Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 5/3/17 at 20:45pm UTC, wrote Maybe quanta results because there is simply always more energy than there...

Quantum Antigravity: on 4/15/17 at 5:18am UTC, wrote Hello, I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific...

Amrit Sorli: on 9/17/16 at 15:41pm UTC, wrote my book ADVANCED RELATIVITY is now online...

amrit: on 8/30/16 at 8:07am UTC, wrote Quantum space-time is pure illusion. Space in not made out of Quanta, but...

Joe Fisher: on 8/12/16 at 15:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Ming, The National Science Foundation shelled out $1.32 million to...

Ming the Merciless: on 8/12/16 at 12:18pm UTC, wrote There was a time that promised never to end, in which people would read...

Joe Fisher: on 7/18/16 at 14:57pm UTC, wrote Georgina, Nothing does indeed mean nothing, primarily because nothing has...

Georgina Woodward: on 7/18/16 at 6:56am UTC, wrote Dear Joe nothing means nothing, it doesn't contain any information. That it...



FQXi FORUM
October 19, 2017

ARTICLE: In Search of a Quantum Spacetime [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Sky Leach wrote on Jun. 23, 2016 @ 14:13 GMT
I've been playing with vector spaces and divergent spaces (Sobolev Spaces) in some models and I've found a lot of promise in describing time (causation) as a spiner matrix.

I'm curious if anyone else has explored this? The idea is that classical physics causation are conflated outcome collapse vectors. Quantum states are independent causal frames. We can know points of causation, but not the vector of causation within the closed frame.

Each quantum frame (set of entangled states) has an independent and unknowable (impossible to directly observe without changing the state) causative vector. The causative vector is carried by a fourier transform harmonic of internal causative interaction along the boundary which describes the order of entangled observer interactions. CPT-symmetry is described as a sphere for each entangled particle so that the order of interactions is constantly oscillating between expansion and collapse of a wave form that works like a fractal (a series of differentials) that carries a specific harmonic frequency.

The resulting harmonics can be combined to describe classical physics field interactions (Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak nuclear force and gravity). Since each of the fields is a fractal that grows or diminishes as it diverges from the center of the interaction.

Am I totally out on a limb here, or does this make sense to anyone else?

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 23, 2016 @ 14:47 GMT
Hello. One real observable Universe must consist only of one unified observable infinite physical surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. This utterly simple truth is of course completely unscientific.

Of course you are going to find insoluble problems in physics because you are trying to create finite laws that could account for finite invisible quanta moving through finite invisible space.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 23, 2016 @ 17:58 GMT
Ah, my comment was deleted?!? Bravo, Seal Carroll!

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 23, 2016 @ 20:40 GMT
In my deleted comment I tried to explain that, since spacetime is a deductive consequence of Einstein's 1905 postulates, it cannot be "recovered" from other premises. "The question of whether one can recover spacetime itself from the ideas of quantum mechanics" is not even wrong.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 24, 2016 @ 14:50 GMT
Pentcho,

Einstein’s equation e=mc². A finite amount of invisible energy must be exactly equal to a finite invisible amount of mass multiplied by the constant speed of invisible light moving through a finite sized invisible vacuum tube multiplied by its invisible light self is utterly incorrect. No part of visible infinite surface is exactly equal to any other part.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 24, 2016 @ 08:58 GMT
Dear Zeeya wwhy we cannot answer to sky ? we have not the reply.What is this circus on LinkedIn and now here ?I don't understand.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Jun. 25, 2016 @ 03:37 GMT
For goodness sake, congratulations to Sean Carroll for his grant from fxqi. Although Sean dabbles in mutiverses, which seem to me to be the same as any supernatural agent of belief, Carroll is also very skilled at math.

Sooner or later, he and others will discover the truth of our discrete reality. That truth should have been sooner, but truth is always better than the alternative.

It is a mystery to me why science cannot even agree about what it disagrees about...perhaps Sean can help...

report post as inappropriate

Sky Leach replied on Jun. 25, 2016 @ 12:05 GMT
agree

As to the discovery of truth, keep this in mind:

Math is a language that describes series of events with precision.

There always comes a point where you simply have to include some philosophy as assumption. Math can be descriptive, even predictive, but it can't answer why things happen the way that they do.

Like with all other language, this provides the context within which the mathematics gain their meaning.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 26, 2016 @ 04:00 GMT
...and of course, the matter wave of the universe is the key to the truth. If science can break out of the prison of time and space, they will finally realize the nirvana of matter and action. The universe only needs the duality of matter and action and time and space both emerge nicely from that duality.

There are no singularities with matter and action since all spatial displacement and time are due to the periods of quantum action. Since there are no zero periods of quantum action of 1/tau at action centers of mass, there are no singularities like 1/r at body centers.

Such a simple proposition should result in a simple universe...

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 26, 2016 @ 18:57 GMT
Hi,I agree totally with the first part of yoyr comment Mr Agnew,the second for me is not correct,but of course it is just my opinion, a simple nursery man,a simple cultivator of flowers and plants :) the second part seems lacking of two foundamentals important, the coded gravitational singularitiesHow can we have this general analyse,the codes are essential ?All is coded and these codes are created.The emergence of properties are due to intrinsic codes and these stable series encode furthermore respecting this entropical evolution of matters.The foundamental of matter is not the photon Mr Agnew,it is not possible considering the necessity to have a gravitational chief orchestra.The zero absolute is intriguing considering this gravition.I beleive strongly that if an infinite entity above our understanding exists and has created this physiclity.I am doubting that this infinite entropy has created a prison where we cannot travel between stars and galaxies even.The earth is a big village, the universe also.If we remain,we stay in this special relativity,never we shall travel Inside this universe.It is just that we are Young at this universal scale.We evolve quietly and it is welllike that, already that we are not able to harmonise this planet :) The matter Mr Agnew is more than we can imagine;more more far of our human interpretation.Don't forget our thinkers thinking in god if I can say,Tesla, Newton,Einstein ...and so more had understood the matter energy evolution by encodings spiritually speaking.Photons are just a tool,the energy matter is more than this simple analyse.It is not possible simply.Regards

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 26, 2016 @ 13:10 GMT
One real observable Universe must consist only of one unified observable infinite physical surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. This utterly simple truth is of course completely unscientific.

I have notified forty active Physics Professors of the simple fact that only infinite unified surface is common to everything physical. Not one of these professors has disputed it. Yet they persists in denying publication of my truth in any scientific journal on the grounds scientists do not want to know anything about observable literal physical truth. Scientists only want to keep on exchanging reams of codswallop about invisible quantum particles and invisible black holes in invisible empty space.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


DURGADAS DATTA. wrote on Jun. 27, 2016 @ 10:49 GMT
Quantum space -time is just gravitoetherton granules. First of all time is to be separated from space. Time is a space point variable as dictated by atomic clock due to force of gravity. Gravity varies due non isotropic directional push by the presence of gravitons. Gravitons are flowing like arrows towards center of earth . As such the concentration get increased by a factor 1/R.R. Therefore measurement of time depends on the atomic clock which varies with its position in space. So the time measurement varies from place to place. We do not know whether Newton is correct in saying that universal time which Einstein explained relative from reference frame to reference frame. Does that mean time dilation is actually measurement dilation. So I prefer not to attach space with time as space=time. Then what do we mean by quantum space-time? Space is gravitoetherton super fluid consisting of many dark/white particles including graviton . If we `fill all space with water then quantum space may be water molecules. Space will acquire the property of water. Space may considered as total empty stage where drama of all its contents take place. Our space is dark energy which I named gravitoetherton super fluid. In earlier days, we used to call it ether also. Even now Newton is right in space and time concept. I am attaching two papers --one commented in ASTRONOMY.NET IN YEAR 2003 and another published soon after to give some ideas about our approach for a new physics.

attachments: 1_I_Think_Dr._Datta_Makes_A_Valid_Point_-_an_Astronomy_Net_Blackholes_Forum_Message22.htm, 1_New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 27, 2016 @ 15:03 GMT
Dear Durgadas,

One real observable Universe must consist only of one unified observable infinite physical surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. This utterly simple truth is of course completely unscientific.

Visible surface does not contain invisible quanta. Visible surface contains no invisible space. Visible surface is not affected by invisible gravity.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 27, 2016 @ 19:42 GMT
Hello,

Mr Fisher please we have understood.It is crazy you know to always see the same words about your infinite surface.I like you but really it is became totally ironical there Mr Fisher.Please critic the posts,blogs,forums but stop to repeat that.We are on a wonderful Platform to share, critic,improve,develop,correct the ideas,the theories, the pappers....but you you do not make it.You repeat.Please develop your ideas Mr Fisher,Explain usyour infinite light surface.Do yoy want to tell us that the infinite surface is light correlated with entropy ,so god if yoy prefer ?So in fact you tell us that we are part of this entropy without wall seperating this physicality and this entropical infinite energy ?Please explain us in détails.Regards

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 28, 2016 @ 14:29 GMT
Steve,

