
Compare with the elegance of my relativity theory, I have to say my QM theory is a failure.
It fails because it does not lead us to anywhere.
It fails because I don’t have a vision.
I thought I knew but I don’t. Just like Feynman used to say, if you think you know, you don’t.
Seeing the failure in QM, I am more impressed with success in my relativity theory.
It looks right, it sounds right.
Because it covers the two most fundamental dualities in physics;
Inertia vs gravity
Rest vs motion.
I think I got the vision right and the result shows.
But still, what I am missing for QM theory?
What should be the vision for QM?
Looking at the laws I have listed for QM. There are really only two laws, one deal with measurement and its consequence, the other says you can’t look at me too closely.
I think the vision for QM should be the uncertainty principle which is also very deep because it is a very costly instrumentation.
You impose a very specific limit, you loose the scalability, and how does nature tell all locality that there is this limit that nobody can see?
I think my relativity theory should be able to produce of particlewave duality and quantization, but I don’t think it can produce uncertainty principle.
Uncertainty has the root of its own.
ok let's go back to my relativity theory.
The law of at rest and motion are very good, but we need more constructs to fill up the structure.
specifically i want to mimic Einstein's notion of special and general relativity.
So here is a new law that should deal specifically with my notion of special and general relativity.
The Law of Accountability
Each class of rest frame is unique.
Rest frames of a class (of rest frame) are nondistinguishable.
A rest frame becomes distinguishable if applied acceleration.
Note:
To tell you the truth, i don't know exactly what this law entails and means.
but it just smells right.
they are natural and self evident in their correctness.
this law continues focusing on the themes of individuality and countability.
this law introduces the concept of acceleration, and it's implied definition.
this law just came to me when i was reading a wiki page on Einstein's equivalence principle.
i don't know if the principle of classification has its counter part in einstein's relativity.
note2:
i have much better understanding of this law now
removed all reference to relativity, since this law is not about relativity, but about as its title says, how to count and correctly.
Last edited by trilosohpical; April 23rd, 2014 at 07:06 AM.
i won't be surprised if you get lost again with this wacky law of accountability.
i start trying to mimic einstein's relativity but end up with this law trying to tell us how to count.
the strangest thing is, when i wrote down this law, i have no idea of what it means.
but now i do, still not fully, this law is absolutely a beauty.
and the style and focus this law is exactly the same as the 2 previous laws.
i have come the realization that my theory is not about relativity, it is much bigger.
so here is the revised version of my theory  and i now formally call it theory of motion, which now consists of 3 laws:
1. The Law of at rest:
Every physics entity can be at rest on a rest frame such that if there is no force act upon it, it will remain at rest.
2. The Law of Motion:
Every physics entity belongs to some motion class; every motion class is with reference to a rest frame.
3. The Law of Accountability
Each class of rest frame is unique.
Rest frames of a class (of rest frame) are nondistinguishable.
A rest frame becomes distinguishable if applied acceleration.
this is my theory of motion version 1.0
and if you want to see what these laws are about, read my post #91 in which i tell a vivid story of what these laws are capable of.
Last edited by trilosohpical; April 23rd, 2014 at 07:42 AM.
Tell everyone something neat, in as few words as possible.
Well, because this theory is about the story of physics in terms of identifying entity and class them into buckets and count them correctly.
because nature at its most fundamental is very primitive.
but don't underestimate the word and act of count, because Feynman's path integral is a kind of count, the Lagaragian is also a kind of count.
but how do you come up with the partition function?
this law of accountability will tell you.
now you know the trick, right, i hope.
here is a short list of predictions that I can make from my theory of motion v. 1.0
Entities having constancy in speed in all frames will have no inertia mass and nondistinguishable among themselves, that is they are bosons.
Bosons must have the maximum speed due to the Lorentz metric=0 condition but more importantly due boson being an element of SU(2) group, that is, it is an unit quaternion.
all bosons share a static class rest frame  that is part of the reason why light can travel with constant speed in all reference frames.
Entities that are capable of variable motion states are called Fermions.
Fermions have inertia mass and can be distinguishable.
