

/chron44

For to describe, in physics more commonly understood events; from using "concealed" explanations and text behind expressions like "alpha physics", to a rather condensed but better phrasing, by depicting physically familiar stances. One may say something like this:

"The introduction of alpha physics vocabulary in physics, realizes the start of the atomic universe."
-Where the standard astrophysical view evolves, from a complex phase of plasma physics to the start of discrete reality.

It's not a common physics phrase, still a conceptual shift from "impossible" mathematics to matter focused astrophysics.

And I sincerely hope and believe that Einstein would have appreciated such a shift of focus in physics. This may be done with the QEB "expression" (reasons of my "t<0" "quasi-physics") and its newly discovered "t=0" resulting, fully functioning, physics formula. Though not yet presented. The "illusive" start of universe may be swapped to a "discrete" variant.

How about it?

/chron44

11 hours ago, chron44 said:

Yes, I'm using my "own" physics vocabulary, so I try to explain what I mean with t<0 physics. -In my own parallel BB, depicted with a better proved and hence better reasoned, "ontology".

That’s like going to a foreign country and refusing to speak their language.

And “reasoned ontology” does not dictate physics. Science has to be compared to experiment/observation, so it must make testable predictions. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. If it can’t be compared, even in principle, it’s not science.

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

How about it?

Well this is the first post you have made that I can actually understand.

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

"The introduction of alpha physics vocabulary in physics, realizes the start of the atomic universe."
-Where the standard astrophysical view evolves, from a complex phase of plasma physics to the start of discrete reality.

I am not very interested in matters long ago or long into the future or far away or inaccessibly large or small as I do not think we have anywhere near enough information to gain access to these extremes.
Further I have seen hypotheses come and go so many times that I have lost interest.

I can however appreciate a rational sequence of presentation.

If we are going to postulate a big bang, cmb, inflation and later processes certain things follow.

For cmb to arise, moving charged particles are necessary.

For motion to exist, both space and time are necessary.

For plasma to arise charged particles are again necessary.

But an explanation of why and how they combine to form primitive atoms is necessary.

and so on.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That’s like going to a foreign country and refusing to speak their language.

And “reasoned ontology” does not dictate physics. Science has to be compared to experiment/observation, so it must make testable predictions. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. If it can’t be compared, even in principle, it’s not science.

Hi, again

I can merely answer issues like this and other similar questions in this manner:

And for to "prove" that I'm not joking or try to con anyone here. I can initially, and as a first "rational" common and basic physics - result - among several other physics main answers here present the "Swiss army knife" tool, "overbridge" the QM and GR physics gap. A most anticipated and hopefully a very welcomed issue. This "tool" should "cover" the "t=0" vacuum's uniform and seemingly long lasting universal regulated condition. Seen over our present 13.8 billion years span from the "t=0" "recombination" and alpha constant start. I still use my "vocabulary. Even, when I do notice and comprehend the physics community's objections. Be lenient with - new - and, yet, non-standard physics.

It though is a correct physics formula, that needs its right place in fair astrophysics.

The UBD, the Universal Background Driver, formula which is - "evoked" - from the QEB energy assembling "expression":

The same function of the UBD with a more physics strict notation:



The historical "anomaly" between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) stems from the lack of a shared scaling mechanism. The Universal Background Driver (UBD) introduces a time-dependent geometric operator, h⁰ (t), which functions as the fundamental "bridge" between the gravitational constant (G) and the quantum action (h).

The UBD does not replace the Standard Model or General Relativity; it provides the operational ledger that allows them to interact without mathematical divergence. It defines the vacuum not as "empty space," but as a Background Driver that continuously calculates the geometric requirements for the existence of discrete matter.

The former QM and GR "anomaly" is hereby declared for minimized.

/chron44

I would be most interested to learn how angular momentum connects relativity and quantum mechanics.

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

I would be most interested to learn how angular momentum connects relativity and quantum mechanics.

The UBD formula used for "bridging" the QM and GR aspects is best understood from the strict version. This version is the UBD formula in its full power. The angular momentum part in the non-strict UBD version hints the "legacy" of how I found the UBD at all. It was through analyzing exotic massive photons in extreme early QEB (t<0) stances, initially configuring to later "plasma" "evoking" "void". Just note over how the gravity "ratio" versus the tensional "ratio" behave dynamically. Therefore thoroughly observe, that the QEB "tool" is much more complex than thought at first glance. (One also understands its "powerful" breakthrough functions when applying statistical normal distribution to it. -When you never have to renormalize it.) -So is the UBD formula. Being a most concerned "layman" physicist I have really "struggled" with these both "tools" for over 20 years. (Professionally, I'm a fair low power electronics and computer hardware/software engineer. )

The QEB:

The strict UBD version:

In the strict UBD version the angular momentum is absent and "only" the vacuum's pixelizing tendency (QM), the zeroized h-bar, "hint" a link to G (AKA GR). This should answer on your question.

