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.

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

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Quantum Antigravity**: *on* 4/18/17 at 0:46am UTC, wrote EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity — I have made a theoretical as well as...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 11/23/16 at 10:53am UTC, wrote It is true you know Marcel,here I have been destroyed.I am a nursery man...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 11/23/16 at 10:26am UTC, wrote Hi Marcel, I d like to immigrate to Canada.Here I am destroyed and I cannot...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 11/21/16 at 18:26pm UTC, wrote That explains the entire pardoxal entropical potential in all.l like...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 11/21/16 at 18:11pm UTC, wrote Marcel; See very simply.Imagine the baryons, our protons neutrons and...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 11/20/16 at 20:27pm UTC, wrote Marcel,G can be correlated to our quantum scale.Now insert these quantum 3D...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 11/19/16 at 9:58am UTC, wrote An important point is that all our hidden variables must have a causal...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 11/19/16 at 9:48am UTC, wrote The central biggest Sphere Black Hole of our universal sphere sends...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Robert McEachern**: ""At least that's the premise." That's the problem. "the theorems that..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Malcolm Riddoch**: "@Robert: ""This latter, Ψ(U), can't describe a 'drug test' can it?" For..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**John Cox**: "Lorraine, I briefly described the relationship of mass to inertia..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**Lorraine Ford**: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**John Cox**: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

**John Cox**: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi BLOGS

January 24, 2020

CATEGORY:
Blog
[back]

TOPIC: What Happens Inside the Wavefunction? Sean Carroll at the 5th FQXi Meeting [refresh]

TOPIC: What Happens Inside the Wavefunction? Sean Carroll at the 5th FQXi Meeting [refresh]

On Friday, cosmologist Sean Carroll spoke about his latest research into the emergence of space — and maybe gravity — from quantum entanglement.

Sean Carroll |

Listen to the audio from his talk to find out more about this, and the idea of describing the evolution of systems in terms of “quantum circuits.”

Sean Carroll asks What Happens Inside the Wavefunction? From the 5th FQXi International Meeting.

LISTEN:

More to follow soon...

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Spacetime has emerged from Einstein's 1905 (false) light postulate - it can have no other origin:

"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

To recover spacetime from the ideas of quantum mechanics is just as insane as to recover it from the ideas of linguistics or archaeology.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

To recover spacetime from the ideas of quantum mechanics is just as insane as to recover it from the ideas of linguistics or archaeology.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

I really like the way that Carroll is going with quantum logic and am pleased that he is leaving the many worlds stuff behind. Explaining how the universe works by invoking other universes is a good way to explain everything with nothing but has no useful predictions as a result.

The wavefunction is a useful starting point and the Carroll invokes entropy to make black holes into quantum...

view entire post

The wavefunction is a useful starting point and the Carroll invokes entropy to make black holes into quantum...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Einstein's General Relativity: Deductive Theory or Empirical Concoction?

Einstein informs the gullible world that his approach is deductive:

Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a...

view entire post

Einstein informs the gullible world that his approach is deductive:

Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Einstein and his mathematical friends concocted general relativity by endlessly changing and fudging equations until some final set of equations managed to combine, in an apparently consistent manner, known in advance results and pet assumptions (e.g. the Mercury's precession and gravitational time dilation). In Einstein schizophrenic world the final equations are called "postulates":

"Postulates of General Relativity

• Postulate 1: A spacetime (M^4, g) is a Riemannian 4-manifold M^4 with a Lorentzian metric g.

• Postulate 2: A test mass beginning at rest moves along a timelike geodesic. (Geodesic equation) ...

• Postulate 3: Einstein equation is satisfied. (Einstein equation) ..." [end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

"Postulates of General Relativity

• Postulate 1: A spacetime (M^4, g) is a Riemannian 4-manifold M^4 with a Lorentzian metric g.

• Postulate 2: A test mass beginning at rest moves along a timelike geodesic. (Geodesic equation) ...

• Postulate 3: Einstein equation is satisfied. (Einstein equation) ..." [end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Having failed on their quest for a theory of everything, in the area of quantum gravity many theoretical physicists now accept that a unique theory can’t be derived from first principles. Instead, they believe, additional requirements must be used to select the theory that actually describes the universe we observe. That, of course, is what we’ve always done to develop theories – the additional requirements being empirical adequacy."