Fernions are also elements of SU(2) group but they don't satisfy Lorentz metric=0 condition, because of this, Fermions have inertia mass.
by the law of accountability, a fermion as a rest frame becomes distinguishable, a.k.a realized/wavefunction collapse, by a force/acceleration.
and my theory also predicts nagtive rest/inertia mass, Fermions can have negative rest/inertia mass and I know exactly the condition to have negative mass, but bosons can not have negative mass.
I am on my way to figure out what spin is and that will be the ultimate test of my theory.
tell me if anything my theory predicts is incorrect.
Last edited by trilosohpical; April 23rd, 2014 at 01:47 PM.
now i know why particle physics use SU(1)XSU(2).
But I also know why that should be the case.
These do not appear to be predictions as you show no derivation. There is no math so this is not a theory.
But lets see how you score:
Electrons, for example, moving at a constant speed still have inertial mass and are still fermions.Entities having constancy in speed will have no inertia mass and nondistinguishable among themselves, that is they are bosons.
Result: 0/1
Not all bosons have the same maximum speed. Those with no mass travel at c, those with mass travel at less than c.Bosons must have the maximum speed due to the Lorentz metric=0 condition but more importantly due boson being an element of SU(2) group, that is, it is an unit quaternion.
Result: 0/2
I don't know what that means, so I won't score it.all bosons share a static class rest frame  that is part of the reason why light can travel with constant speed in all reference frames.
Bosons with mass are also "capable of variable motion states".Entities that are capable of variable motion states are called Fermions.
Result 0/3
I'm not sure what this means so we will try two interpretations:Fermions have inertia mass and can be distinguishable.
A fermion (an electron, for example) is indistinguishable from all other electrons.
Result: 0/4
Bosons cannot be distinguished from one another. Except they can; for example they have different spin, some have mass and some don't.
Result: 0/4
Most of it, apparently.tell me if anything my theory predicts is incorrect.
I am seeing a lot of unnecessary negativity here.
the predictions I have are all deductions from 3 laws in my theory.
My theory at this stage does not have the granularity yet as to tell apart which type of bosons and what is spin value etc.
but the theory does know to tell apart bosons from fermions and know how to characterize the class division and that is the law of accountability is all about to tell apart thing by their very broad class.
I am making further predictions:
1. the source of quantinzation in QM comes from the quantization of spin.
2. spin quantization is due to bosons having the maximal speed, the upper limit.
3. there is negative valued mass  one source is from bosons (i don't which type), but there can be other source.
4. there is very likely gravitons, see my post #91 for details.
5. physics at the most fundamental level is probabilistic, see my post #91 for details.
6. mass and spin are the two and only two dynamics at the most fundamental level.
I have seen mass and spin but i still have not seen gravity, but i am sure it will be coming soon.
since i have seen spin, i should naturally see negative mass, this is very similar to Diarc's situation when he sees spin and negative energy.
I only know the things at the most fundamental level, don't ask me small things or math.
Last edited by trilosohpical; April 23rd, 2014 at 02:27 PM.
Originally Posted by trilosophical
I don't want to comment on the rest, but math is not a small thing.
Why I only know the most fundamentals?
because my theory only shows that much to me so far.
I just discovered law of accountability yesterday and I am still working through some of intepretation.
if you read the predictions I made carefully, you can see i only predict things at the most fundamental level like mass, spin, bosons and fermions.
I don't know things below them. This may sound strange to you, but that is what is.
Also, so far I still have not seen energy yet, because i am looking at the static structure, there is no interaction.
Dirac saw spin and energy because his equations is dynamic so he saw the dynamic part of mass which is energy.
I don't run the system that is why i see mass but not energy.
that is why Dirac predicts negative energy but i predict negative mass.
but i see more than Dirac because i see the structure in which spin rises.
i know what spin is and i can relate Dirac's story and give you this kind of explanation.
Right now I am on my way trying to figure out why spin always shows off as spinors.
So far I don't see gravity either, for the same reason that I only see static structure.
But still, it is very early stage of this theory.
if you really want to know what is going, my theory is right there in the open. if you understand the 3 laws, you can do the same thing as i did.
Still no maths, still just hand waving and unsupported assertions.
Really?
Considering that you're posting unscientific nonsense [sup1[/sup] on a science forum what did you expect?
What do you consider a "necessary" response?