This site boasts that it is dedicated to finding the truth about the real Universe. Stephen Hawking has spent his entire life attempting to find “a theory of everything.” The only real visible physical component common to everything in the real Universe is infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. It is time that everyone who visits this site has the decency to thank me for finding out the observable truth about the real Universe.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jun. 28, 2016 @ 12:01 GMT
Gravity is not a potential or a field . Neither it is fundamental or universal. The emergent push theory has two directional push operations. At molecular level , we see classical effect due to directional push by massive gravitons on molecules so that all molecules/objects fall equally. We know FORCE=MASS X ACCELERATION. But by a simple calculation , we can predict that M/R.R for any molecule is constant . M is mass and R is radius of any molecule. This constant gives rise to AVogadro law and possibility of chemical reaction. Now at quantum level inside proton and neutron , the graviton reacts with a mono magnetic coupling with the color charge quarks to keep them bound. We normally assume a strong nuclear force to keep the nucleus bound. But that may not be necessary as quantum gravity effects provide mono magnetic coupling. However ,the new particle found in LHC having 750 proton mass is not very much known from mono magnetic coupling and spin2. Then even a proton pulp atomic model can even be contemplated. The quantum theory of gravity is under development .

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 28, 2016 @ 14:38 GMT
Dear Durga Das Datta,

One real observable Universe must consist only of one unified observable infinite physical surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. This utterly simple truth is of course completely unscientific.



No part of visible infinite surface is subject to finite invisible gravitational, or finite invisible nuclear force.

Glad to set you straight,

Joe Fisher, Real

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I Hosein wrote on Jun. 28, 2016 @ 23:30 GMT
REALITY QUANTUM-GEOMETRODYNAMICALLY EMBEDDED

Logic is Quantum. Quantum, logic. First order logic formulas are built by atomic formulas (see OP). Which themselves combine to form first order theories. A first order theory that is satisfiable has a model M |= T. We derive Quantum logic from this and the CTMU derives a reality that is Quantum-geometrodynamically embedded. Where spatiotemporal containment defines the location of objects within time and space. As the objects move through time and space, they take their state-recognition and state-transformation syntaxes directly from this ambient spatiotemporal background. Now, what does this have to do with first order logic? Well, if you read the very first paragraph of what I posted from the Wikipedia article, it says that Universal Algebra provides the semantics for the signature of a formal language, whereas logic provides the syntax. So we have reality being logically Quantum-geometrodynamically embedded within itself using syntax.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 29, 2016 @ 14:58 GMT
Nicholas,

Real physical presence consists only of unified infinite visible surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Please stop writing unreal codswallop about supposedly finite invisible quanta.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Sky Leach wrote on Jun. 29, 2016 @ 15:52 GMT
Absolutely beautiful work here @Sean Carroll http://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.08444v1.pdf

/ http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08444

Now combine H-spaces with lie-algebra and n-dimensional fourier to get space-time complete with wave/particle and the reason for the observable speed-of-light.

The isometric result will astound you as it emerges.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 29, 2016 @ 16:16 GMT
The works of Garret Lisi The E8 seems interesting but of course it is just a simple mathematical tool.That said the lie algebras are interesting.Like Hopf,Clifford or others.I amasking me what could be the results about my theory of spherisation in inserting the Quantum 3D speres and the serie of volumes correlated with p adic numbers.The dimensions are always in 3D.The lie algebras are a simple 3D tool permitting a fractalisation.That said it is a good tool.But frankly don't say me that it is toe.Regards sky Leach ,fourier analysis and serie can be relevant for the oscillations and fréquences.with of course the good persiodicities and substitutings.The fourier coefficients and the euler formules can be inserted with my humble équations and the three motions of 3D sphères.Now see also The volumes and the central biggest volume and insert the primes.Trigonometry Inside the 3D sphere with the good parametrrs.Convergences must appear in logic if you resect the theorem of developments.Parseval can help.See also that it exists a bridge for gravitation and that oscillations must be relative for this gravity because it is not bosonic nor baryonic.So special relativity, standard model, electromagnetism,heat and thermo are not sufficient so we have a bridge also for the oscillations of the 3D spheres.You like my theory of spherisation Mr Sky?Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 29, 2016 @ 16:32 GMT
You know Mr Sky,I work actually about my spherical algebras (I have invented them like I love maths :) )I search the correct formalism to formalise my theory of spherisation with quantum sphères and cosmological sphères Inside an uniqueuniversal sphere in spherisation optimisation of matter energy on an irreversible entropical Arrow of time.My équations are inserted of course.Thhe serie of uniqueness is a finite serie for the gravitational serie from the singularity.The number is the same in logic at two scales.One produces, theothers encode.But our nuclei do not encode only bosons photons ,particles of gravitational also more far towards our quantum singularities.The planck wall seems interesting to analyse like the zero absolute at 10^-35 m.The bridge is there giving the road towards our quantum BH and their volumes increasing towards the central biggest 3D sphères.The standard model is encircled by gravitation at the two scales, quant and cosmol.Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 29, 2016 @ 17:49 GMT
Operators, theorems,algebras, subalgebras,correct serie, finite or infinite ,....Dirac, Clifford,.......all is a question of good parameters and domains.See the central sphere and my équations with the motions of sphères.The dimensions are in 3D ,its is just a fractal of our 3D from the central Sphere,the number 1.How can we converge and solve the problems of commutativity ?The operators and eigenvalues ?I study actually a work of Harvard about the geometrical algebras.It is interesting.It is always a question of good parameters and domains and axioms of choice.The computing is one thing ,the real universe and its foundamental laws an other.I will continue about this ,I like :) Regards