Introducing "empirical adequacy" (fudge factors etc.) invalidates any previous derivation from first principles - the theory becomes an empirical model, analogous to the empirical models defined here:

"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property."

Einstein's general relativity is an empirical model with "empirical adequacy" and no first principles (postulates).

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Introducing "empirical adequacy" (fudge factors etc.) invalidates any previous derivation from first principles - the theory becomes an empirical model, analogous to the empirical models defined here:

"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property."

Einstein's general relativity is an empirical model with "empirical adequacy" and no first principles (postulates).

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Trumpkins,

should note that Bee is not singling out GR as Pentcho typically does. She specifically notes that it is in the Quantum Mechanical regime (ie: quantum gravity) where most theoretical physicists now accept a necessity to abandon axiomatically a basis of first principles. Einstein, among others, was not satisfied with GR and never claimed it to be a complete theory.

Nor do field theorists today abandon the quest of 'the right question'. What first principle have we not yet thought to look for? jrc

ps: 'Trumpkins' is term fairly recently evolved to describe those willing to suspend disbelief in favor of a simplistic, bombastic sales pitch.

report post as inappropriate

should note that Bee is not singling out GR as Pentcho typically does. She specifically notes that it is in the Quantum Mechanical regime (ie: quantum gravity) where most theoretical physicists now accept a necessity to abandon axiomatically a basis of first principles. Einstein, among others, was not satisfied with GR and never claimed it to be a complete theory.

Nor do field theorists today abandon the quest of 'the right question'. What first principle have we not yet thought to look for? jrc

ps: 'Trumpkins' is term fairly recently evolved to describe those willing to suspend disbelief in favor of a simplistic, bombastic sales pitch.

report post as inappropriate

Not all Einsteinians can travel into the future

"Because the future doesn’t yet exist, we can’t travel into the future, he [Richard Muller] asserts."

Most Einsteinians deduce a different conclusion from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

If, as Muller believes, "the future doesn't yet exist" and "we can’t travel into the future", either Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false or the jumping into the future described by Damour is not a deductive consequence of this postulate. Both implications are facts: Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate IS false and the jumping into the future described by Damour IS NOT a deductive consequence of this postulate.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

"Because the future doesn’t yet exist, we can’t travel into the future, he [Richard Muller] asserts."

Most Einsteinians deduce a different conclusion from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

If, as Muller believes, "the future doesn't yet exist" and "we can’t travel into the future", either Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false or the jumping into the future described by Damour is not a deductive consequence of this postulate. Both implications are facts: Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate IS false and the jumping into the future described by Damour IS NOT a deductive consequence of this postulate.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Richard Muller's assertion "Because the future doesn't yet exist, we can't travel into the future" actually repudiates Einstein's relativity. I started a discussion about this in Nature:

Physics: Finding the time, Andrew Jaffe, Nature 537, 616 (29 September 2016)

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Physics: Finding the time, Andrew Jaffe, Nature 537, 616 (29 September 2016)

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

I don't agree when "Muller opts for the manifestly non-scientific idea of a non-physical soul with causal powers over the quantum-mechanical wavefunction."

While I only agree with his "the future doesn't yet exist" I don't share his attempt to combine this key insight with accepted almost mandatory but logically unnecessary speculations for perhaps questional reasons.

++++

report post as inappropriate

While I only agree with his "the future doesn't yet exist" I don't share his attempt to combine this key insight with accepted almost mandatory but logically unnecessary speculations for perhaps questional reasons.