Citation needed.I only know the things at the most fundamental level
About sums up your approach  forget maths and go with the masturbatory woo. Invent sh*t out of whole cloth and call it a "theory"...don't ask me small things or math.
1 What you have is NOT a theory, it's a selfcongratulatory fantasy, with  so far  ZERO support and ZERO science.
The duck wasn't polite (neither am I) but everything he said is correct...
I think a more relevant question would be "What is wrong with YOU?".
Yes. And they taught me not to claim unsupported bullshit is science. Or to make assertions that I can't (or won't) back up.didn't your parent taught you manner?
Correct.This is public forum not you bathroom.
Nor is it your personal blog, nor your bedroom.
(You're allowed masturbatory fantasies in your own bedroom  in public it's not so smart).
You have repeatedly made claims.
Can you support ANY of them?
I would recommend reading his preface then going through any of the resources which talk about principles you don't understand yet.
Gerard ’t Hooft, Theoretical Physics as a Challenge
Also known as: "How to be a Good Theoretical Physicist"
Basically Gerard t' Hooft is saying don't make theories and predictions until you really understand the principles on a fairly advanced level. You are wasting you and other people's time that should be spent learning what others have already tried if you are making theories before thoroughly understanding the principles. That time is better spent in study. It's clear you understand the stuff on one level, a good deal more than me I would wager, but a moderate amount of knowledge is a dangerous thing. If you don't understand the math, or how to convert your theories into equations, you need to.
Last edited by SowZ37; April 23rd, 2014 at 06:34 PM.
Yes, it's for personal theories.
As has been pointed out, what you have is not a theory: it's a series of unsupported claims.
You're not doing science (you DID notice that this is a science forum, didn't you?), and you're not doing anything other than spamming nonsense with post after posts.
You can't (or won't) back up any of your claims, and you refuse to provide (or are incapable of providing) justification for them.
So far everything you've posted gives the impression it's been pulled out your arse.
And it should therefore be treated as such.
If someone proposes a theory without math behind it, and then people ask for the math behind it and the proposer refuses to provide the math, I'm going to assume he isn't capable of converting his theory into the proper equations. I don't think this is unfair of me, because anyone capable of providing a theory of substance knows why the math is important. If they would know its importance, the only reason I can think of that they would refuse to give the math is an inability to do that math.
I'm not claiming you don't understand any math, but until shown otherwise the evidence I have indicates you don't know the kind of math required to show your theory mathematically. I'm open to being proven wrong.
people, instead nitpicking and shouting, maybe you can all help to solve my problem with spin, since you are all so good with math.
In particular i am looking at the way Dirac solves this famous relativistic wave question using the Dirac matrix trick.
i took a rough estimate that Dirac's spin matrix should belong to a complexified Clifford algebra of CL(4), or CL(1, 3).
anybody know?
Ah. A diversion.
That always works.
I can't help with Spin equations. Spin equations are above me at least right now. The problem I see is that if I was capable of doing that math, my time in regards to physics would now be more valuable. If you wanted to convince me to dedicate my time to a new idea, (and I'll assume its a real time investment. Anything that is easy and quick has probably already been done,) you have to convince me there is a good chance it is correct. The way to convince me of that is with math. And you would need my expertise in the first place to do the math required to convince me to help you and round and round it goes. It's a catch 22. (Did that make any sense?)
Ultimately, ideas are cheaper than numbers. So you just really, really have to know the numbers before any proposal you make can be taken seriously. But anyway, good luck finding someone capable of doing that math to work with you. (No sarcasm there, sincerely.) But my suggestion is just learn how to do all the required math on your own. I think you will have more success that way. Once you can show that parts of your theory work mathematically, people will probably be more inclined to help you calculate the other parts.
(Sorry if I came off as pretentious there.)
what makes you think i want to solve the spin equation? and Dirac has already solved it.
are you sure you understand my question, ever heard word Clifford algebra?
i just want to have some rough idea of what cl algebra so that i can have some idea of dimensionality.
that is all.
this is one of predictions my theory can make:
all bosons share a static class rest frame  that is part of the reason why light can travel with constant speed in all reference frames.
and this statement answered the question i asked in my opening post, that is:
how is it physically possible that light can have constant speed in all reference frames.
a lot of people chipped in to answer this question, but I think only Markus really understood the question.