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 30, 2016 @ 15:41 GMT
Steve and Sky,

One real observable Universe must consist only of one unified observable infinite physical surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. This utterly simple truth is of course completely unscientific.

Endless conjecture about invisible entities are all unrealistic.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 30, 2016 @ 17:39 GMT
It is crazy.I knew that the crazyness is the begining of the wisdom but there you are more far than me Mr Fisher.How can we have détails of your surface ?:)I am going to pray to have détails ....You you speak to God My friend :)

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 1, 2016 @ 15:06 GMT
Steve,

It is NOT MY DOING. One real observable Universe must consist only of one unified observable infinite physical surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. This utterly simple truth is of course completely unscientific. BUT SCIENCE DEALS ONLY WITH GUESSWORK ABOUT INVISIBLE ACTIVITY.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 1, 2016 @ 15:13 GMT
Steve,

Unified infinite surface only has one detail, it is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 1, 2016 @ 15:10 GMT
On Friday June 24, 2016, I announced to the New York Times that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity: Special and General, was incorrect, and I submitted documented proof to the newspaper why this was so. This proven important scientific revelation was ignored. At 6 AM EST The New York Times reported that Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General of the United States of America had announced that she would not interfere with the Hillary Clinton private email server FBI investigation (perhaps because Bill Clinton had requested that she not do so when they met privately in Phoenix) and all of the mostly cable news expert talking heads opined this was the most awful thing that the Clintons had ever done in their entire lives.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 4, 2016 @ 15:12 GMT
The Washington Post has also declined publishing my op-ed article explaining why Einstein's Theory of (invisible) Relativity: the Special and General is incorrect.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 6, 2016 @ 14:59 GMT
The Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe have refused to publish my conviction that Einstein's Theory of (invisible) Relativity: Special and General was incorrect.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 15, 2016 @ 16:51 GMT
North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis has forwarded my complaint about the awarding of the 2013 National Science Foundation $1.32 million Grant to the researchers at UCAL Santa Barbera and the Kavli Institute for wrongfully concluding that Einstein was right, to executives at the National Science Foundation together with my evidence that Einstein was incorrect. I submitted my proof of the Einstein error to MENSA, hoping that they will publish it.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 15, 2016 @ 23:53 GMT
Dear Joe, this isn't a victory. It is a sad state of affairs that only reinforces the stereotype of amateur fringe researchers. Making it less likely that thorough, well thought out and meticulously considered research from other 'outsiders' will be looked at. You are doing yourself and others dis-service.You have written on this site that it can't be disputed, and you can not present a coherent argument in its support. So it isn't science or even philosophy. It's your unshakable faith and you are asking others to share it, even though it doesn't work with what is known. I am sorry that you have wasted the senators time and you haven't listened to well meant advice.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 16, 2016 @ 14:41 GMT
Dear Georgina.