++++

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho, there is a difference between a material future,(consisting of fermion particles, atoms and material objects) and not yet received EM sensory data. Einstein's indistinguishable past, present and future pertains to information not material reality. Whether it is past, present or future depends upon the relation of the observer to the information. Yet the observer only ever exists Now, there is no scientific evidence available to show that anything *exists* materially within different times.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

LIGO conspirators were not given the Nobel prize. That was to be expected. Nowadays even silly Einsteinians know that Einstein's relative time is idiotic, spacetime does not exist, and therefore ripples in spacetime do not exist either:

New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

"And by...

view entire post

New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

"And by...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

LIGO conspirators' dress rehearsal:

"Finally, how do you know you are doing something correctly if you have never done it before? That was a concerning question during Initial LIGO since we had never detected a gravitational wave before. How do we know our data analyses are not missing them? And, when we do detect one, how do we know that the science we have extracted from the signal is...

view entire post

"Finally, how do you know you are doing something correctly if you have never done it before? That was a concerning question during Initial LIGO since we had never detected a gravitational wave before. How do we know our data analyses are not missing them? And, when we do detect one, how do we know that the science we have extracted from the signal is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Doppler Effect Proves Variable Speed of Light

When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures becomes

f' = (c+v)/λ

"Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

On the other hand, the speed of the light relative to the moving observer is

c' = λf'

Combining the two formulas gives

c' = c+v

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Barlow's lecture quoted above introduces relativistic corrections (time dilation) and the frequency measured by the moving observer becomes

f' = γ(c+v)/λ

The speed of the light relative to the moving observer is, accordingly,

c' = λf' = γ(c+v)

Clearly, Einstein's relativity is violated even if the relativistic corrections are taken into account.

In order to prevent Divine Albert's Divine Theory from collapsing, Einsteinians avoid the dangerous formula f'=γ(c+v)/λ and teach the equivalent relation

f'/f = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))

where the variation of the speed of light is safely hidden.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures becomes

f' = (c+v)/λ

"Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

On the other hand, the speed of the light relative to the moving observer is

c' = λf'

Combining the two formulas gives

c' = c+v

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Barlow's lecture quoted above introduces relativistic corrections (time dilation) and the frequency measured by the moving observer becomes

f' = γ(c+v)/λ

The speed of the light relative to the moving observer is, accordingly,

c' = λf' = γ(c+v)

Clearly, Einstein's relativity is violated even if the relativistic corrections are taken into account.

In order to prevent Divine Albert's Divine Theory from collapsing, Einsteinians avoid the dangerous formula f'=γ(c+v)/λ and teach the equivalent relation

f'/f = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))

where the variation of the speed of light is safely hidden.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Why Einstein's Spacetime Is Doomed

"Spacetime is any mathematical model used in physics to explain physical phenomenas of the universe by combining space and time in one continuum. [...] Arkani-Hamed said."Because of the existence of gravity and quantum mechanics, we believe that the concept of spacetime is doomed and there are many simple thought experiments that tell us that space time is...

view entire post

"Spacetime is any mathematical model used in physics to explain physical phenomenas of the universe by combining space and time in one continuum. [...] Arkani-Hamed said."Because of the existence of gravity and quantum mechanics, we believe that the concept of spacetime is doomed and there are many simple thought experiments that tell us that space time is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Nothing More Absurd Than Einstein's Relativity

All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd, even idiotic. One of them, length contraction, implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:

John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that...

view entire post

All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd, even idiotic. One of them, length contraction, implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:

John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

The so-called bug-rivet paradox demonstrates another idiotic consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate -

A BUG IS ALIVE IN ONE REFERENCE FRAME AND SQUASHED IN ANOTHER:

"In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c. [...] The paradox is...

view entire post

A BUG IS ALIVE IN ONE REFERENCE FRAME AND SQUASHED IN ANOTHER:

"In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c. [...] The paradox is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Bumping this thread because video of Sean Carroll's' talk is now up. More video is available on FQXi's youtube channel.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Very relevant.I liked the general analyse of our space time.The inflation with the de sitter spherical evolution is interesting.The corrélations with strings theory and the antidesitter cft correspondence also is interesting.That said of course the quantum gravitation is not explained.I beleive that the error is to utilise electromagnetic forces and consider this gravitation like an emergent electromagnetic force.But of course it is just my opinion.We search all after all answers to our universal laws.We search the laws of our universe.We search this gravitation.The strings are a beautiful tool.I like the bridges possible when we superimpose the fields, waves and particles.....I see even possible convergences for my 3D sphères and the Mtheory.The spherical volumes and the rotations can be a goo tool.

congratulations for this work Dr Carroll

report post as inappropriate

congratulations for this work Dr Carroll

report post as inappropriate

What I find very relevant is the fact that all rational theories can converge towards the 3D spherisation with 3D qunantum sphères and 3D cosmological Sphères Inside an universal 3D sphere.....This universe is wonderful :)

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

If we consider the strings in one dimension like the fondamental.It is interesting considering this uniquenss of 1 dimension.In my model the space does not exist because the aether is gravitational and so due to spherical volumes decreasing from the main central sphere.So we can see that space does not exist.Only matter and energy exist.This reasoning implies that we have so a serie of spherical volumes.I beleive strongly that the 3D is an universal foundamental even for our particles.The 2D and 1D so are Tools but the uniquenss is always in 3D.This permits to quantify the matters when we insert the motions and the evolution on this Arrow of time.The strings are inetresting if we correlate the Mtheory with the spherical volumes, the rotations of 3Dspheres and the harmonical oscillations and vibrations.That could permit to better understand the sortings, superimposings, synchronizations.The senses and angles of rotations also of these spherical quantum volumes are interesting to correlate.I ask meeven if the mass is not proportional with rotation and if gravitation turn in opposite sense perhaps than electromegnatic forces.The 3D sphères, their rotations, their volumes, their oscillations, their vibrations, their waves....all can be inserted in a pure spherisation otpimisation of evolution.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Once again, a very nice direction for Carroll. He is getting closer to the aether universe...Carroll gets S ~ 1e122 while aethertime is exactly S = 1.2e125. This is the mass of the aether universe, 1.02e57 kg, divided by the mass of an aether particle, 8.68e-69 kg.

Carroll has not yet found the arrow of time, but the aether universe has a universal decoherence rate of 0.26 ppb/yr and Carroll has not yet gotten there. He does need to be very careful about space emergence. He simply cannot use black hole entropy as area divided by 4G because now space is implicit in entropy.

It is much better to use black hole spin to code its information and not area. That changes Hawking radiation but quantum gravity necessitates a complex entropy. That means that S = psi / 4G, and entropy is complex with both amplitude and phase just like it really should be.

report post as inappropriate

Carroll has not yet found the arrow of time, but the aether universe has a universal decoherence rate of 0.26 ppb/yr and Carroll has not yet gotten there. He does need to be very careful about space emergence. He simply cannot use black hole entropy as area divided by 4G because now space is implicit in entropy.

It is much better to use black hole spin to code its information and not area. That changes Hawking radiation but quantum gravity necessitates a complex entropy. That means that S = psi / 4G, and entropy is complex with both amplitude and phase just like it really should be.

report post as inappropriate

Hello Mr Agnew,

It is indeed a beautiful approach,general trying to unify the scales.But if I can,how can you be sure that aether is luminiferous,photonic if I can say.The gravitation does not really seem to be an emergent electromagnetic force.That said I like the strings theory you know, before that I find my theory of spherisation,I loved strings and Mtheory.I like still.I understand the one dimension and the primordial field if I can say and this aether.But it lacks this dark matter,the BHs and the quantum gravitation.We quantify our matter and we need to explain this dark matter not baryonic.The entropy of the general system is not limited with mc².I beleive strongly that aether is gravitational from the main center of our universe.It could be well also to insert a center.

The Oscillations are not sufficient, the rotations of sphericalvolumes seem foundamental.An other point with this gravitational aether is that we see that space disappears due to the universal serie of sphericalvolumes from this central main biggest BH.The works of Hawking are relevant because we see the comportments of photons at this event horizons, but we do not know what is the matter of these supermassive BHs for example.The same for this dark matter,the same for our quantum gravitation.We need to explain these things with a quantification of these matters baryonic and not baryonic.We are in fact at a new physics, not relativistic not baryonic.The primordial field implying this gravitational aether is from this center of our universe.Connected with all central sphères of the quantum series.The fact to insist on electromagnetism is an error to encircle this gravitation at this quantum scale.This weakest force is in the same time the strongest paradoxally.The standard model being encircled by this gravitation.

report post as inappropriate

It is indeed a beautiful approach,general trying to unify the scales.But if I can,how can you be sure that aether is luminiferous,photonic if I can say.The gravitation does not really seem to be an emergent electromagnetic force.That said I like the strings theory you know, before that I find my theory of spherisation,I loved strings and Mtheory.I like still.I understand the one dimension and the primordial field if I can say and this aether.But it lacks this dark matter,the BHs and the quantum gravitation.We quantify our matter and we need to explain this dark matter not baryonic.The entropy of the general system is not limited with mc².I beleive strongly that aether is gravitational from the main center of our universe.It could be well also to insert a center.

