QM and General Relativity may have finally been merged

[scruffy]

As far as QM covering scales, the vacuum energy is one phenomenon which relates to all scales. It is in a dynamic equilibrium, but is also a stochastic process.

Well, the standard (?) model suggests vacuum energy doesn't change with acceleration, but that contradicts the Unruh effect. If particles are popping in and out of existence we expect some of them to acquire mass, even if they're short lived. Therefore there should be a "background curvature". You can try to relate that to the cosmological constant but Unruh says you see more of it when you accelerate, the temperature gets higher and thus the VEV must be changing. So, what is the relationship between the gravity of massive particles and the expansion of the universe? You see more expansion when you accelerate?

 

[Wuwei]

Ding's on your ignore list ... how is that trolling? ... how do you even know he's posting? ...

I've said the exact same things at Ding, and then did the adult thing and let him respond ... none of this childish runaway and hide nonsense ... the both of them are frauds if they're posting their opinions here ... whereas you can only think I'm stupid at this stuff, you have no evidence I am ...

The universe might be quantized, but the human condition remains smooth ... and baiting trolls to cover ignorance is always wrong ...

Question for you too:

"My question starts with why the old formulazation of the Riemannian Geometry is wrong, and how are we demonstrating the need for this reformulazation ... i.e. is this a change in physics or a change in the math ... since you read the paper with comprehension, maybe you can explain what we should look for ... what are we seeing that needs this new rework ..."

Ding has never been on my ignore list. Nobody is or will be.

There isn't a new formalization of Riemannian geometry. It remains mathematically valid. It is a tool that handles curved spaces. The authors tell us how they think that the geometry affects QM. There is no real need for what the authors propose. They are formulating a new outside-the-box theory of the universe which has many ramifications.

They did not cover the ramifications although it would not have been too difficult. What they did cover is that they could predict some of the properties of particles. However a more comprehensive theory is needed to cover some problems with current theory.

They didn't show how it would solve any of the problems of current theory. Such as

If the universe is finite, and flat, how can there be no boundary.

A boundary would would destroy a concept of homogeneity that would come from a big bang.

If it is spherical, and so large that it seems locally flat, it does not agree with the timeline from the CMB to present even though it solves the boundary problem.

 

[Wuwei]

Well, the standard (?) model suggests vacuum energy doesn't change with acceleration, but that contradicts the Unruh effect. If particles are popping in and out of existence we expect some of them to acquire mass, even if they're short lived. Therefore there should be a "background curvature". You can try to relate that to the cosmological constant but Unruh says you see more of it when you accelerate, the temperature gets higher and thus the VEV must be changing. So, what is the relationship between the gravity of massive particles and the expansion of the universe? You see more expansion when you accelerate?

As I understand it, the mass of the vacuum energy was computed and found to be grossly large.

 

[scruffy]

."

My question starts with why the old formulazation of the Riemannian Geometry is wrong, and how are we demonstrating the need for this reformulazation ... i.e. is this a change in physics or a change in the math ... since you read the paper with comprehension, maybe you can explain what we should look for ... what are we seeing that needs this new rework ...

Wrong how? Not sure where you're going with this. You're saying the paper is wrong or the geometry is wrong? Differential topology is the more general case of Riemann, is that what you're alluding to?

Is the universe quantized or is it just the way we're looking at it? ...

The universe? Packets of energy are harmonic oscillators, the faster they move the more energy they have. Didn't I already cover this by saying "coupled oscillators"?

 

[scruffy]

As I understand it, the mass of the vacuum energy was computed and found to be grossly large.

Yes. That's one of the issues. We can't account for the expansion.

 

[ReinyDays]

Ding has never been on my ignore list. Nobody is or will be.

There isn't a new formalization of Riemannian geometry. It remains mathematically valid. It is a tool that handles curved spaces. The authors tell us how they think that the geometry affects QM. There is no real need for what the authors propose. They are formulating a new outside-the-box theory of the universe which has many ramifications.

They did not cover the ramifications although it would not have been too difficult. What they did cover is that they could predict some of the properties of particles. However a more comprehensive theory is needed to cover some problems with current theory.

They didn't show how it would solve any of the problems of current theory. Such as

If the universe is finite, and flat, how can there be no boundary.

A boundary would would destroy a concept of homogeneity that would come from a big bang.

If it is spherical, and so large that it seems locally flat, it does not agree with the timeline from the CMB to present even though it solves the boundary problem.

Sounds like the same physics just better descriptions ... doesn't current theory predict all the properties of particles? ... I do understand not covering all the problems, but does it cover any problem? ... or is this just better geometry? ... "Changing the way we look at things ..."

 

[ReinyDays]

Not sure where you're going with this.

Immediately with the ad hominim attack ... the English is clear enough ... you're just trolling ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Immediately with the ad hominim attack ... the English is clear enough ... you're just trolling ...

No, he said he wasn't sure what you were getting at.

And that isn't ad hominem.

The next time I see that term used correctly on this board might be the first.

 

[scruffy]

The Fermilab Holometer: A program to measure Planck scale indeterminacy (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information

www.osti.gov

 

[scruffy]

You're familiar with the Kuramoto model for coupled oscillators? What they call "phase noise" in the holometer is more or less what I've been talking about too. Planck scale noise.

 

[scruffy]

Immediately with the ad hominim attack ... the English is clear enough ... you're just trolling ...

Maybe this will help.

The Structure of Space and Time on the Planck Scale - THE BI-MONTHLY JOURNAL OF THE BWW SOCIETY

 

[Wuwei]

Sounds like the same physics just better descriptions ... doesn't current theory predict all the properties of particles? ... I do understand not covering all the problems, but does it cover any problem? ... or is this just better geometry? ... "Changing the way we look at things ..."

Current theory predicts many important properties, but it doesn't predict mass. The major problem is that gravity is not united with QM. That is a major purpose of the authors. There is a strong need to quantize gravity. The spin is predicted to be 2.

Yes, it is changing the way we look at things, with additional benefits.
Edit: (Only if the theory is valid.)

 

[Wuwei]

Maybe this will help.

The Structure of Space and Time on the Planck Scale - THE BI-MONTHLY JOURNAL OF THE BWW SOCIETY

I will put that on my todo list.

The Fermilab Holometer: A program to measure Planck scale indeterminacy (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information

www.osti.gov

Sounds unbelievable. I will have to look into that too.

 

[scruffy]

This is for Wuwei

Planck—Wheeler Quantum Foam as White Noise: Metric Diffusion and Congruence Focussing for Fluctuating Spacetime Geometry - General Relativity and Gravitation

It is expected that quantum effects endow spacetime with stochastic properties near the Planck scale as exemplified by random fluctuations of the metric, usually referred to as spacetime foam or geometrodynamics. In this paper, a methodology is presented for incorporating Planck scale stochastic...

link.springer.com

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is for Wuwei

Planck—Wheeler Quantum Foam as White Noise: Metric Diffusion and Congruence Focussing for Fluctuating Spacetime Geometry - General Relativity and Gravitation

It is expected that quantum effects endow spacetime with stochastic properties near the Planck scale as exemplified by random fluctuations of the metric, usually referred to as spacetime foam or geometrodynamics. In this paper, a methodology is presented for incorporating Planck scale stochastic...

link.springer.com

May I ask, is chaos deterministic?

 

[scruffy]

Hot off the press:

Physicists achieve ultrafast steering of quantum-entangled electrons

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg have succeeded in selectively manipulating the motion of the electron pair in the hydrogen molecule.

phys.org