You seem not to have noticed that you are alone in your refusal to accept my explanation of the reality of the Universe. You have no allies. I have no disputants other than you. For centuries now, people have been led like mindless sheep, to believe that English writers could accurately reveal the secret of the creation of the universe by either an invisible God, or by an invisible explosion of invisible nothing. Please be convinced that infinite visible surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, could never have been created. The Bible is a work of fiction. All theoretical physics books are works of fiction.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 16, 2016 @ 22:33 GMT
Dear Joe, lack of response is not the same as acceptance. I have been the only one to show interest in what you have written and tried to see if there is anything worth pursuing, useful or well reasoned. I have found by my own blundering that ideas built into concepts can seem at first good and are in a way seductive. However I now accept that they are like sandcastles. It doesn't matter how beautiful we think they are, or how much time has been spent on them; if they can't stand up against arguments then they must be let go. The remnants perhaps rebuilt more strongly to face another challenge. Being wrong doesn't make the ideas worthless as they are a means of growth and it isn't wrong to love them. Sandcastles can be exquisite and intricate works of art but they are also vulnerable, as they should be. My advice is let it go and then see if there is anything left that you think worth keeping for the next one.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 17, 2016 @ 15:14 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Lack of any response concerning my unified visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light conviction from the forty physics professors including Professor Max Tegmark, who happens to be the Scientific Director of FQXi.org that I have shown it to clearly means that they have accepted it. It makes sense. Hawking etal have strived to write a theory of everything calculation, Every real thing has the same real unified visible surface. Although I did not get any response from the Physics Institutes of America, China, Canada, Russia and Manchester University, the European Institute of Physics Journal Editor advised me that article reviewers would now be given 90 days instead of 60 days to present their reviews.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 18, 2016 @ 06:56 GMT
Dear Joe nothing means nothing, it doesn't contain any information. That it is a positive response is your own imagining. Long ago I did get a response from John Gribbin. He asked me not to send him a book, as he gets that kind of thing all the time. Wise decision on his part.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 18, 2016 @ 14:57 GMT
Georgina,

Nothing does indeed mean nothing, primarily because nothing has never existed. On the other hand, something has always meant something. One real observable Universe could only have one unified visible physical condition and the one condition our real Universe has is infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality can only consist of minimal finite information.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Ming the Merciless wrote on Aug. 12, 2016 @ 12:18 GMT
There was a time that promised never to end, in which people would read popular science and have their batteries recharged by the order and discord in science working together encapsulated by a greater shared vision. Things were

progressing and that is comforting, especially at times individual lives and the common wellbeing were not. Science said there a future.

All of that is haemorrhaging away now. When I go to the once awe-inspiring public interface now....I'm trying to give it up......I come away depressed and fearful of the future. Or as lately, more and more just resigned.

There is no progress and physicists, because of the pressure to rationalize a productive contribution, that grants still flow are endorsing and affirmation when most likely they continue because the foundations that issue them, feel they have no alternative.

Right now a generation is retiring off that produced very little progress through no fault of its own, is retiring off or being kicked upstairs by the current generation, which Sean Carrol counts among, Sabine Hossenfelder, and the others about that age. They will increasingly now be the top table, able to speak as they see fit, with no higher seniority.

This is a generation of individuals with no significant accomplishments to decide between them or to order seniority in the event of discord as to the right course to take. The pecking order of seniority is the same as for non-science. The same, for the music industry. The boy-band domain within it.

This is a disaster. Not because of what it is, in itself, but because of the human nature component which inevitably and inexorably begins to act as a force in which hubris and politicking skills become selected, and courageous thinking and willingness to face scorn and social and academic shunning de-selected. Everyone is playing the game, and that means no one is going to face the problems that might have been soluable if they had.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 12, 2016 @ 15:27 GMT
Dear Ming,

The National Science Foundation shelled out $1.32 million to researchers at the University of California at Santa Barbara to validate Einstein’s Theory of (invisible) Relativity: Special and General. I am a researcher in good standing. Einstein, and all of the theoretical physicists have been utterly wrong about the Universe. The real Universe is sublimely simple. The real Universe consists only of a single, unified, unique visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 30, 2016 @ 08:07 GMT
Quantum space-time is pure illusion. Space in not made out of Quanta, but quanta are made out of energy of space. See my comming book Advanced Relativity.

attachments: Advanced_Relativity_vs_Clasic_Relativity.pdf, AR_cover.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Sep. 17, 2016 @ 15:41 GMT
my book ADVANCED RELATIVITY is now online https://www.createspace.com/6577837

attachments: Book_review.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Quantum Antigravity wrote on Apr. 15, 2017 @ 05:18 GMT
Hello,

I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific discovery of quantum gravity and quantum antigravity.

Present quantum gravity theories suffer from too many space dimensions, and from too few experiments that could provide conclusive verifying, or falsifying empirical evidence. On the contrary, my hypothesis is simple, clear, and easily empirically verifiable:

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com

Should anybody need clarification, I am more than happy to answer any questions.

Naturally, I am also open to meritorious criticism, and any suggestions for improvement.

I am sure other researchers could greatly contribute to further development of this hypothesis (almost a theory).

Thank you so very much! :)

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 3, 2017 @ 20:45 GMT
Maybe quanta results because there is simply always more energy than there is space at any time to contain it as a homogeneous concentration. Call it conservation of space-time, thereby allowing for the laws of thermodynamics while also allowing for creation of more energy. And more space at any time. Creating more energy. Creating more space at any time...

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.