The Oscillations are not sufficient, the rotations of sphericalvolumes seem foundamental.An other point with this gravitational aether is that we see that space disappears due to the universal serie of sphericalvolumes from this central main biggest BH.The works of Hawking are relevant because we see the comportments of photons at this event horizons, but we do not know what is the matter of these supermassive BHs for example.The same for this dark matter,the same for our quantum gravitation.We need to explain these things with a quantification of these matters baryonic and not baryonic.We are in fact at a new physics, not relativistic not baryonic.The primordial field implying this gravitational aether is from this center of our universe.Connected with all central sphères of the quantum series.The fact to insist on electromagnetism is an error to encircle this gravitation at this quantum scale.This weakest force is in the same time the strongest paradoxally.The standard model being encircled by this gravitation.

report post as inappropriate

That said the luminifrous aether can be inserted Inside the different gravitational aethers due to volumes of BHs.So all aethers are connected with this main gravitational aether from the center of our universe.The aethertime that you utilise can be extrapolated with these others aethers gravitational.l in my equation is not constant and paraadoxally tend to infinity like gravitation for the central sphere.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

This aether ,gravitational from this central BH producing the smallest and speedest spherons,is connected with all things.The space seems really to not exist.It is filled up by these smallest particles and like the volumes are proportional,we see easily that space disappears.This aether connected with this center,God seems really gravitational when we consider the quantum gravitation, BHs and dark matter.About the Dark energy, I see it simply like an anti gravitational push necessary for the expansion evolution spherisation by encoding.We shall have in logic a contraction in the future due to this mass increasing due to these encodings.The superimposed aethers could be relevant.That will permit to encircle this central BH.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

I see that you are still active. We all work together. So, that it is you, me or anybody else ...as long as we save the planet ... Right?

I read this somewhere: "Also, my friend Ricc came up with a pair of algebraic equations, whereby you input the expected mass and radius of a particle, such as the electron or the proton, and it will spit out the mass and radius of ALL the other particles, including neutrinos, as a function of an integer harmonic number. This model was based on a conjecture I made that; particles are sub-harmonics of some super-high vacuum cut-off frequency mode. This model derives the variable cut-off modes for each particle. I can't say that it is "physically" correct since there is no fundamental theory behind it, ---> no geometry other than a spherical volume of energy, but it is a mathematical tool with which to make astoundingly accurate predictions. (my arrow)

Steve, when I read this I thought of you.

Can you check this document and tell me what you think?

take care,

Marcel,

attachments: EGM_Harmonic_Representation_of_Particles.pdf

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I see that you are still active. We all work together. So, that it is you, me or anybody else ...as long as we save the planet ... Right?

I read this somewhere: "Also, my friend Ricc came up with a pair of algebraic equations, whereby you input the expected mass and radius of a particle, such as the electron or the proton, and it will spit out the mass and radius of ALL the other particles, including neutrinos, as a function of an integer harmonic number. This model was based on a conjecture I made that; particles are sub-harmonics of some super-high vacuum cut-off frequency mode. This model derives the variable cut-off modes for each particle. I can't say that it is "physically" correct since there is no fundamental theory behind it, ---> no geometry other than a spherical volume of energy, but it is a mathematical tool with which to make astoundingly accurate predictions. (my arrow)

Steve, when I read this I thought of you.

Can you check this document and tell me what you think?

take care,

Marcel,

attachments: EGM_Harmonic_Representation_of_Particles.pdf

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Hello Marcel,

You are nice, thanks in all case.We can save this planet in libearting the funds for our solar system but are they going to do it ?