Now i finally is able to answer the question myself, by saying all light/photons use a single "static" rest frame.
but still, how does that being reflected in all observers reference frames as light having the same speed in their frames?
why light sharing a single class rest frame would have this effect?
what does it mean to have a class rest frame vs an instance of rest frame?
i think it must mean, the class rest frame all light uses must be embedded in the spacetime, some kind of metric, which means light has its own pathway that is different then other object travel.
i am not aware of current physics theory can offer this kind of insight and knowledge.
Current physics is based on actual physics, your crap is based on woo.i am not aware of current physics theory can offer this kind of insight and knowledge.
The gamma matrices employed in the Dirac equation generate a special kind of Clifford algebra called the Dirac algebra; it is a complexvalued CL(1,3) algebra, because they fulfil the following fundamental relation :
So there is an underlying connection between these matrices and the metric of spacetime itself ( which is very interesting in its own right ).
thank you Markus.
I think spin is the mechanism to connect an odd grade to an even grade of clifford geometry.
the trick is, nature like to use comlecified clifford algebra and that is why this SU(1) gauge thing always shows up.
I think i can see what spin is doing in cl(3) but have no idea what spin is doing in cl(1,3).
but in general, i think spin is trying to represent what is going on in odd grade using the coordinates of even grade, but in that spinor form which i still could not figure out.
Last edited by trilosohpical; April 24th, 2014 at 07:29 AM.
Spin is tricky. but i think know what is going now.
Dirac matrix is an algebraic trick to linearize the second order equation.
I think i know why Dirac has to go this relativistic route to get the relativistic energy and info.
I think our current physics still lacks the understand of why Dirac has to do what he did.
for the case of Dirac's electron, if you do the nonrelativistic way, you get the energy etc, but you will miss out the relativistic effect.
but nobody has asked the simple question:
the relativistic effect is relative to whom/what?
I think i know the answer just by the fact I am asking question like that,
because according to my theory, all bosons share a single rest frame class.
the relativistic effect brought out from Dirac equation is relative to that class of boson rest frame.
another important thing is that all bosons use the same rest frame, which means they will share the same instrumentation is creating relativistic effects.
that is why you don't see different relativistic effects caused by different type of bosons.
If this is not the case, you should see different relativistic effect caused by each type of bosons, like weak force, strong force and EM and gravity.
the fact that all fermions should have relativistic effect, but only relative to boson's class, that is also interesting. Because there are fermion frame classes. what makes an electron only referencing boson class for the relativistic difference. This means, each fermion has a notion of being fermion class and relativity really is about the relativity of fermion vs bonson class.
The question is, where is the relativistic energy come from?
If I have to guess, it must be in that boson class pool. The follow up question is does different type of bosons share the same pool of relativistic energy?
the answer is very likely yes.
This is a good use case test and it shows the correctness of my theory. that my theory has this notion of class of frame which is very helpful in explaining the issue here.
My theory still does not have the idea of relativistic effects.
Last edited by trilosohpical; April 24th, 2014 at 03:19 PM.
My theory is about motion, right now it know the speed (magnitude) of motion, but still lacks the notion of direction.
I believe boson as a class has the notion of direction. (this is equivalent of Wheeler saying space tells matter how to move)
My question is:
How does light know its direction when it travels?
Where in EM or any other physics or math equation that express the direction of light?
Or is it like in QM can only be decided by measurement?
But light does seem to have a sense of direction, does it?
i have a feeling that electromagnetism gives rise the notion of direction.
but gravity gives rise the notion of curve, ie. change of direction.
Last edited by trilosohpical; April 25th, 2014 at 06:18 AM.
very nice, my theory is reaching the same conclusion as GR, that is, acceleration in boson must cause curvature.
OK, I think I have the genera idea of bosons, let go back to fermions.
I know Markus is not going to like the way I jump around, but that is way I work and I have to cross reference between bosons and fermions to get the full picture.
In case you are still wondering why I am talking about boson and ferimion, well, because the law of accountability leads me here. if you count things according to that law, you see bosons and fermions.
