Correlating Newtonian Model with Einstein's GR

[NotEinstein]

Examples are given in the four unknown forces which I have developed. Specially you can read about the space-force https://www.academia.edu/34302744/One_More_Unknown_Force_to_be_Considered_as_Space_Force . You also can read about other three unknown forces https://www.academia.edu/34096181/THREE_UNKNOWN_FORCES_TO_BE_CONSIDERED .

So you refuse to give any here?
I guess I'll deal with them when I read your remaining two texts.

Based on my Instantaneous Law of Inertia, I have redefined the term "force". You can see my Instantaneous Law of Inertia https://www.academia.edu/35206537/Instantaneous_Law_of_Inertia .

In other words, you are violating basic principes of Newtonian physics. Great, glad we got that cleared up.

Space and fields are dynamic quantity. So, force can be applied to them. Force can be applied to any dynamic quantity.

So you agree with me that you are using a definition of the word "force" that is incompatible with its usage in physics. Great, glad we got that cleared up.

Perhaps you should make this more clear in your first two texts I read, because your definition isn't given there.

Universe is expanding. So we can consider that metric expansion of space is happening. Space-force can be considered for this. Link I already mentioned above.

Yes, the universe appears to be very much non-Newtonian, and thus any Newtonian model will have great difficulty explaining it.

(I strongly suspect you have just introduced a preferred reference frame by claiming the universal expansion can be considered a "space-force", and that you are violating the light-speed limit. But I guess we'll go into that in more details later.)​

In the title, the paper is claiming about unification.

Please explain how the title of a non-peer-reviewed paper you found has bearing on whether QFT is compatible with GR?

My TOE is based on Newtonian Model. That paper TOE is in GR model. So, there is no conflict. We can always have multiple solution to a problem.

Except that the Newtonian Model is incompatible with the GR model, and thus at most only one of them can be true. Multiple solutions are fine (Newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian mechanics are a perfect example!), but incompatible solutions cannot coexist.

There is nothing like Newtonian universe or Einsteinian universe. It is the same universe for all.

And that universe is not compatible with Newtonian physics, and thus your "Instantaneous Law of Inertia" can be rejected on that basis.

All these can be explained with the Law of Inertia. These can be explained with the concept of forces. If they cannot be explained with the known forces, unknown forces can be considered. You can also read the link https://www.academia.edu/35206537/Instantaneous_Law_of_Inertia . These are covered there.

Again, please stop dodging questions. Demonstrate that your Law of Inertia can explain them. Show calculations, evidence. Just you saying "it can, trust me" isn't worth anything in science.

 

[Schmelzer]

I know there's a lot (more) trouble with QFT and infinities, but isn't the SM without QFT like the Periodic Table without atomic theory? Is there any other theory/framework in existence in which the properties of the particles described by the SM can be explained?

There is. Essentially it is even quite easy - use a lattice regularization. The same what you do when you want to solve some equations on the computer - approximate the continuous field by a function on a lattice. The relativists are aware of this possibility, and use them even for computations. The only problem: They don't like it, because there is no such animal as Lorentz invariance on the lattice.

But you do agree that there are classically measurable things that can only be explained by a quantum theory? And that, thus, a classical field theory will necessarily be (more) incomplete/less broadly applicable than a quantum field theory?

Of course, classical theory is an approximation of quantum theory, and if you want high enough accuracy, the classical approximation will fail. Less applicable, yes. But incomplete? No. The classical approximation also predicts something of the same type. Only not accurate enough.

Are there classical descriptions of the weak and strong nuclear interactions? You can't have a classical TOE without that.​

Of course, there are. But they are quite useless.

Do you think Quantum Gravity(QG) and TOE are different?

They are. As explained, QG may be about gravity only, without anything about the SM, and TOE may be classical only.

Would you like to offer your views about my Instantaneous Law of Inertia ( https://www.academia.edu/35206537/Instantaneous_Law_of_Inertia )?

Its simply nonsense.

 

[NotEinstein]

There is. Essentially it is even quite easy - use a lattice regularization. The same what you do when you want to solve some equations on the computer - approximate the continuous field by a function on a lattice. The relativists are aware of this possibility, and use them even for computations. The only problem: They don't like it, because there is no such animal as Lorentz invariance on the lattice.

Interesting! What's the name of this theory/framework, so I can look it up?

Of course, classical theory is an approximation of quantum theory, and if you want high enough accuracy, the classical approximation will fail. Less applicable, yes. But incomplete? No. The classical approximation also predicts something of the same type. Only not accurate enough.

(With "incomplete" I was referring to the fact quantum effects would be absent.)
So a classical field theory that can only describe a subset of what Quantum Field Theory can, and probably with lower accuracy as well. So it cannot be a TOE, as it clearly is not all-encompassing.

(Note: I'm using Wikipedia's definition: "A theory of everything (ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.")

Of course, there are. But they are quite useless.

So you need quantum theories to have a TOE.

(Note that there may be non-quantum explanations for the things we currently call "quantum effects", and those theories might be superior to quantum theories. In that case, I would be arguing in favor of those theories over quantum theories, obviously.)

They are. As explained, QG may be about gravity only, without anything about the SM, and TOE may be classical only.

Except it can't be, as you just said yourself: classical theories are not as good as quantum theories, and a TOE needs to be all-encompassing. If I have two possible-TOE's, and one is better than the other at modeling physical reality, the other is not a TOE.

 

[Schmelzer]

Interesting! What's the name of this theory/framework, so I can look it up?

Simply lattice theory. Or lattice regularization. Problems which may appear in this approach you find with "chiral lattice theory" and "fermion doubling".

So a classical field theory that can only describe a subset of what Quantum Field Theory can, and probably with lower accuracy as well.

No, there is no such subset. In fact, the classical theory describes even more - namely, trajectories, instead of probability distributions only. So, what makes quantum theory better is only that it is more accurate.

So you need quantum theories to have a TOE.

A classical theory alone would not be viable because falsified by observations where quantum effects are important. But it would be a theory about exactly the same objects as the quantum TOE. So, it would be also a "single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics", and it would be also about "all physical aspects of the universe". It would also explain and link them all. Only incorrectly. But this could happen with a quantum TOE too.

If I have two possible-TOE's, and one is better than the other at modeling physical reality, the other is not a TOE.

Makes no sense. If General Relativity is better than Newtonian gravity, Newtonian gravity is no longer a theory of gravity? Same for theories of everything. If the two theories are about the same things, that means in this case about everything, they are TOEs, even if one is falsified and useful only as an approximation.

 

[NotEinstein]

Simply lattice theory. Or lattice regularization. Problems which may appear in this approach you find with "chiral lattice theory" and "fermion doubling".

I can find mentions of the successful application of lattice field theory to QCD and gauge theories, but I can't find much information on whether lattice theory is as far as QFT in describing the entire SM.

And what I find funny is that you scoff at using some well-reasoned but seemingly arbitrary cut-off to create effective field theories, but arbitrarily deciding to do everything on some lattice is somehow not dubious.

No, there is no such subset.

So quantum effects are described by classical field theories?

In fact, the classical theory describes even more - namely, trajectories, instead of probability distributions only.

I was under the impression that quantum field theories can do that too. Doesn't QFT describe an electron flying through empty space as having all kinds of quantum fluctuations around it, but when "zooming out" it reduces to the classical electron we all know?

So, what makes quantum theory better is only that it is more accurate.

If that's the only difference, it's more than enough to throw out classical theories, because obviously they are better.

A classical theory alone would not be viable because falsified by observations where quantum effects are important.

Agreed.

But it would be a theory about exactly the same objects as the quantum TOE.

But missing the quantum effects.

So, it would be also a "single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics",

Except it missed the quantum effects, so it's not all-encompassing.

and it would be also about "all physical aspects of the universe".

Except for the quantum aspect of it.

It would also explain and link them all.

Except for quantum effects.

Only incorrectly.

And thus it would make a terrible TOE.

But this could happen with a quantum TOE too.

Quantum: could. Classical: does. I prefer to stick with the one not (yet) proved to be incorrect.

Makes no sense. If General Relativity is better than Newtonian gravity, Newtonian gravity is no longer a theory of gravity?

It's no longer all-encompassing, because it doesn't have any relativistic effects. But more importantly: if it's wrong, it doesn't "explain all physical aspects of the universe", simply because it doesn't describe our universe.

Same for theories of everything. If the two theories are about the same things, that means in this case about everything, they are TOEs, even if one is falsified and useful only as an approximation.

If a theory is falsified, it cannot be describing our universe, and thus cannot be a TOE.

And before you claim that it's still a TOE because it describes a universe: that would make every theory a TOE, so that's a useless definition of the term TOE.

 

[Schmelzer]

I can find mentions of the successful application of lattice field theory to QCD and gauge theories, but I can't find much information on whether lattice theory is as far as QFT in describing the entire SM.

You will find what people do to make computations. They don't consider a lattice as more than a tool for computations.

And what I find funny is that you scoff at using some well-reasoned but seemingly arbitrary cut-off to create effective field theories, but arbitrarily deciding to do everything on some lattice is somehow not dubious.

I don't. QFT considered as effective field theory is fine. You can do it using various regularizations, a lattice approximation is simply one method. I like it because it gives a well-defined theory with a finite number of degrees of freedom, thus, it gives a well-defined theory.

So quantum effects are described by classical field theories?

Quantum effects are not objects.

I was under the impression that quantum field theories can do that too. Doesn't QFT describe an electron flying through empty space as having all kinds of quantum fluctuations around it, but when "zooming out" it reduces to the classical electron we all know?

They describe not trajectories, but some wave packets or so. (Except realistic interpretations like dBB, which have trajectories.)

And thus it would make a terrible TOE.

Terrible or not, TOE is TOE. Don't forget, I do not argue that one should use them, I simply clarify the meaning of the phrase TOE.

It's no longer all-encompassing, because it doesn't have any relativistic effects.

1.) A theory of gravity should not be all-encompassing, but encompassing gravity. This was not proposed not as a TOE, but as an example for the meaning of phrases like "theory of X". 2.) A theory of gravity should encompass the gravitational field, not whatever "effects".

If a theory is falsified, it cannot be describing our universe, and thus cannot be a TOE.

It cannot describe it correctly but nonetheless describes it. Incorrectly. If one would follow your concept, we would never have a TOE. Because we can, in principle, never prove any physical theory. It has to be falsifiable, so falsification is always a theoretical possibility. So, we could never know if it is really a TOE.

And before you claim that it's still a TOE because it describes a universe: that would make every theory a TOE, so that's a useless definition of the term TOE.

No. Newton and Einstein had a theory of gravity, Maxwell had one of the electromagnetic field, both had no pretense to describe everything. The SM is also not a TOE, because it does not even pretend to describe gravity.

 

[NotEinstein]

You will find what people do to make computations. They don't consider a lattice as more than a tool for computations.

That doesn't answer the question. How is cutting off a bad integral to make the answers make sense not the same?

I don't. QFT considered as effective field theory is fine. You can do it using various regularizations, a lattice approximation is simply one method. I like it because it gives a well-defined theory with a finite number of degrees of freedom, thus, it gives a well-defined theory.

Ah OK, in that case I apologize for misinterpreting the intention of your statement about it in post #193.

Quantum effects are not objects.

Neither are trajectories.
But more importantly: do you really claim that quantum theories do not explain or describe quantum effects?

Edit: Here's where that question is coming from:
Post #203: Me: So a classical field theory that can only describe a subset of what Quantum Field Theory can, ...
Post #204: You: In fact, the classical theory describes even more - ...
Post #205: Me: So quantum effects are described by classical field theories?
Post #206: You: Quantum effects are not objects.

You clearly state that classical field theories can describe more than what QFT can, and insinuate that classical field theories cannot describe quantum effects. Ergo, quantum theories cannot either.

They describe not trajectories, but some wave packets or so. (Except realistic interpretations like dBB, which have trajectories.)

Yes, QFT replaces the (fundamental?) concept of trajectories with propagation. See it as the quantum-version of trajectories. Just like gravitational force disappears in GR. Doesn't mean Newtonian gravity describes something GR can't.

Terrible or not, TOE is TOE. Don't forget, I do not argue that one should use them, I simply clarify the meaning of the phrase TOE.

I technically agree with you here. The problem is that classical theories cannot describe quantum effects (by definition), so they can't be TOE's.

