Google Unifies Gravity-Quantum

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 8
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
If your looking for most advanced unification theories of Universe see this is bests utube explanation out there and it is simple.  It is the kind of stuff ive been into for years, as have many theoretical physicists. ER = EPR only Einstein didnt know it when he made is mathematical discoveries.

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc
I think this comment on the site says it all.

What a fantastically made documentary explaining a complex and mind blowing concept in an engaging manner. Huge respect to the often overlooked animators on this one. I thought the graphics were unique and fascinating, so well done Rui Braz and Kim Taylor!

Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,984
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@ebuc
If your looking for most advanced unification theories of Universe see this is bests utube explanation out there and it is simple.  It is the kind of stuff ive been into for years, as have many theoretical physicists. ER = EPR only Einstein didnt know it when he made is mathematical discoveries.

It's a great video, very interesting theory, Susskind is a genius.

But ER=EPR is only conjecture at this time; and they are clearly overreaching to say quantum entanglement is always accompanied by topological connectivity. Mathematical correlation is not causation and it’s quite a stretch to call this a “unifying theory”,  once again we are confusing the tools of science with the substance of science, learning more about our mathematics than we are about the underlying reality the mathematics is supposed to be representing.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
ER and ERP are mathematical resultants of Einstein, Rosen and subseuently Podosky via general relativety if I understand correctly.

In subequently 1965 R penrose wrote on page paper proving Einsteins GR correct regarding formation of black hole, singularity {  null geodesic } and subsequently, in 2018 won nobel prize for that proof.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Along come Suskind Malcedona's conclusion, that, like what is known with classical particles being entangled, that black holes also are entangled --ergo duality of ER = ERP--  and via  a holographic mechanism, --along with another classical mechanism 'negative energy'? charging the wormhole---  there can be transfer of information { positive Linus Q-bit } between the the black holes. Linus is in Susskinds other vid explanning these events.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My geometric, and incomplete version of the above, involves Fullers Synergetic geometry idea of zero-volume tetrahedron  LINK  and subsequently a cubo-octahedron aka Vector Equlibrium{ VE } being a black hole. In the following LINK we find Fullers spherical VE being created and by its four, independent hexagonal planes and this leads to equlibrium of chords >< radii i.e. 24 chords >< 24 radii.

I see the holographic positive Linus Qbit as one of the of these four, identical and equlibrious { 6 chords >< 6 radii }---  hexagons, as shown in the LINK

For more on my ideas, of the similar vein, see my Quantum Entanglement via Hexa-god ideas ---still naive explorations---  in this LINK human brain and torus.

I think it is best to think of each of Fullers 2D great circles LINK as 3D, vectorial tori. So the above single hexagon is a torus, that infolds --to some degree-- upon itself.  What Ive not yet given much thought, is how the radii are incorporated into the 3D torus idea, at least when only considering a single particle or black hole or other. Originally I thought of the each of the six radii being one section of six other tori, in addition to thecurved 6 chords { great circle } as one tori.

Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,984
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
ER and ERP are mathematical resultants of Einstein, Rosen and subseuently Podosky via general relativety if I understand correctly.
Yes, both theories, ER and EPR are mathematically derived from Einstein’s GR Field Equations.
 
In subequently 1965 R penrose wrote on page paper proving Einsteins GR correct regarding formation of black hole, singularity {  null geodesic } and subsequently, in 2018 won nobel prize for that proof.
That paper was “Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities”, Roger Penrose predicted singularities from Einstein’s GR Field Equations and won the Nobel Prize for it, but 50 years later after there was convincing evidence of the actual existence of singularities, but it had nothing to do with ER (Wormholes) or EPR (Entanglement). 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Along come Suskind Malcedona's conclusion, that, like what is known with classical particles being entangled, that black holes also are entangled --ergo duality of ER = ERP--  and via  a holographic mechanism, --along with another classical mechanism 'negative energy'? charging the wormhole---  there can be transfer of information { positive Linus Q-bit } between the the black holes. Linus is in Susskinds other vid explanning these events.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ER was a conjectural theory extrapolated from GR Field Equations, but so far, it’s only a hypothetical product of the abstract mathematics, solving for certain inputs to the General Theory’s field equations tells us that an ER Bridge between Black Holes is theoretically possible, but there is still no evidence that one has ever occurred.   It was only decades later that there was enough convincing evidence that Penrose’s singularities existed for the Nobel award, but there’s still not a shred of evidence of an ER Bridge being anything but theoretically possible. 
 