This work is a beautiful ranking if I can say.They have calculated the harmonical proportions and it is interesting.But the gravito magnetism at my opinion is not the quantum gravitation.We nned to insert quantum BHs and particles of gravitation.I think really that it isnot an emergent electromagnetic force.This method could be utiised in inserting the spherical volumes and their motions.The harmonical proportions with fourier can help.The bridge could be found.I am not a mathematician ,I search a method in studying schrodinger,fourier,equations of partial dérivations ....I search in fact Marcel.I lack of Tools and datas and perhaps also a team, friends :)

ps gravito magnetism and quantum gravitation are totaly different it seems tome, if BH produces these particles, this dark matter and if it is encoded also in nuclei, we have several roads to findthese particles.But they are so small and so speed.They does not interact with our baryonic matter in logic.Several expermiments with xenon or this or that shall have difficulties to find them.We must in first find the quantum BHS and after the spherons in logic .The harmonical representation is an universal tool.There the strings are rrelevant.Take care also Mrcel, thanks still :)

report post as inappropriate

You are nice, thanks in all case.We can save this planet in libearting the funds for our solar system but are they going to do it ?

This work is a beautiful ranking if I can say.They have calculated the harmonical proportions and it is interesting.But the gravito magnetism at my opinion is not the quantum gravitation.We nned to insert quantum BHs and particles of gravitation.I think really that it isnot an emergent electromagnetic force.This method could be utiised in inserting the spherical volumes and their motions.The harmonical proportions with fourier can help.The bridge could be found.I am not a mathematician ,I search a method in studying schrodinger,fourier,equations of partial dérivations ....I search in fact Marcel.I lack of Tools and datas and perhaps also a team, friends :)

ps gravito magnetism and quantum gravitation are totaly different it seems tome, if BH produces these particles, this dark matter and if it is encoded also in nuclei, we have several roads to findthese particles.But they are so small and so speed.They does not interact with our baryonic matter in logic.Several expermiments with xenon or this or that shall have difficulties to find them.We must in first find the quantum BHS and after the spherons in logic .The harmonical representation is an universal tool.There the strings are rrelevant.Take care also Mrcel, thanks still :)

report post as inappropriate

If we consider that aether is gravitational from the main central biggest BH of the universal 3D sphere.That permits to consider that main codes are gravitational due to a kind of primordial meiosis mitosis fractalisation at the instant zero where the physicality has begun.So we can consider in this line of reasoning the quantum BHs implying gravitational stability Inside our space time.I see so...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Marcel, in the papper I see that they have calculated graviton.But the problem is that it does not explain quantum gravitation because graviton is a boson and that in fact it seems that real quantum gravitation is not baryonic nor relativistic.The radii utilised are interesting.That could be irmpoved in inserting the spherical volumes an the motions orbital and spinal.That said this ranking is relevant for our standard model because it completes it in discovering new bosons.Of course we can insert the newtonian mechanic and g this force of acceleration of our earth.But it is not the quantum gravitation.It is just an application of the newton's equation with r and the m1 m2.That said this method seems relevant if we insert the correct geometrical algnebras for this bridge for quantum BHs and spherons.Perhaps that the planck scale and the zero absolute have the answers but it seems difficult technologicaly speaking.It seems that the simplicity of the universal gravitation is just these rotating sphères.They turn so they are in fact.Perhaps simply that the sense of rotation also is the most simple answer for the stability or the linearity.I don't know ,in all case the generality seems simple.Of course the détails due to all the combinations are infinite and cosmplex but the whole seems so simple.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Marcel,G can be correlated to our quantum scale.Now insert these quantum 3D Black Holes and remember that we have also spherons, so the stadard model is encircled by this gravitation.Now insert the spherical volumes and the potential energy of a sphere with -3/5GM²/R now insert the rotations spinal and orbital.Now correlate with cosmological spherical volumes and consider that dark matter is cold and produced by BHs.You shalL see the gravitation appears.The weakest but the strongest also force at all scales.The quantum newtonian mehanic and the general relativity and the special relativity are unified simply but it is a secret Marcel.All works considering this qiantum weakest force like an emergent eLectromagnetic force are not really rational.That said I askme what are the proportions with this entropical potential tending to infinity.Rotating sphères, gravitation .....The real secret is in fact to encircle what is a spheron and how many sphères it posseses and how the gravitational stability acts considering the main central quantum BH linked with thiscentral cosm BH.Marcel EUREKA :)This potential is infinite in all ....The cenral cosm BH becomes very intriguing ...