1.) A theory of gravity should not be all-encompassing, but encompassing gravity.

Agreed; I never claimed otherwise.

This was not proposed not as a TOE, but as an example for the meaning of phrases like "theory of X".

Please explain how "quantum effects" is not part of "everything".

2.) A theory of gravity should encompass the gravitational field, not whatever "effects".

Please demonstrate how Newtonian gravity explains black holes, frame dragging, Mercury's precession, etc. Those are all results of the gravitational field.

It cannot describe it correctly but nonetheless describes it. Incorrectly.

An incorrect model does not describe our universe. It at best attempts to describe it, and fails. It is clearly describing some universe incompatible with ours, some other universe. It's thus not a TOE.

If one would follow your concept, we would never have a TOE. Because we can, in principle, never prove any physical theory.

Please don't put statements in my mouth. A theory that has not been proved incorrect (yet) is fully compatible with our understanding of the universe, and thus can be a TOE. As soon as some phenomena is found that cannot be described by the theory, it can no longer be a TOE, because it obviously isn't all-encompassing anymore.

It has to be falsifiable, so falsification is always a theoretical possibility. So, we could never know if it is really a TOE.

I suggest you look up what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.

No. Newton and Einstein had a theory of gravity, Maxwell had one of the electromagnetic field, both had no pretense to describe everything.

And I never claim otherwise. I'm just pointing out that if you are allowed to leave physical phenomena out of the "everything" in TOE, all those you mentioned are TOE's.

The SM is also not a TOE, because it does not even pretend to describe gravity.

I fully agree: "all-encompassing".

 

[Schmelzer]

I think it makes no sense to continue such word games. Language is in this case quite sloppy, and if one wants to play such word games, one will always find some interpretation of a phrase which is different, leading to yet another iteration. Is a given theory a "theory of X"? Does it describe X? These are not really scientific questions, but sloppy conventions.

I think I have described my position in a sufficiently clear way. A theory of something is such a theory even if it is false. So, NT is a theory of gravity even if it does not correctly describe Mercury precession. And a classical theory of some field is a theory of this field even if it is an incorrect one.

To summarize, let's collect some of the different meanings one can give to the phrase "theory of ...". The one I prefer is that if as the classical theory, as the quantum theory use the same configuration space Q. then they are simply different theories describing the same object, namely configurations $q \in Q$. The classical theory describes the behavior of these objects in a more detailed way, by a trajectory $q(t)$, while quantum theory gives only probability distributions $\rho(q)$. Thus, one can also say that the classical theory describes more. On the other hand, one can also talk about a theory describing "quantum effects". This is simply sloppy language, I see no precise way to distinguish what is a "quantum effect".

I suggest you look up what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.

EOD

 

[NotEinstein]

I think it makes no sense to continue such word games. Language is in this case quite sloppy, and if one wants to play such word games, one will always find some interpretation of a phrase which is different, leading to yet another iteration. Is a given theory a "theory of X"? Does it describe X? These are not really scientific questions, but sloppy conventions.

I think I have described my position in a sufficiently clear way. A theory of something is such a theory even if it is false. So, NT is a theory of gravity even if it does not correctly describe Mercury precession.

It's indeed a theory of gravity, but not a theory of our gravity. You can always postulate a universe in which any (coherent, etc.) theory is the correct one.

And a classical theory of some field is a theory of this field even if it is an incorrect one.

Agreed.

To summarize, let's collect some of the different meanings one can give to the phrase "theory of ...". The one I prefer is that if as the classical theory, as the quantum theory use the same configuration space Q. then they are simply different theories describing the same object, namely configurations $q \in Q$. The classical theory describes the behavior of these objects in a more detailed way, by a trajectory $q(t)$, while quantum theory gives only probability distributions $\rho(q)$. Thus, one can also say that the classical theory describes more.

Except that the classical theory doesn't allow for all configurations $q$; any configuration that needs quantum effect will be excluded. Take the photoelectric effect. Shoot a light beam with too low a frequency at a material. The configuration where no electron is freed (which is what happens in reality) is not allowed as a result by the classical theory.

On the other hand, one can also talk about a theory describing "quantum effects". This is simply sloppy language, I see no precise way to distinguish what is a "quantum effect".