EPR is well documented and proven, but ER is conjectural, and extrapolation to ER=EPR is conjecture upon conjecture.  What was done by Susskind and Maldacena to test their theory was a simulation on a quantum computer, they may or may not have actually created a wormhole at nano scales within the simulation, but what the theory says is theoretically possible produces other aspects that are theoretically impossible. The solution for the firewall problem resulted in theoretically impossible outcomes like the non-linear entanglement of three particles, and connected but separable states.
 
ER=EPR is strictly abstract mathematics, to call it a unifying theory and claim it defines the very structure of space-time and gravity is a huge stretch of the imagination.  The demarcations are getting harder and harder to make, but it’s important to understand the difference between when we are doing mathematics and when we are doing physics.  If we don’t, we end up confusing the tools of science with the substance of science and we lose any connection to the truth about reality.
 
Nowhere does it say GR and Quantum Theory have to be unified, they are fundamentally different kinds of theories, mutually exclusive foundationally and therefore, irreconcilable in principle. All this effort to unify them by creating new kinds of mathematics with multiple hidden dimensions, and then conjuring unobserved and unobservable realities into existence, all of it unverifiable, even theoretically, at best we are doing some exciting mathematics, but what we aren’t doing anymore, is science.

My geometric, and incomplete version of the above, involves Fullers Synergetic geometry idea of zero-volume tetrahedron  LINK  and subsequently a cubo-octahedron aka Vector Equlibrium{ VE } being a black hole. In the following LINK we find Fullers spherical VE being created and by its four, independent hexagonal planes and this leads to equlibrium of chords >< radii i.e. 24 chords >< 24 radii.

I see the holographic positive Linus Qbit as one of the of these four, identical and equlibrious { 6 chords >< 6 radii }---  hexagons, as shown in the LINK

For more on my ideas, of the similar vein, see my Quantum Entanglement via Hexa-god ideas ---still naive explorations---  in this LINK human brain and torus.

I think it is best to think of each of Fullers 2D great circles LINK as 3D, vectorial tori. So the above single hexagon is a torus, that infolds --to some degree-- upon itself.  What Ive not yet given much thought, is how the radii are incorporated into the 3D torus idea, at least when only considering a single particle or black hole or other. Originally I thought of the each of the six radii being one section of six other tori, in addition to thecurved 6 chords { great circle } as one tori.
This is where you always lose me, I never see the correlation between the theories and the geometries that you associate with them, how do they relate?  Mathematically the General Theory is essentially a geometric model, but I don’t see how GR singularities and Buckminster Fuller’s zero-volume tetrahedron, etc. are correlated at all.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
zero-volume tetrahedron = null geodesics/singularity, as Penrose proved the latter part.

when the 3D --tetrahedron--- vanishes it to null geodesic singularity, it did not truly vanish,--as the graphic shows---  but the VE appeared as the tet vanished ergo, occupied space does not vanish in black holes. or elsewhere.

Finite, occupied space Universe is eternally existent.   Naught is ever/eternally created nor destroyed.

You've followed Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Universe { CCU } scenarios, yes?

Ive had two cosmological scenarios of eternally existent Universe, long before I read his CCU scenario.


Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,984
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@ebuc
zero-volume tetrahedron = null geodesics/singularity, as Penrose proved the latter part.
The null geodesic singularity is an incomplete geodesic, by definition a geodesic is a straight line on a curved surface, it can’t equate to a tetrahedron in reality, sharing a property of zero volume doesn’t mean they are equal by any stretch. You are talking abstract mathematics, rather than physics.

when the 3D --tetrahedron--- vanishes it to null geodesic singularity, it did not truly vanish,--as the graphic shows---  but the VE appeared as the tet vanished ergo, occupied space does not vanish in black holes. or elsewhere.
According to theory, space is infinitely curved in the singularity, which is to say that spatially, it has no  dimensional existence, so according to the General Theory it does in fact, vanish.

Finite, occupied space Universe is eternally existent.   Naught is ever/eternally created nor destroyed.
Isn’t the phrase “eternally created” inconsistent, I think they are mutually exclusive terms. 

You've followed Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Universe { CCU } scenarios, yes?
Yes, and it’s exactly what I was talking about in terms of purely mathematical conjecture, it introduces inconsistencies and logical paradox in providing a solution to questions we didn’t need to ask.  Roger Penrose’ latest book is “Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe” in which he demonstrates how the new physics has become subject to fashionable theories based more on faith and fantasy than science, he ends by showing how his own work has wandered into the realm of pure fantasy, he said his own Conformal Cyclic Universe could be considered "Conformal Crazy Cosmology."

Ive had two cosmological scenarios of eternally existent Universe, long before I read his CCU scenario.
Any theory that postulates an eternal history is logically inconsistent because you can’t traverse a temporal infinite, so you can’t get here from there, so to speak. 
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
You are talking abstract mathematics, rather than physics.
Yes, my speculations. Sorry if you have not understood my positioning over many years now.

