Super Polymath Posted December 31, 2017 Report Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) Ads/cft would not describe your personal hypothesis.Yea that's why I'm asking for an as-of-yet unmade, novel approach to particle physics where it's treated just like astronomy. Just like Gerard t'Hooft's paper that your husband actually +1'd on .net where the Dutch physicist questions whether QM was even valid from it's very conception, offering a quantum cellular automaton as an alternative which looks more like my theory but not exactly the same - my theory has no quanta what-so-ever. I've actually emailed t'Hooft, twice. Edited December 31, 2017 by Super Polymath Quote
Super Polymath Posted December 31, 2017 Report Posted December 31, 2017 By the way, as far as physics is concerned, sub-planck dynamics is nonsense. Why, because photons can't make any detail of such events rendering them mere speculation. As t'Hooft claimed, just cause we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. & if it is there, it should act just like the macroscopic world, conforming to Einstein's aether where matter tells space-time how to curve & this curve (gravity) tells matter how to move. All eigenvalues could be a function of gravity. Quote
Super Polymath Posted December 31, 2017 Report Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) It's because the Planck scales where not arrived at by chance, they where arrived from a mathematical derivation within bounds of science that made sense with physics. I am not saying sub-Planck scales are in theory in allowed.... just... very unlikely. Well, I would really appreciate it if you'd model it for me. I might even pay you. Though, I'm broke, lol. Edited December 31, 2017 by Super Polymath Quote
Super Polymath Posted December 31, 2017 Report Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) How can you pay me if you are broke? :)I can still make money, but I'm not sure yet on whether you will model it according to my theory on point or if the math would be correct Edited December 31, 2017 by Super Polymath Quote
Super Polymath Posted December 31, 2017 Report Posted December 31, 2017 It would be cheaper than college, not to mention all the paid misinfo profs throwing QM at me Quote
Super Polymath Posted December 31, 2017 Report Posted December 31, 2017 For something by definition to be ''correct'' needs to mean that a theory can be proven which it can't. However, there are regions in which something is not even theory. It can be proven with experiment. Quote
Super Polymath Posted December 31, 2017 Report Posted December 31, 2017 I have the equation in a visual format, as well as in a linguistic format. I wish you'd convert it, you are very good at detail. Quote
Super Polymath Posted January 4, 2018 Report Posted January 4, 2018 I have updated the OP a few times.I really wish I knew why you won't model my theory. You could live in a paradise, forget the nobel in physics or a billion dollar bribe from a 1%er or something Quote
Super Polymath Posted January 5, 2018 Report Posted January 5, 2018 http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30701-can-someone-model-this-mathematically/ Just saying Quote
Super Polymath Posted January 5, 2018 Report Posted January 5, 2018 I need to agree with a theory before I help write one. What is the nature of your objections Quote
Super Polymath Posted January 6, 2018 Report Posted January 6, 2018 Too many to reconcile in one go that it would take time and I don't have much of it. Yet it's more & more fitting with your & Vmedvil's equations Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.