I agree it's hard to define it precisely, but it's clear that they exist. There are certain results of experiments that cannot be explained through classical field theories.

EOD

Yes, that one wasn't particularly nice of me. I never made any claims about falsifiable (in fact, I agree with you), it's the word "everything" and its contextual usage that's important. Which is obvious from my post #207: "because it obviously isn't all-encompassing anymore." to which you were responding. I saw your (accidental?) straw-man, and decided to return the favor. I apologize; I should not have done that.

 

[Schmelzer]

Except that the classical theory doesn't allow for all configurations $q$; any configuration that needs quantum effect will be excluded. Take the photoelectric effect. Shoot a light beam with too low a frequency at a material. The configuration where no electron is freed (which is what happens in reality) is not allowed as a result by the classical theory.

What configurations give valid solutions and which don't give them is already the content of the particular theory. The classical theory allows a continuous spectrum of energy, quantum theory gives a discrete one, on the other hand, quantum theory gives some probability of observing a particle where classical theory does not allow it because of insufficient energy (tunneling). So there is not even a clear this theory allows more configurations than that. What is the same is the configuration space.

There are certain results of experiments that cannot be explained through classical field theories.

Obviously, else we would prefer the mathematically and conceptually much easier classical theories.

 

[NotEinstein]

What configurations give valid solutions and which don't give them is already the content of the particular theory. The classical theory allows a continuous spectrum of energy, quantum theory gives a discrete one, on the other hand, quantum theory gives some probability of observing a particle where classical theory does not allow it because of insufficient energy (tunneling). So there is not even a clear this theory allows more configurations than that. What is the same is the configuration space.

You are contradicting your own statement from post #204: "In fact, the classical theory describes even more - namely, trajectories, instead of probability distributions only."
And since reality seems to demand that configurations with quantum effects must be allowed (because they are measurably real), classical field theories cannot be TOE's, because they cannot cover all configurations (or possible transitions between them) that reality exhibits.

Obviously, else we would prefer the mathematically and conceptually much easier classical theories.

Indeed, obviously. So does that mean you are now withdrawing your above mentioned statement from post #204?

 

[Schmelzer]

You are contradicting your own statement from post #204: "In fact, the classical theory describes even more - namely, trajectories, instead of probability distributions only."

I see no reason to withdraw anything, that classical theory describes trajectories but quantum theory only probability distributions is a fact. And that a trajectory contains more information than a probability distribution is also a fact. Of course, in nitpicking modus one can try to find some contradictions between the different specifications made. That's easy because all this talk about "more" is sloppy speech, nothing serious. The most rigorous thing one can say is that both have the same configuration space, and are, therefore, about the same objects.

And since reality seems to demand that configurations with quantum effects must be allowed (because they are measurably real), classical field theories cannot be TOE's, because they cannot cover all configurations (or possible transitions between them) that reality exhibits.

Again, what reality demands is irrelevant once the question is what the theory is about. A false theory about gremlins is also a theory about gremlins.

 

[NotEinstein]

I see no reason to withdraw anything, that classical theory describes trajectories but quantum theory only probability distributions is a fact.

And seeing that the probability distribution reduces to the trajectory predicted by the classical theory in the classical limit, quantum theory thus described trajectories too.

And that a trajectory contains more information than a probability distribution is also a fact.

You've got that the wrong way around. I can make a probability distribution out of every single trajectory, but it cannot be done the other way around. Probability distributions are more general than trajectories, so a theory describing the former is (assuming it gets the numbers right) more powerful.

Of course, in nitpicking modus one can try to find some contradictions between the different specifications made. That's easy because all this talk about "more" is sloppy speech, nothing serious. The most rigorous thing one can say is that both have the same configuration space, and are, therefore, about the same objects.

Except that, as I have pointed out numerous times now, classical theories cannot describe quantum effect by definition, while quantum theories can. Thus, quantum theories can describe more.

Again, what reality demands is irrelevant once the question is what the theory is about. A false theory about gremlins is also a theory about gremlins.

But if one has a theory about all gremlins, but it turns out it leaves out the green gremlins, it's not a theory of all gremlins.