Can you guess what my theory leads me to for fermions?
It is Pauli's exclusion principle.
I am working my way up a little bit now.
Ok, here is the question:
there are bunch of fermionic rest frames, how to put together an overall rest frame out of them.
well, according to the law of accountability, rest frames of same class are nondistinguishable, so only one class type each can be in the bundle.
Wow, I just deduced Pauli's exclusive principle in 5 minutes.
Well, actually the situation is more involved, there all kinds of quantum numbers due to energy, momentum, spin etc, but in principle, Pauli's principle is the result of the law of accountability.
I must say that I find this thread  and particularly your continued blogging (for which you received a ban not so long back)  to be quite fascinating.
The delusion displayed is remarkable.
Not only do you invent crap out of whole cloth, but you somehow think that it's relevant and science.
It's also quite amusing to see your non sequitur leaps passed off as actual conclusions predicated on prior drivel when in fact there's little to no connection.
you seem to presume knowing something.
Let me give you a challenge to see who really you are.
Here is the challenge question:
How does light know its direction when it travels?
Where in EM or any other physics or math equation that express the direction of light?
now show us that you are actually better than others.
Is that all you can do, nitpicking on English?
Come on you can do better, try harder.
And here again is the question:
How does light know its direction when it travels?
Where in EM or any other physics or math equation that express the direction of light
show us what you really are, can you?
And again...
What makes you think that light knows anything, let alone the direction it's travelling?
What do you mean by "light knows"?
Presumably, given your response to my question the first time, you don't mean "knows" as in "is intellectually aware". Which leaves "what exactly DO you mean by "knows"?"
You've made a claim "that light knows".
Explain what you mean and show this is so.
It doesn't. It just follows the geodesic.How does light know its direction when it travels?
There is none. Direction is relative.Where in EM or any other physics or math equation that express the direction of light?
Yes I know the question.
It's meaningless until you explain what you mean.
Explain what you mean and show this is so.
So far as I can see you have made a ridiculous claim, denied the common meaning of the word "know" and now refuse to explain exactly what you DO mean.
On that basis the answer could well be "because frogs bake spaceships in their porridge".
What makes you think that light knows anything, let alone the direction it's travelling?
thanks, that is good to know.
But according to QM, light is also a probability wavefunction and has to be measured for any determination, right?
if light can follow something, it means it is deterministic?
direction is relative? relative to what?
you mean there is a kind of reference for direction?
Relative to the observer. Or more precisely, to a coordinate system.direction is relative? relative to what?
I now also come to the understanding this very important point.
and this is because my theory leads me to.
I have tried to extend my theory into GR and I think i now also understand what is going in GR.
let me first ask this question:
In Newton's gravitation law, it says in flat clarity that matters attract each other and we call that force gravity.
Now in GR, we say gravity cause curve in space, but still it does not lead to matters attract to each other.
So where in GR can we find the attraction force?
can we deduce from GR of gravity, the gravity that cause matters attract each other?
I am pretty sure we can deduce light curve from GR but not attraction.
has anybody raised this obvious question?
I know Einstein has equivalent relation and so on, but still where is source of gravity, we know its in mass,
but bending light does not equal attraction in matters.
Matter does not attract, it warps the geodesic that movement occurs along.
Sadly, it would seem not. May I ask, what actual study of GR you have carried out that leads you to this selfassessment?
The reason I ask is that you then reveal a rather fundamental, gaping hole in your understanding (gravity isn't a force in GR), while asking if anyone has considered this basic question. Had you done even the most basic, wikipedialevel research into those issues, you would know the answer: Wheeler captured the essence as "spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve." But do not use that sentence as a substitute for an actual study of GR. As you may have been advised already, get yourself a copy of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.
And yes, a fellow named Einstein worked out how GR subsumes Newtonian physics, so this basic understanding is a century old now. He had to, of course, because he anticipated the obvious question of how his theory, which seems so different from Newton's, could possibly reproduce all of Newton's physics in the relevant regimes, while going beyond. That's a prime requirement for any new theory that claims superiority over the mainstream. Einstein fully understood his burden. I don't think it was a coincidence that his hair went white during the years he was working this out.