The Penrose proof of null-geodesic photons { 3D plus time/motion } vanish aka geodesic incompleteness aka singularity ergo 1D, or 0D as in zero-volume tet. The tet is the abstract, minimal 3D volume of Universe. If you have a better abstract geometry that would correlate too photons, please share :--)

so according to the General Theory it does in fact, vanish.

that has been my point with the zero-volume, 60 degree oriented tet, that vanishes and the 60 degree oriented VE replaces it, along with the 12 external trianglular wings { EMRadiation? evaporating black hole? }

In my scenarios, --at least as far in regarding black holes, not entanglement---, I take note of two or many correlations {See 1 and 2 below } to jacob bekenstiens findings, that, what exists inside a black hole is expressed on the surface { event horizon } of a black hole, and this led to bekensteins comment in SA, that,..' we appear to be 2D creatures having an illusion of 3D "...

...1} Archimedes discovery that the area of four circular planes --ergo the VE-- are equal of the the surface area of the sphere { VE } being defined. LINK graphic B,

...2} VE ---Fullers operating system of Universe--- = equanimity of circumferential { event horizon } chords 24  >< 24 radii { inside the black hole }, as seen in the above link graphic B, ergo,

...3} I envision one of the hexagonal { 2D } planes as a Q-bit hologram { 2D infolded as hyper-space 3D, two tets } of the whole VE, being that the each of the four bow-ties { two tets } are identical, and that they have equanimity via the chords 6 >< 6 radii, i.e. what is inside is expressed on the outer circumference,

....4} my cosmological belief, is that, all of Universe's  quantum parts are eternally entangled, via Gravity and Dark Energy.  --graviton-darkEon being two sides of the same coin, and Susskinds usings that phrasing for Gravity and Quantum being two sides of the same coin. I can get you link to that vid, however as a nice graphic of an entangled Universes --not specifically my models--, see this LINK

....4a} think of the my bow-tie Q-bit, holographic black holes --and to some degree all particles of Universe--  entanglement this way . The VE spherical bow-tie VE --or spherical tetrahedron---, as a black hole, sucks in occupied space, ergo, zillion^10 of these bow-ties compose the one VE/tet black hole. Then we have this constant transfer or relationship via bow-ties, hexagons or whatever.  This gets begins to into my one of my two cosmological scenarios, so I stop here. 


Isn’t the phrase “eternally created” inconsistent, I think they are mutually exclusive terms
Please forgive my poor grammar skills where-ever they occur. Naught is created nor destroyed i.e. no occupied space is ever { ergo eternally " created nor destroyed. Ever = eternally,  naught is ever created nor destroyed only transformed, and that is the point of the zero-volume tet being transformed into the VE plus 12 triangles.

...his own work has wandered into the realm of pure fantasy, he said his own Conformal Cyclic Universe could be considered "Conformal Crazy Cosmology."
Only semi-read emperors new mind, many years ago. ..' education has been of the biggest impediments to my learning . A. Einstien, i.e. imagination led him to relativity. ---- As an aside note, since Fuller mentioned Einstein in his book 4D Time-Lock, they would not publish his book, so he asked them to ask Einstien what he thought, and Einstein asked to meet with Fuller. Fuller recounts this in last book Cosmography----.

 As for "crazy", I read a book by some physicists, who had some wild ideas about electrons and back in the day, he met with Feynman, and he stated, that Feynman said his ideas cannot possibly be correct because they are not  crazy enough to explain the quantum weirdness.

Any theory that postulates an eternal history is logically inconsistent because you can’t traverse a temporal infinite, so you can’t get here from there, so to speak.
" temporal infinite"? You lost me there, please clarify.

Neither of my cosmological scenarios involve infinite space, only eternally existent finite, occupied space Universe/Cosmos/Nature ergo, once again, naught is created nor destroyed, and this eternally true ergo inviolate truth, tho maybe never proved as a fact.

.." eternity is to time,
as infinite is to space "...Fuller quote... ergo a distinction is to be made.

Fullers speculates Universe  this way. Within a macro-finite Universe, we have mirco-infinite, spatial phenomena via multiplication-by-division. I wont go further into those ideas, --unless you choose to know more in those regards---  rather, here is graphic of a basic premise of his, being there can never exists a spatial phenomena that is less than a 3D tetrahedron.

You can click the zoom in at bottom of page to see it better http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate03.html

In reviewing the above I came across another Synergetics LINK that is very much related to one of my two  cosmological scenarios, back when i was first learning about entropic heat death of our finite { integral/integrity } Universe.