 

[Schmelzer]

You've got that the wrong way around. I can make a probability distribution out of every single trajectory, but it cannot be done the other way around. Probability distributions are more general than trajectories, so a theory describing the former is (assuming it gets the numbers right) more powerful.

First of all, with quantum wave packets, you cannot construct trajectories -- the uncertainty relations prevent this. The second error is that you can easily construct probability distribution based on trajectories. This is done in the Liouville equation, which is the classical evolution equation for probability distributions. The third error is that more general, less specific information is less information, and less powerful.

Except that, as I have pointed out numerous times now, classical theories cannot describe quantum effect by definition, while quantum theories can. Thus, quantum theories can describe more.

Quantum theory also contains more Beauty, more Inspiration, and so on. In dependence of your feeling of Beauty, and Inspiration, of course. In other words, your "quantum effects" is sloppy speaking, much more sloppy that all the things I have given: The same configuration space, no preference if one considers values which are forbidden (each theory allows solutions with characteristics forbidden in the other), more information given by the exact trajectory in comparison with the probability distribution.

But if one has a theory about all gremlins, but it turns out it leaves out the green gremlins, it's not a theory of all gremlins.

If it simply says "green gremlins do not exist", it is a theory of all gremlins.

 

[NotEinstein]

First of all, with quantum wave packets, you cannot construct trajectories -- the uncertainty relations prevent this.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

The second error is that you can easily construct probability distribution based on trajectories.

It is in fact trivial. Take a parametrization of the trajectory, and then construct a probability distribution where the probability is 1 if the coordinates conform to the parametrization, and zero elsewhere. Done!

This is done in the Liouville equation, which is the classical evolution equation for probability distributions. The third error is that more general, less specific information is less information, and less powerful.

Except that because a density distribution can contain all possible trajectories and more, it can contain more information, not less.

Quantum theory also contains more Beauty, more Inspiration, and so on. In dependence of your feeling of Beauty, and Inspiration, of course.

Why are you all talking metaphysics? This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

In other words, your "quantum effects" is sloppy speaking, much more sloppy that all the things I have given:

But even with the sloppy language, it's clear that quantum field theories can describe more than classical field theories. I've already given the example of the photoelectric effect.

The same configuration space, no preference if one considers values which are forbidden (each theory allows solutions with characteristics forbidden in the other), more information given by the exact trajectory in comparison with the probability distribution.

Your terminology is horrible if you are suggesting that "there are no quantum effects" is a description of quantum effects.

But let's put your idea to the test. Show me (or link me to) any classical field theory that explains at least all aspects of the Standard Model of particle physics that QFT does.

If it simply says "green gremlins do not exist", it is a theory of all gremlins.

Except that the theory doesn't describe green gremlins, and is thus not "all-encompassing".

 

[Schmelzer]

Please provide evidence for this claim.

LOL, you are serious? What evidence do you need that information about a trajectory, with accuracy $\Delta p \Delta q = 0$, is more accurate, thus, contains more information than $\Delta p \Delta q \sim \hbar$?

Except that because a density distribution can contain all possible trajectories and more, it can contain more information, not less.

No. You can get also, easily, a density distribution which contains all possible trajectories. This is very simple, start with an arbitrary density $\rho(p,q, t_0)$, and solving the Liouville equation gives you all the information how it changes in time, $\rho(p,q,t)$ for all times.

The funny idea that a probability distribution contains more information than the exact knowledge of the position and the momentum made my day.

But even with the sloppy language, it's clear that quantum field theories can describe more than classical field theories. I've already given the example of the photoelectric effect.

Sorry, but this is not more what QT predicts, but simply something different. And in agreement with observation, while the classical solution, which gives much more information, is empirically falsified.

Your terminology is horrible if you are suggesting that "there are no quantum effects" is a description of quantum effects.

It is the language typical for mathematicians. They learn from the start that the most trivial examples, usually associated with numbers 0 or 1, have not to be excludes, but handled by exactly the same rules. This gives you, for example, zero-dimensional vector spaces (simply a single point). And a lot of other things. Almost every imaginable mathematical structure can be assigned to a single point. For example, make it a group, by defining the product $1 \cdot 1 = 1$ and so on. I will not change the usual terminology because you find it horrible.