GR does not use the notion of forces; what we see as "gravity" arises through the concept of geodesic deviation, and is hence a purely geometric phenomenon.
No, because it is meaningless. There is neither attraction nor repulsion in GR, only deviation of geodesics.has anybody raised this obvious question?
I'm somewhat surprised that you seem to be largely unfamiliar with even the basic principles of GR. The deflection of light and the trajectories of massive bodies arise not as a result of an "attraction", or any other kind of Newtonian force, but due to the geodesic structure of the spacetime in question. It is a purely geometric phenomenon. Here is how it is done in detail for the case of light :I know Einstein has equivalent relation and so on, but still where is source of gravity, we know its in mass,
but bending light does not equal attraction in matters.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/50rswg7ft7...ction%20SM.pdf
You may also want to consider a read through my primer threads on this subject :
http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...typrimer.html
Solving the Einstein Field Equations
There is little point arguing about the WDWE and the merit of nonstandard theories if you are lacking a thorough understanding of differential geometry and the principles and maths of GR.
let me defend myself a little bit first.
i actually know the answer to the question.
I know gravity is enmeshed in 4D spacetime, and you can not say that in the space and time in QM.
I have reached same conclusion from my theory.
but still, there is a root cause for gravity, and it is not from GR but from QM, because the 4d spacetime is constructed as part of QM construction, using the dynamics from QM.
it is that QM construction that enmesh the notion of gravity in the Newtonian+4d spacetime, that is to say, the fundamental dynamics that causes gravity are from QM.
and the reason we demand lorentzian invariance in all QM operations is to preserve this kind enmesh.
I think I am a bit ahead of my self, and just want to say that i don't disagree with you and i do know what i am talking about.
BTW, in my theory, I characterize GR as:
the totality of particle motion. (the word particle here means either the particle of the p in pw duality or object of Newtonian sense)
You don't have a theory, you have presented no theory, all you have done is make unsupported assertions and wave your arms about. This is what happens when philosophers try to do physics
Show how your theory makes the predictions you have asserted (without support) MATHEMATICALLY, word salad and handwaving may be acceptable in the arts but not in science.
so last Saturday I tried out my first attempt in trying to bring in both QM and GR into my theory and quickly ran into problems.
The problem is, in QM, there is no such thing as acceleration.
QM only knows states.
In my theory, QM does have a sense of length, but it is the difference between states.
Plus, in QM the time is really separate and I really don’t see the need for time, you can stack up on fermions using Pauli principle without bothering with time.
And also important goodies in QM are observable, you have to come up some operators.
Now compare that to the 4d spacetime in GR. Space and time are mutually dependent. Everything is what you see is what you get. There is no such thing as observable. If you want acceleration, just throw some mass and you got it. You want bend light, throw more mass, but in QM, the moment you see light, light is dead, it becomes a quanta of energy.
All the crazy people before me who have tried out unification must have faced similar problems.
but luckly i have my theory, which has very clear structure of what is what.
and after some thinking i realized what is the real issue.
to put a very long story short, one of the conclusion is that GR is good, it is still not the most general, but should be as good as QM, only looking from a difference perspective and spacetime.
let me comment on this seemingly causal statement.
first read carefully the word particle I use here.
One of the criticism on GR for its not being complete is that GR can not capture EM.
Why?
because EM never realize/materialize as a particle, thus is not in the domain of study in GR.
GR is a study of motion of particle/matter, EM is never a particle/matter.
My theory just saves GR.
Comment as much as you like, as long as you are just making unsupported assertions you don't have a theory.
You. Don't. Have. A. Theory.
You said "GR is a study of motion of particle/matter", whereas it is a field theory. This suggests to me that you have little knowledge of GR because you don't even know what type of theory it is.
Did it occur to you that EM is based on a symmetry of the quantum realm, whereas GR is purely classical theory?
[QUOTE=KJW;559151][QUOTE=trilosohpical;558885]Did it occur to you that GR is able to capture the meaning of "matter"?
where do you think the correctness of GR coming from?
from Newtonian?
from having no knowledge of what "matter" is made of in terms of its structure in spacetime?
you need to think deeper and wider to ask question of this level.
From the underlying symmetries of spacetime, specifically general covariance.
