These are my opinions.
Update 4 – 2016-07-12
The Standard Model is falling apart at the seams and international scientists have come up with a theory that validates my hypothesis in many ways, yet is still not as simple as my full theory…
The so-called “Big Bang” has just been upended. Now apparently it’s a “Big Bounce”.
“According to the team – consisting of physicists from the UK and Canada – when the Universe is at its smallest point, it is ruled by quantum mechanics instead of the normal physics of the everyday world around us.”
“Quantum mechanics saves us when things break down,” explains team member Steffen Gielen, from Imperial College London.
“It saves electrons from falling in and destroying atoms, so maybe it could also save the early Universe from such violent beginnings and endings as the Big Bang and Big Crunch.” (Spoiler: The Big Curnch is how scientists predict our Universe might end, and it ain’t pretty.”
Um, ya, I’ll probably not lose any sleep over the “Big Curnch”, given all the psychological subversion tactics simultaneously coming to fruition thanks to Marxist fruitcakes, the civilized world will long since have fallen thanks to your cultural relativism, political correctness and echo chamber ego elation long before we all become one glorious “Curnch”. En passant, there is one application in the Universe for cultural relativism that might be accurate: when all universal mass is concentrated in the same event.
I really don’t know how these people can expect credibility when their fundamental creation hypothesis vacillates between a “bouncing” system and a “banging” system. Shouldn’t the primal cause be worked out by now if we expect our model is correct?
There should never be any “suspension of disbelief” employed at any point during the reasoning process. The only thing I believe could possibly be viewed as the exception to this (although I certainly do not consider it unreasonable, I know many do) is when a practice has not yet reached the point where it produces tangible benefits, but is still undertaken by instruction of the teacher, who is obeyed by virtue of their superior knowledge. In the meantime, faith is placed in the teacher to deliver the knowledge. Without this essential step, the transfer of knowledge is severely impeded.
In my book, we will have a fourfold action and fourfold scale of magnification model which explains the entire universe with no singularities, predicts the allotropic distribution of elements and enhances structural isomer modelling. My theories also present a Quantum Mind framework which predict the modern psychological afflictions in a “first approximation” way. Looking forward to more science and thanks everyone for taking down the SJW’s with me. It was a real groundswell of cultural libertarianism. We can’t stop now, or ever.
Update 3 – I have expanded this proof here.
What is a Centre of Mass?
- Everything massive has gravity. Gravity behaves differently in realized and quantum mechanical systems, but it is universally attractive.
- Every massive object exerts gravity on every other massive object, and fields, which in turn can then demonstrate forces on massive objects (although they are not massive themselves).
- The centre of mass is the point in an object where the gravity vectors cancel each other out, according to classical mechanics…
Non-Relativistic, Non-Quantum Mechanics
Mechanics is the domain of physics concerning itself with motion. The centre of mass (CoM) coordinate system is central to this discipline. Very often in physics, to simplify the calculations describing complex mechanical systems, we perform a transformation that converts the CoM to the origin. This coordinate transform makes problems that were previously impossible approachable because it reduces the complexity of associated calculations. This operation is a physicist’s best friend. It works well when the shapes in the physical system have a definite shape and volume, (i.e.: a solid).
The success of the CoM coordinate transform in classical mechanics has led to its incorrect application to quantum mechanical (QM) systems. The intimate link between the observation and the observed makes this coordinate transformation tricky for QM systems.
QM systems don’t have a localized CoM, only a particular probability distribution of observing the centre of massive energy. This is not equivalent to the macro-scale (CM) 3 dimensional measurements needed to compute the centre of mass: these are not independent of the act of observation in QM systems. Of course this does not matter in non GR circumstances.
Whereas the calculation of the CoM “C” (above) is trivial (for a practicing physicist), an analogous calculation is not possible without altering the CoM on the QM level for an entangled system. The most obvious demonstration of this is the “spreading” of the spacetime dimensions on the fine scale of the individual atom.
For a more complete explanation of this, see:
On both the macro and micro scales, there are 3 spatial and one temporal dimension. On the micro-scale, time is a mesh encircling space. On the macro-scale, space is a blob, moving forward in time: a straight line.
On the microscale, the spacetime (energetic) dimensions are smeared out unevenly across the 3 physical dimensions: the 3 dimensions of space are not independent of the act of observation. In the “gross”/realized/day-to-day realm, we have no analogy for this, because we experience the 3 spatial dimensions as equivalent: measuring someone’s height does not affect the measurement of their waist! Strangely, people perceive me as thinner because I am taller. This is permissible of course, and in fact consistent with predictions of the model that the mind is a QM computer (the quantum mind’s measurement of my height is not independent of its measurement of my waist!) 😉 .
We shall see here that for complex QM systems under General Relativistic Circumstances, the CoM coordinate transformation is undefined, and thus inapplicable.
The Impossible Coordinate System Transformation
General relativity concerns itself with the general case of coordinate system transformations. It stipulates that space and time curve under the influence of external force fields.
We must impose the condition of measurability for the CoM, and this is where problems arise. In most systems, this is not an issue because either the centre of mass is fully realized (localized), or the system is not accelerated (so the CoM doesn’t change with time).
The centre of mass coordinate transformation is predicated on the uniqueness of the centre of mass. Since the centre of mass of a complex (entangled) QM entity exists in potential, we cannot know its value at all times, because that would imply the system had been altered irreversibly in the process of determining the time-varying values of the CoM of the system!
This is the quantum mechanical way. It is not possible to know the centre of mass for a system whose state variables are dependent on the act of observation when we need to additionally measure the movement of the coordinate system (in the GR case). The centre of mass, or origin, is in potential for systems with many entangled waveforms under non-uniformly accelerated motion (= under arbitrary external forces).
The GR notion of coordinate system invariance must therefore be given less importance if the QMCS is to remain relevant.
How can we prove our conjecture? Let’s consider the opposite: if General Relativity applies to Quantum Mechanical systems, then we ought to be able to state that the laws of physics apply equivalently in arbitrary systems. Thus all we have to do is choose one in which the CoM is observed and one in which it is not! Since the behaviour of the system with the observed centre of mass will now be different than had it not been, these systems will evolve differently by definition and contradict the precept of General Relativity!
Thus for any system for which measurements are not independent of observation (= QM), there is no way to perform a consistent coordinate transformation into the CoM under GR conditions. General relativity can only be meaningfully applied to systems for which a CoM is uniquely defined and thus for systems for which the classical limit applies (to within a reasonable error margin), not the QMCS.
Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are thus incompatible.
General relativity is an excellent theory to model systems where the CoM is realized. In the quantum limit, it makes no sense to speak of a CoM which is independent of measurement, a requisite construct for the GR case.
Epilogue: Quantum Gravity
The combination of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics is supposed to herald the much coveted “Quantum Gravity” formulation.
Thought experiment: We are currently held in place along our orbit by the gravity of the Sun. If, (perhaps by some Christmas miracle), the sun suddenly stopped existing, would we feel the change in the gravity field instantly? Or would it take the ~ 8 minutes it takes for the Sun’s rays to reach us?
This question is important: I believe the first answer is correct, while proponents of the “graviton” believe it is the second!
I believe the superior hypothesis is that there are no gravitons because gravity represents instantaneous action at a distance: Mass is everywhere interconnected. I believe we should embrace the interconnected Mass hypothesis because there is no experimental support for gravitons and no reason to believe they exist other than to prop up the attachment our culture has to a Grand Unified Field Theory.
Reddit gave feedback but proved unwilling to abandon Standard Model!
r/physics, thanks for the feedback!
It’s been pointed out to me that there exists an operator to move into the CoM coordinate system for QM systems and that this means what I’ve written is incorrect. I accept that the CoM coordinate transform is necessary for solving most physics problems, and I agree that it is an acceptable shift for systems in which the CoM is independent of the acts of measurement/observation on said system.
That said, in GR circumstances, the CoM changes with time. Thus, we have a problem: the CoM is not independent of the interactions within the system nor of the movement of the system. Since the act of measuring the the CoM in such systems creates a new system (because QM observations change QM systems), such a coordinate transform is not independent of the movement of its coordinate system: the reference frame where the CoM is observed will be different from the one where it isn’t, by the observer effect of QM. I welcome any physicist (amateur or not) to find error with this.