But let's put your idea to the test. Show me (or link me to) any classical field theory that explains at least all aspects of the Standard Model of particle physics that QFT does.

Not interested, I see no reason why I should present you something which "explains" (a quite uncertain notion) all "aspects" (which is already completely arbitrary).

The classical version of the SM is very simple to obtain, take any textbook, copypaste the Lagrangian of the SM. This will be the Lagrangian of the classical SM. The configuration space of the classical SM is the same as that of the QFT. How it explains the beauty, neatness, vulgarity, naturalness and other "aspects" of the QFT I don't know and don't care.

Except that the theory doesn't describe green gremlins, and is thus not "all-encompassing".

Once they don't exist, there is no need to encompass them. But, ok, then no TOE is possible in principle if it does not describe green gremlins.

 

[hansda]

They are. As explained, QG may be about gravity only, without anything about the SM, and TOE may be classical only.

Seems not very correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything . This wiki article essentially says that Quantum Gravity(QG) is TOE.

Its simply nonsense.

Why? Why you think so?

 

[NotEinstein]

LOL, you are serious? What evidence do you need that information about a trajectory, with accuracy $\Delta p \Delta q = 0$,

That's not an accuracy, that's the Heisenberg uncertainty. The accuracy of a description is how well it matches reality, not what the value of some uncertainty is.

is more accurate, thus, contains more information than $\Delta p \Delta q \sim \hbar$?

Incorrect. The density distribution will contain more information, namely, the exact spread of the wavepacket. That is information that's not present in the classical case.

No. You can get also, easily, a density distribution which contains all possible trajectories. This is very simple, start with an arbitrary density $\rho(p,q, t_0)$, and solving the Liouville equation gives you all the information how it changes in time, $\rho(p,q,t)$ for all times.

You say "no", but then go on to prove my point?

The funny idea that a probability distribution contains more information than the exact knowledge of the position and the momentum made my day.

Except that apparently you don't understand what the Heisenberg uncertainty is. There is no "exact knowledge of the position and the momentum".

Sorry, but this is not more what QT predicts, but simply something different. And in agreement with observation, while the classical solution, which gives much more information,

False, and demonstrated multiple times now.

is empirically falsified.

How can a theory that is missing things have more information? Better yet: in the classical limit, quantum theories will reduce to the classical theories. So, quantum theories must at least contain as much information as classical theories. And because they describe more things, they contain strictly more information.

It is the language typical for mathematicians.

We are not talking mathematics here. Please stop generalizing specific mathematical terminology to general scientific terminology.​

They learn from the start that the most trivial examples, usually associated with numbers 0 or 1, have not to be excludes, but handled by exactly the same rules. This gives you, for example, zero-dimensional vector spaces (simply a single point).

Yes, mathematics can describe points. But it doesn't not describe points, so your analog breaks down right out of the gate.

And a lot of other things. Almost every imaginable mathematical structure can be assigned to a single point. For example, make it a group, by defining the product $1 \cdot 1 = 1$ and so on.

That is completely irrelevant to what we were talking about.

I will not change the usual terminology because you find it horrible.

If you were using the "usual terminology" as used in science in general, not mathematics specifically, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not interested, I see no reason why I should present you something which "explains" (a quite uncertain notion) all "aspects" (which is already completely arbitrary).

So you admit that your statements were baseless assertions with no evidence to back them up? OK.

The classical version of the SM is very simple to obtain, take any textbook, copypaste the Lagrangian of the SM. This will be the Lagrangian of the classical SM.

Turns out that's kinda not how things work: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/67937 "..., so the classical theory of muons is a theory with no muons in it." Oops?

The configuration space of the classical SM is the same as that of the QFT.

Except you've removed everything to do with muons.

How it explains the beauty, neatness, vulgarity, naturalness

Why do you keep bringing those up? I am not talking about these; stop building straw-men.

and other "aspects" of the QFT I don't know and don't care.

Why are you talking about "aspects of QFT"? I am not talking about that.

Once they don't exist, there is no need to encompass them. But, ok, then no TOE is possible in principle if it does not describe green gremlins.

But green gremlins (quantum effects) do exist, so they do need to be encompassed. That's been my entire point all this time. A theory is not a TOE if it does not encompass quantum effects.