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Marcel;

See very simply.Imagine the baryons, our protons neutrons and their quarks.We have the gluons,the correlated bosons implying the strong nuclear forces.Now we know the two others forces, the weak force and their bosons correlated,the electromagnetism with photons the bosons of this eectromagntism.Now imagine that more far than these nuclear forces, we have a serie of quantum BHs towards the central BH, the main code, the number 1.Now insert correlated fields not with bosons but with spherons.and insert the volumes.Now insert the spherons also encoded weaker them than electromagnetism.We see that this standard model with baryons and bosons is really encircled by this matter not baryonic, nor bosonic.In the two senses, we have fields.This force farer than nuclear forces tend to entire entropy Marcel like at this cosmological scale.See also that at this cosmological scale we have the same relative logic.See that the number of BHs is smaller than the number of stars.....The aether seems really gravitational.That said the primordial field in 1D of Mr Witten is interesting.At the difference that the aether is composed by the smallest 3D sphères implying that space does not exist due to this serie of spherical volumes form this central cosm BH.

report post as inappropriate

See very simply.Imagine the baryons, our protons neutrons and their quarks.We have the gluons,the correlated bosons implying the strong nuclear forces.Now we know the two others forces, the weak force and their bosons correlated,the electromagnetism with photons the bosons of this eectromagntism.Now imagine that more far than these nuclear forces, we have a serie of quantum BHs towards the central BH, the main code, the number 1.Now insert correlated fields not with bosons but with spherons.and insert the volumes.Now insert the spherons also encoded weaker them than electromagnetism.We see that this standard model with baryons and bosons is really encircled by this matter not baryonic, nor bosonic.In the two senses, we have fields.This force farer than nuclear forces tend to entire entropy Marcel like at this cosmological scale.See also that at this cosmological scale we have the same relative logic.See that the number of BHs is smaller than the number of stars.....The aether seems really gravitational.That said the primordial field in 1D of Mr Witten is interesting.At the difference that the aether is composed by the smallest 3D sphères implying that space does not exist due to this serie of spherical volumes form this central cosm BH.

report post as inappropriate

That explains the entire pardoxal entropical potential in all.l like gravitation tendsto infinity when we consider the spherons produced by this central cosm BH.It exists in all this paradoxal entire entropy.That said the steps before the central BH are all different steps of disponible correlated énergies due to fields ,photonic bosonic and spheronic.The fact that gravitation and entire entropy tends to infinity are logic when we consider the real meaning of what is this entropy, God if I can say.This entire entropy is not appraochable or touchable, it is not necessary, just a small part is sufficient.Already our nuclear forces permit to have electricity, we separate the photons encoded since billions years.So the energy farer than nuclear forces are important.Now what is the technological engineering able to find or check these forces and spherons.We se that BHs are less important than stars, that said spherons are more numerous than photons.You imagine the combinations ,gravitational wowww

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Marcel, I d like to immigrate to Canada.Here I am destroyed and I cannot continue.Could you help me Marcel for the administrative pappers please.Here it is not possible to continue.Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity —

I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical

scientific discovery of quantum gravity

and quantum antigravity.

Present day quantum gravity theories suffer from

too many mathematical space dimensions, and from

too few conclusive experimental results.

My hypothesis is simple, clear,

and subject to easy empirical verification :

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com

Should you have any questions, or need clarification,

I am more than happy to answer.

report post as inappropriate

I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical

scientific discovery of quantum gravity

and quantum antigravity.

Present day quantum gravity theories suffer from

too many mathematical space dimensions, and from

too few conclusive experimental results.

My hypothesis is simple, clear,

and subject to easy empirical verification :

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com

Should you have any questions, or need clarification,

I am more than happy to answer.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.