GR is not a model of the internal structure of matter  it merely tells us how energymomentum ( not just matter ) and the geometry of spacetime are related.from having no knowledge of what "matter" is made of in terms of its structure in spacetime?
[QUOTE=Markus Hanke;559331]I am not sure I can agree with you on this.
GR is a study of matter's motion in such way that the internal fermionic structure is invariant under all transformation.
Basically GR looks at fermionic structure from the 4d spacetime perspective, using the constructs in 4d spacetime like path/speed/accelertation etc to represent the QM's states/levels/quanta etc.
Geometry by itself does not produce physics, but the geometry of fermions and bosons do, but you need QM to build the geometrical space of fermions and boson and mesh them into a 4d spacetime.
GR works on the given 4d spacetime that already has the fermionic structure imprinted.
The notion of motion is actually very deep if you really think about it.
a piece of matter moving through spacetime with its internal structure intact and such a structure is itself part of definition of spacetime and on and on, and that is what I call the study of motion.
I think you would call general invariance and in that case we may talk the same thing but using different terminology.
Last edited by trilosohpical; April 29th, 2014 at 01:05 PM.
No it isn't. GR is a model of geometrodynamics  it makes no reference whatsoever to the internal structure of matter, as it is purely classical. That internal structure would be the domain of QFT and the Standard Model.
GR is a purely classical theory of geometrodynamics, it is incapable of modelling anything to do with QM.Basically GR looks at fermionic structure from the 4d spacetime perspective, using the constructs in 4d spacetime like path/speed/accelertation etc to represent the QM's states/levels/quanta etc.
Yes it does. For example, geometric symmetries give rise to conserved quantities and conservation laws through Noether's theorem.Geometry by itself does not produce physics
Actually, spacetime and everything in it is completely static, there is no "motion" in the classical sense. There are only world lines.The notion of motion is actually very deep if you really think about it.
No, the definition of spacetime is that it is the set of all events, modelled as a smooth pseudoRiemannian manifold endowed with a connection and a metric. Matter and its internal structure plays no role in this.a piece of matter moving through spacetime with its internal structure intact and such a structure is itself part of definition of spacetime
No, I was talking about general covariance, which means that the form of the laws of physics is completely independent of the choice of coordinates.I think you would call general invariance and in that case we may talk the same thing but using different terminology.
Looks like I am not going to win over anyone anytime soon.
let me explain a little bit of what my theory sees.
My theory sees gravity as particle's motion, that is, the totality of particle motion is equivalent to gravity.
So the notion of gravity in my theory maybe is bigger than our current physics thinks.
How is exactly gravity been defined currently in GR?
My theory sees a counterpart to QM that deals with gravity, my theory does not know exactly which physics branch is that, but since GR deals with gravity, I thought it should be GR.
But now I am having a second thought.
GR maybe is part of that QM counterpart, but consider the breath of QM, GR seems fall short.
First, there is no dynamics in GR. If you look at QM, it can take care of itself in terms of dynamics and in creating things it needs.
GR has no notion of how to build 4D spacetime it uses, but QM knows how to stack up all ferimions which give matter structure and spans the 3d space.
GR and QM are supposed to be symmetric in the sense they both know how to build up the same thing but though difference means, but that is totally not the case.
this tells us the current GR is still short of something, but not the QM part, instead, something that should coming from GR's own particle world.
The full version of GR should have its dynamics and everything about particle should appear smooth and deterministic, just as the current version of GR has shown so far.
This is because ultimately GR is about the motion of particle, and that is deterministic, because you are in the particle world, not wave world, particle world is just like Newtonian.
BTW, Has anybody wondered why light behaves so nicely in GR vs. the same light going crazy in QM?
I am sure Einstein has and that is probably the reason he never believed QM is final.
if my theory is correct, which i think is very likely, it means there is no such thing as quantum gravity.
Originally Posted by trilosophical
Just to point out, there's one somewhat simple thing that would win people over. Evidence. That is, find some experiment where GR says one thing should happen and your theory says another should happen. (Of course, to be able to say which actually happens, you'll need some math behind your theory.)
to say the totality of fermion/matter motion is equivalent to gravity is actually quite a statement.
i have never thought of this before but that is my theory tells me.
let's analyze a little bit to see what does it mean.
it means that all electromagnetic effects will cancel themselves out and have zero physics effect for GR.
it also means all nuclear effects will also cancel out in terms of matter lost and energy gain and no effect for GR.
whatever left in nature is the gravity.
have i missed anything here?