 

[hansda]

So you refuse to give any here?

All these four unknown forces does not follow F=ma. The links are available. Anybody interested can read from there.

I guess I'll deal with them when I read your remaining two texts.

Thanks. Earlier the better. It will be good for discussion.

In other words, you are violating basic principes of Newtonian physics. Great, glad we got that cleared up.

Not violating but advancing Newtonian Physics.

So you agree with me that you are using a definition of the word "force" that is incompatible with its usage in physics. Great, glad we got that cleared up.

This redefinition of force is based on my Instantaneous Law of Inertia.

Perhaps you should make this more clear in your first two texts I read, because your definition isn't given there.

I thought it will be understood.

Yes, the universe appears to be very much non-Newtonian, and thus any Newtonian model will have great difficulty explaining it.

Dont worry about difficulty. There is a possibility. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/expuni.html

(I strongly suspect you have just introduced a preferred reference frame by claiming the universal expansion can be considered a "space-force", and that you are violating the light-speed limit. But I guess we'll go into that in more details later.)

I believe you are making this statement without reading my texts on space-force.​

Please explain how the title of a non-peer-reviewed paper you found has bearing on whether QFT is compatible with GR?

Let us not discuss about others paper. If there is fault, you observed; may be it is faulty.

Except that the Newtonian Model is incompatible with the GR model, and thus at most only one of them can be true. Multiple solutions are fine (Newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian mechanics are a perfect example!), but incompatible solutions cannot coexist.

You can read the OP. I made an attempt to correlate Newtonian Model with GR.
​

And that universe is not compatible with Newtonian physics, and thus your "Instantaneous Law of Inertia" can be rejected on that basis.

There is also a Newtonian Model for expanding universe. I gave the link earlier. So, you may be wrong here.

Again, please stop dodging questions. Demonstrate that your Law of Inertia can explain them. Show calculations, evidence. Just you saying "it can, trust me" isn't worth anything in science.

You read the four unknown forces. Compressive force can explain time dilation. This force can be tested also. The way time-dilation is tested, this compressive force also can be tested with a force-meter.

 

[NotEinstein]

All these four unknown forces does not follow F=ma. The links are available. Anybody interested can read from there.

Then I guess we'll get to them later.

Thanks. Earlier the better. It will be good for discussion.

In the mean time, feel free to address any of the issues I've already brought up.

Not violating but advancing Newtonian Physics.

Yes, as I said: you are violating some of the basic definitions of Newtonian mechanics. At most you can claim you've made a more generalized version.

This redefinition of force is based on my Instantaneous Law of Inertia.

Yes, in direct conflict with how Newtonian mechanics uses the term.

I thought it will be understood.

Clearly, it is not. If you use terms like "force" in a scientific context, but you are actually using a different definition than the standard one, it would be wise for you to explicitly mention that. Otherwise confusion ensues.

Dont worry about difficulty. There is a possibility. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/expuni.html

That link mentions that this is a first approximation, and cannot work as-is because of the acceleration of the universal expansion. In other words: the link itself states this model cannot explain our current observations. As I said: "Newtonian model will have great difficulty explaining it."

I believe you are making this statement without reading my texts on space-force.

True, but can you promise me that your text either contains a space-force that doesn't need an absolute reference frame, or makes a strong case why an absolute reference frame exists?

Let us not discuss about others paper. If there is fault, you observed; may be it is faulty.

Then stop bringing up others papers!

You can read the OP. I made an attempt to correlate Newtonian Model with GR.

Right: "These two models can be correlated through my theory." I've already brought up all kinds of issues in your first two texts, issues that you refuse (cannot?) address. You have made an attempt, and looking at the current score, you've failed.​

There is also a Newtonian Model for expanding universe. I gave the link earlier. So, you may be wrong here.

Turns out I wasn't wrong, and the link actually states that our universe is incompatible with the Newtonian model it discusses.

You read the four unknown forces. Compressive force can explain time dilation. This force can be tested also.

No calculations. No evidence. You are doding the question once again. I'll just repeat it verbatim: Demonstrate that your Law of Inertia can explain them. Show calculations, evidence. Just you saying "it can, trust me" isn't worth anything in science.