Fallacy , Space can be bent , warped or contorted .

[ольга]

As I understand it he was struggling to give meaning to Einstein's energy formula E =√((mc²)² + p²c²) when p in QM has to be an operator. He found he could do it if he replaced single variable by matrices, implying there was a family of 4 entities rather than just the one treated by Schrödinger's original equation. Spin apparently fell out of this, as it fitted with Pauli's attempts to accommodate spin which implied pairs of entities instead of one, but the meaning, if any, of the other 2 remained to be established. Until it was worked out that they would, if real, be antiparticle counterparts of the entity.

Спин, это как в футболе - с какой ноги пнёшь по мячу, так он и закрутится. Это аналогия.

 

[exchemist]

Спин, это как в футболе - с какой ноги пнёшь по мячу, так он и закрутится. Это аналогия.

If you write it in English I will read your comment.

 

[ольга]

If you write it in English I will read your comment.

I have figuratively described the processes taking place in atoms and the interections between atoms. But it will be difficult for you to understand this without knowing the whole model.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Why won't you answer the question I asked you? It's not a difficult question. You made a claim. Tell me how you know the claim you made is true. If you can.

Stop trying to distract by asking me more questions. Trying to reflect the questions I ask you back onto me is just a smokescreen to cover your own reluctance - or inability - to answer them.

If it's easier, you could just own up and admit that you made a claim you have no reason to expect is true. Then we can move on. But if you're going to stick with it, you need to at least start to try to explain why you think you know it is true.

 

[James R]

Yes, but how are tensors created? They don't appear out of nowhere.

People create them.

If spacetime itself evolves fractally then is it not the created fractality that is a priori responsible for the emergence of tensors in the process.

Why do you believe that spacetime "evolves fractally"?

When we talk about quantum fields in any form, we assume that field consist of a set of fundamental self-similar mathematical values.

No "we" don't.

"Self-similar mathematical values" is just word salad nonsense you literally just made up.

To me that suggests types of fractal structures that make up all fields.

Your made up idea suggests to you other made up ideas. No surprises there!

Causal dynamical triangulation (CDT), theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent.

You don't understand a thing about it.

Note that I post these "thought-processes" as probative for further pertinent information on new and potentially important science.

What thought processes?

You keep making claims you have no justification for. To me, that demonstrates a complete absense of critical thinking.

 

[James R]

This has all gone to shit.

Every thread that Write4U posts in goes to shit, sooner or later.

The intended tone of this one was essentially doomed from the start, because river started the thread with a claim he couldn't begin to support. And now Write4U has taken over where river left off, making further claims that Write4U can't begin to support.

The result is a pile of stinky rotten word salad nonsense, from those two anyway.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Plant microtubule cytoskeleton complexity: microtubule arrays as fractals​

Please apologise to the readers of this thread for trying to hijack it onto the topic of microtubules, AGAIN.

 

[Pinball1970]

As I understand it he was struggling to give meaning to Einstein's energy formula E =√((mc²)² + p²c²) when p in QM has to be an operator. He found he could do it if he replaced single variable by matrices, implying there was a family of 4 entities rather than just the one treated by Schrödinger's original equation. Spin apparently fell out of this, as it fitted with Pauli's attempts to accommodate spin which implied pairs of entities instead of one, but the meaning, if any, of the other 2 remained to be established. Until it was worked out that they would, if real, be antiparticle counterparts of the entity.

His spinors?
He also overcame a couple of problems like negative probability amplitudes Klein encountered previously.
Also the second order issues with position and momentum.

If I had the time I would like to go through a lot of this from scratch like a first year physics student.
This history side on its own is interesting enough and the mathematics is challenging.

 

[exchemist]

Every thread that Write4U posts in goes to shit, sooner or later.

The intended tone of this one was essentially doomed from the start, because river started the thread with a claim he couldn't begin to support. And now Write4U has taken over where river left off, making further claims that Write4U can't begin to support.

The result is a pile of stinky rotten word salad nonsense, from those two anyway.

Haha yes I agree, a thread actually started by river has little enough chance.

But there were actualy some good points being made until Write4U started posting random stuff about fractals all over it. I had not picked up that he actually managed to link fractals to microtubules. That's fantastic! Apart from anything else, the guy seems to have zero self-awareness.

 

[exchemist]

I have figuratively described the processes taking place in atoms and the interections between atoms. But it will be difficult for you to understand this without knowing the whole model.

Is this a quotation? From whom?

 

[ольга]

Is this a quotation? From whom?

No, it's not a quote. This is a description of the process.

 

[exchemist]

No, it's not a quote. This is a description of the process.

No it'a a statement saying the process is described, somewhere else apparently. Where?

 

[ольга]

No it'a a statement saying the process is described, somewhere else apparently. Where?

A little bit is described here on this forum. In Russian.

 

[exchemist]

A little bit is described here on this forum. In Russian.

Oh I see. Well, that’s the end of that, then.

 

[Write4U]

James R:
No "we" don't.
"Self-similar mathematical values" is just word salad nonsense you literally just made up.

How am I misreading this synopsis?

Quantum field theory describes interactions between light and electrons, and it emerged from the work of theoretical physicists in the 20th century2. Quantum fields create particles, such as photons, Higgs bosons, or electrons, and these particles are what the quantum fields are able to create and annihilate5. The vacuum state in quantum field theory is highly symmetric, being isotropic, homogeneous, and invariant under Lorentz boosts1.

i.e. fractal

 

[Pinball1970]

How am I misreading this synopsis?

i.e. fractal

No, we don't need fractals for GR or QM. The OP is about how space time can bend and that is described by GR which is Linear algebra, scalars, vectors, tensors, differential geometry and all the tricky notation that goes with it.

 

[Pinball1970]

How am I misreading this synopsis?

i.e. fractal

So no. I am trying to engage with you and point you in the direction of Einstein and what he discovered because that is what is relevant.
SR is tricky intuitively but the maths is nowhere near as involved as GR.
Either way this is absolutely zero to do with fractals.
If you mention them again I will probably bail because that will mean you are not that interested in learning anything.

 

[exchemist]

How am I misreading this synopsis?

i.e. fractal

No, not "i.e. fractal" at all. Fractal means fractional dimension. There is nothing about your Copilot quote that suggests that. Stop this shit about fractals. It's plain you have no idea at all what they are or why they might be relevant or not in any given context.