🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:01:01 UTC No. 16444522
Ok /sci/ it's time for another take on quantum gravity
Maybe you can help me reason if there's any merit, if it's actually just Mbranes and I'm too stupid, or highlight any other issues with it.
So here we go.
For starters, instead of trying to create particles for Gravity, we instead start with the fabric of spacetime and we attempt to generate quantum behaviour with it.
To do this, we suppose that at very small scales, the fabric of spacetime is warped, not simply as in the matter of gravity but with a significant number of rosenbridges (and more complex topological objects of some-dimensional space), into a veritable sea of foam - one that is constantly warping, folding and unfolding.
Identifying a singular location in the foam is difficult, because there are multiple noneuclidean paths that approach any given place, that the concept of location doesn't work unless you straighten out the spacetime. Determining a velocity is similarly difficult, and requires the spacetime to be straightened in a different manner.
From a broader perspective, any given position would bounce around in the perspective of one observing, though a sense of locality would be found in that it is more probable to observe a position near to where expected than afar - though the spacetime warping would permit it to appear near anywhere with nonlocality.
At larger scales however, these warpings of spacetime disappear with minimal effects of the folds extending past their immediate region, and general motion and position are preserved.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:01:12 UTC No. 16444523
Next, we introduce particles. We could naively do this by dropping them into this warped space (or ether because that's a fun word to use and it saves me repeating myself) and allow them all of their usual rules as we understand from current quantum theory - but this leaves us with about the same number of problems as before with quantum, plus a few more we've introduced. Plus it's no fun to talk about.
Instead, let's model particles as different topological shapes (or warps or foldings) that comprise the ether itself. Topology gives us a means to quantise and differentiate different types of particles - and collisions between these structures can result in transformations as they pass over eachother, combine, or even decompose into sub-structures.
We've also opened ourself up to particles taking on distinctly nonlocal properties - an interaction with another particle can create an intermediary rosenbridge (or some more complex folding), that maintains locality between particles and doesn't directly interact with the ether that particle travels through (ie spooky action at a distance) except when the particle itself experiences structural changes, those may be reflected in the bridge's structure and at the particle at the other end.
Indeed, if we view the bridge from its own perspective, our entangled particles may simply be the same particle from two directions.
Presuming quantum behaviours can be solved in this manner, gravity is a force that draws these folds towards eachother - one that makes more sense if you consider distant ripples in the ether joining end to end. Ultimately the presence of these warps in spacetime consumes more spacetime than would typically appear in a purely euclidean world, and gravity is a very small corrective force to the stretching of this spacetime.
Relativity is already solved through means of using an ether with at least 4 dimensions, though we do introduce some sense of temporal non-locality which is highly contestable.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:03:57 UTC No. 16444525
You haven't even got an undergrad degree, have you?
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:08:06 UTC No. 16444534
>>16444522
>>16444523
a sure way to spot a crackpot is a complete absence of precise mathematical terms. It’s all just wishywashy ten thousand times folded superior Nihon space solving everything at once.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:08:59 UTC No. 16444536
>>16444534
cool post the mathematical reason it doesn't work then
should be trivial
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:10:07 UTC No. 16444538
>>16444536
>post the mathematical reason a word salad doesn’t work
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:16:09 UTC No. 16444551
>>16444538
you'd get r9k'd
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:21:43 UTC No. 16444561
>>16444536
Post you equations and give us 10 minutes.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:07:05 UTC No. 16444620
>>16444522
Buzzword smoothie:
Can you imagine photons have only one surface, being in shape such as kleins bottle?
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:01:03 UTC No. 16444800
>>16444522
>>16444523
Wheeler believed that all particles were spacetime curvature. Hes the guy that made general relativity popular and he thought everything in physics was general relativity.
Nothing you wrote would explain or generate quantum mechanics tho.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:11:08 UTC No. 16444812
>>16444522
>>16444523
That's cute but we already have string theory and loop quantum gravity. The next fundamental breakthrough will be the unification of physics and consciousness.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:44:43 UTC No. 16444968
>>16444812
Quantum mechanics already involves consciousness