I think i just proved that my theory is correct.
and isn't that exactly why GR works, the reason GR never has to worry about EM and nuclear but still being correct?
tell me if I am wrong here.
Babbling nonsense.
Please show us the maths that allowed your theory to tell you this. Oh, that's right. You don't have a theory.
Wrong.it means that all electromagnetic effects will cancel themselves out and have zero physics effect for GR.
Reissner–Nordström metric
Kerr–Newman metric
Theories are never proved correct. (And you don't have a theory. And if you did, you have provided no evidence to confirm the mathematical predictions of your theory.)I think i just proved that my theory is correct.
Show us the maths, and we will let you know.tell me if I am wrong here.
However, it does appear that, as usual, you are making random assertions that are contradicted by known science.
It's a manifestation of the geometry of spacetime; specifically, gravity is equivalent to geodesic deviation :
Au contraire  this is exactly what GR is there for ! Given sources of energymomentum, it tells us what kind of spacetime will fit to this.GR has no notion of how to build 4D spacetime it uses
It's primarily about the geometry of spacetime; the trajectories of particles are then a consequence of that.This is because ultimately GR is about the motion of particle
Because GR is purely classical.Has anybody wondered why light behaves so nicely in GR
Yes, you have missed the fact that electromagnetic fields are also sources of energymomentum, hence they have an effect on the geometry of spacetime. GR perfectly accounts for this ( in the classical domain ), as it does with all other forms of energy as well.have i missed anything here?
I am rethinking.
It really comes down to who do we interpret the statement:
particle motion=gravity.
I begin to see Markus' point.
because in my last post I basically proved that GR does not need dynamics from the QM realm like EM and nuclear .
that is to say that 4d spacetime can stand by its won, purely due to the particle motion which we also call gravity.
so basically the 4d spacetime is whatever that is left after all QM dynamis cancelling themselves out.
and that also explains why GR is deterministic.
and more importantly, GR does behave that way, it does not have any notion of dynamics from QM.
if that is the case, it means there is no such thing as graviton.
because to say there is graviton, we are assuming the source of gravity rises from QM realm.
but now with the new understanding/interpretation of my theory and Markus's argument,
we are saying the source of gravity is particle motion and that is it.
We don't need QM's help in constructing 4d spacetime to imprint fermionics structure etc.
and that also explain why GR is Newtonianistic, because the root of gravity is particle.
and another important thing, my theory does predict that there should be a study of gravity that is a counterpart to QM and as an equal partner to QM.
Since GR deals with gravity, we can think GR is a part of that QM counterpart, but at this stage I am not ready to conclude that GR is the only and wholesome candidate of that QM counterpart.
Last edited by trilosohpical; May 1st, 2014 at 07:26 AM.
Good, how about some calculating?
You really didn't "prove" anything, unsupported assertions are not "proof". I stopped reading at this point, your delusions that you are doing physics are getting tiresome.It really comes down to who do we interpret the statement:
particle motion=gravity.
I begin to see Markus' point.
because in my last post I basically proved that GR does not need dynamics from the QM realm like EM and nuclear .
Not that fast.
If there is no graviton, how does gravity propagate in space?
So we still need bosons of some kind to make gravity field possible.
Now according to my theory, gravity does not exclude bosons, but exclude only the bosons of wave.
so bosons as particles are still part of this "particle motion=gravity" statement.
This means, we may still have a special kind of boson responsible for gravity, but they are only the particle aspect of them.
and this makes perfect sense, it means GR has counted all bosons, since bosons are particles as well according to particlewave duality.
if that is the case, it would lend GR tremendous credibility.
Wow, basically this means, the graviton which I would call particle boson, is the totality of all bosons but only of their particle aspect.
Last edited by trilosohpical; May 1st, 2014 at 08:26 AM.
My theory proves your theory wrong because my theory sees the complete opposite of what your theory does.
« Black Holes New proposal !  G spots where and when.... » 
Tags for this Thread 