This tool is a general vacuum regulation rule in junction with the Planck power constant, and this constant is only seen from the vacuum's global regulation characteristics where c and G both are its anchors. -When this tool has been proven in many stress tests during the last half year.

And UBD fully, with the initial QEB "behavior" hinted in this post also, answers on your criteria asked in some posts earlier for any form of a BB or an alternative scenario. The primitive atom formation is moreover answered on when QEB in its later stages has, electrons and protons available with, much free photons. The QEB is more "explanatory" than it may reveal for a schooled physicist, but very "intriguing" for a system minded engineer.

All these later posts are complex, even for advanced physicists. When, my "trick" here is the more than 20 years focusing on astrophysical issues.

/chron44

Edited Wednesday at 03:25 PM3 days by chron44
refining text

5 hours ago, chron44 said:

Hi, again

I can merely answer issues like this and other similar questions in this manner:

And for to "prove" that I'm not joking or try to con anyone here. I can initially, and as a first "rational" common and basic physics - result - among several other physics main answers here present the "Swiss army knife" tool, "overbridge" the QM and GR physics gap. A most anticipated and hopefully a very welcomed issue. This "tool" should "cover" the "t=0" vacuum's uniform and seemingly long lasting universal regulated condition. Seen over our present 13.8 billion years span from the "t=0" "recombination" and alpha constant start. I still use my "vocabulary. Even, when I do notice and comprehend the physics community's objections. Be lenient with - new - and, yet, non-standard physics.

It though is a correct physics formula, that needs its right place in fair astrophysics.

The UBD, the Universal Background Driver, formula which is - "evoked" - from the QEB energy assembling "expression":

The same function of the UBD with a more physics strict notation:



The historical "anomaly" between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) stems from the lack of a shared scaling mechanism. The Universal Background Driver (UBD) introduces a time-dependent geometric operator, h⁰ (t), which functions as the fundamental "bridge" between the gravitational constant (G) and the quantum action (h).

The UBD does not replace the Standard Model or General Relativity; it provides the operational ledger that allows them to interact without mathematical divergence. It defines the vacuum not as "empty space," but as a Background Driver that continuously calculates the geometric requirements for the existence of discrete matter.

The former QM and GR "anomaly" is hereby declared for minimized.

/chron44

If your "h", which is just a number increasing with the square of time, is an "operator" , what does it operate upon? Give an example of how to use it.

3 hours ago, chron44 said:

The UBD formula used for "bridging" the QM and GR aspects is best understood from the strict version. This version is the UBD formula in its full power. The angular momentum part in the non-strict UBD version hints the "legacy" of how I found the UBD at all. It was through analyzing exotic massive photons in extreme early QEB (t<0) stances, initially configuring to later "plasma" "evoking" "void". Just note over how the gravity "ratio" versus the tensional "ratio" behave dynamically. Therefore thoroughly observe, that the QEB "tool" is much more complex than thought at first glance. (One also understands its "powerful" breakthrough functions when applying statistical normal distribution to it. -When you never have to renormalize it.) -So is the UBD formula. Being a most concerned "layman" physicist I have really "struggled" with these both "tools" for over 20 years. (Professionally, I'm a fair low power electronics and computer hardware/software engineer. )

The QEB:

The strict UBD version:

In the strict UBD version the angular momentum is absent and "only" the vacuum's pixelizing tendency (QM), the zeroized h-bar, "hint" a link to G (AKA GR). This should answer on your question.

This tool is a general vacuum regulation rule in junction with the Planck power constant, and this constant is only seen from the vacuum's global regulation characteristics where c and G both are its anchors. -When this tool has been proven in many stress tests during the last half year.

And UBD fully, with the initial QEB "behavior" hinted in this post also, answers on your criteria asked in some posts earlier for any form of a BB or an alternative scenario. The primitive atom formation is moreover answered on when QEB in its later stages has, electrons and protons available with, much free photons. The QEB is more "explanatory" than it may reveal for a schooled physicist, but very "intriguing" for a system minded engineer.

All these later posts are complex, even for advanced physicists. When, my "trick" here is the more than 20 years focusing on astrophysical issues.

/chron44

Well I know what 2pi is and I know what G is and I assume c is the conventional speed of light.

But what is t please in your strict UBD ?