sevensixtwo
Junior Member
- Messages
- 144
There are no other mathematical constructs that connect Einstein's equation to quantum mechanics. Despite more than 100 years of searching, no one ever found one until I did. You have it in your mind that my theory is just a drop of the bucket of many theories, but there are none. String theory, loop quantum gravity, aether wave theory, the amplituhedron... you name it, no one has ever written down math that shows how quanta might gravitate on a dynamical continuum.
>you are only claiming to have "discovered" a different mathematical interpretation.
More buffoonery. I came up with an interpretation for the math, that is true, but I have discovered an entire new construction that has absolutely nothing to do with the physical interpretation I have assigned to it. This is like when Newton was able to advance physics because he discovered the calculus.
Are you aware that physics is divided into two disciplines: theory and experiment? I am a theorist and you, buffoon, are incorrectly judging me against the experimental criterion for success. You know how Higgs has been a world renowned physicist for most of our adult lives? It's because he wrote down the math below. Even though they didn't "confirm" his theory until 2012, the global physics community had already been name dropping him a thousand times a day for decades. Writing down the math is the hardest part. Then comes building the machine that tests it. Everything else is just turning the crank.
>I hope you realize that just because a thing works out mathematically, that doesn't mean it's anything other than a mathematical construct.
Then why has Higgs been world famous for 40 years? All he did was write down something that worked out mathematically in 1964. Higgs' paper was not even two pages, and his entire reputation and world-class accolades up to 2012 were based on what he wrote there, not on any experimental confirmation of it: Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons
>you are only claiming to have "discovered" a different mathematical interpretation.
More buffoonery. I came up with an interpretation for the math, that is true, but I have discovered an entire new construction that has absolutely nothing to do with the physical interpretation I have assigned to it. This is like when Newton was able to advance physics because he discovered the calculus.
Are you aware that physics is divided into two disciplines: theory and experiment? I am a theorist and you, buffoon, are incorrectly judging me against the experimental criterion for success. You know how Higgs has been a world renowned physicist for most of our adult lives? It's because he wrote down the math below. Even though they didn't "confirm" his theory until 2012, the global physics community had already been name dropping him a thousand times a day for decades. Writing down the math is the hardest part. Then comes building the machine that tests it. Everything else is just turning the crank.
>I hope you realize that just because a thing works out mathematically, that doesn't mean it's anything other than a mathematical construct.
Then why has Higgs been world famous for 40 years? All he did was write down something that worked out mathematically in 1964. Higgs' paper was not even two pages, and his entire reputation and world-class accolades up to 2012 were based on what he wrote there, not on any experimental confirmation of it: Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons
Last edited:
