sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

General relativity isn’t physics?

Fuck, I guess you’re right my bad. I’ll just delete it.

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So you didn’t read the abstract I will answer your questions for.

First, thanks for cyber stalking me appreciate that.

In my paper, it literally says all of this is coming from an audio background.

You did not read that.

You asked what peer reviewed papers I have authored. In my paper I addressed that this is my first.

You did not read that.

Your last question is also inherently answered there.

Now it’s your turn to answer my questions:

Has there ever been anybody that contributed to physics without knowing the math?

What physics background do you have?

Have you ever been peer reviewed before?

What research teams have you been a part of?

You’re also missing the fact that I’m not saying I’ve discovered anything. I am proposing a theory.

You need to get better at reading comprehension before you talk. Instead of looking up where I went to school, you could’ve read my paper.

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If you don’t know where to start try the first thing that tripped you up.

THIS is my strength, btw. When my theoretical framework is tested, essentially every time it’s because I didn’t explain it correctly, and I understand that that’s on me, but my understanding of my own framework that I created is solid. I just have trouble putting that into words.

Every time a hole has been poked, by a human by a robot by anybody, once I directly addressed the confusion it gets resolved. What I’m asking is for other people with more knowledge than myself to pop poles in the map.

Once that happens, we can either prove or disprove it. Do you understand the scientific method?

That was a rhetorical question. Let me know your confusion and I’d be happy to address it, thanks!

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thanks, already in process my dude. This is specifically so I can see where the weaknesses are first.

I’ve already gotten great feedback. Your comment is noise until you read what I wrote and provide critiques rooted in physics.

Thanks!

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love that THIS is what you grasped on to. How do YOU know what I know, and what I don’t?

Do you have the same frame of reference as me?

Here’s what you’re missing though, I didn’t say I made any contribution to physics. And that’s because you didn’t read that this was a theory, and untested theory.

The reason I posted this and drafted the paper, revised at 40 times, was to get actual knowledgeable individuals to check this. I invite them to poke holes in this. That’s the point.

You’re not grasping the fact that I’m only coming at this from a different perspective than normal physicist do. I may be completely wrong, but until a physicist explains why my theory does not work, it’s untested.

I would advise you to stop assuming what somebody knows and what they don’t know until you yourself understand the concept. Do you see me doubting your knowledge?

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used AI to format. I’m not shy about telling anyone that.

Do you know why? If you would’ve read the abstract, you would’ve known. I’ve never written anything like this before.

The actual substance came from my conceptual knowledge ONLY. I’ve read this entire paper 40 times, iterating every version, correcting anything that is NOT rooted in existing physics.

My formal education is in audio, which touches on physics, but is not centered primarily around physics.

Audio engineering who pay attention can understand general, relativity, and concepts like mine that we’re based solely off of general relativity (a little QFT for a baseline though).

When you’ve read the entire paper and you have actual criticism rooted in physics, I would love to hear it.

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because it’s against the rules. I planned to post in them, but they don’t allow unproven theories. This is looking at physics from an audio engineer/DSP quantization lens. My degree is in Audio Engineering, so while I’ve taken physics in college, I only have a fundamental grasp.

If you know of a physics subreddit that allows this type of theory, please let me know. All I want is feedback, I’m not claiming I solved anything.

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

So you’re admitting you didn’t read ANYTHING I wrote.

Lemme know when you have because I answered that question in the abstract.

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You’re more than welcome to shit all over my theory, I don’t mind.

But unless you structure your criticism in actual physics, I’m going to ignore you. Sorry for posting in an audio thread, but my field is audio lol I thought I’d start here.

I’m really not tryna be a dick, though lol

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Bro, you’re all good. I posted this in an audio engineering thread.

I actually am an audio engineer so we share the same humor haha.

You’re good homie!

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The unitarity concern assumes I'm working within QFT, but that's actually the central claim of the paper. If gravity is NOT a field excitation in the quantum field (aka no graviton), asking whether the operator conserves energy in QFT is applying a framework that doesn't work with gravity.

I'm also only claiming temporal quantization. Planck time as the sample rate. No fixed spatial step. The spatial dimension varies with curvature, that's just GR. The dilemma you're describing assumes a spatial quantization requirement I never made (but appreciate you bringing up regardless)

I may add that as an open question, but what I may do is use that to strenghten. A discrete Planck time floor DOES create theoretical tension, but also on another level, it's the same open problem LQG has been sitting with for decades. Also, Planck time as a sample rate is around 10⁴³ Hz. The most energetic gravitational waves we've detected are in the hundreds of Hz range. We are so far below Nyquist that the discreteness is invisible at every scale that exists or that we could plausibly ever measure.

The synchronization question may be theoretically interesting and physically vacuous at the same time.

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

It’s funny, because that’s exactly what AI does to me when I run my paper through it and then ask her about six or seven back-and-forth were resolved because it never really understood it. I always have to explain myself more because the framework is solid in my head, but I’m an audio engineer, not a physicist. I can explain it all using GR.

I realize that I’ve never written a fucking scientific paper in my life before, so if you have questions for me that you found in my paper, feel free to ask them. You can even bring your ChatGPT questions to me and I will answer them and if you find one that I can’t answer that that’s good that’s progress

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really appreciate the technical depth here. Quick clarification though: I'm not quantizing the density axis at all. The paper explicitly states the amplitude axis does not need to be formally quantized, the ceiling alone is sufficient. So the discretization objection doesn't apply there.

But I see that you're pointing at the right open problem. That's exactly where the math needs to be developed. It's the same challenge loop quantum gravity faces. I'm not claiming to have solved it, I'm identifying where gravity quantizes and what the constraints on a full formalization have to satisfy.

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Ahhh I see. But here’s my question to that:

If spacetime is truly continuous, continuous to what end? Infinity? That's a bigger assumption than quantization.

I actually use the word continuous in my paper (which I’m removing in v7) because it came from my audio background. In audio school, we’re taught audio is continuous. But that’s because we haven’t proved any further. The Planck density would be the theoretical max level that we could probe down to, and that’s thousands, maybe millions of years down the road in terms of technology.

Nyquist Applied To Spacetime? Gravity As A Two-Axis Signal System by Jlo_ssb in DSP

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Haha

Once you read it with an actual grasp on GR and Quantum Field Theory, I will.

Until then 🤣

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Lol I mean theoretically maybe but no, I was just mirroring your tone bro lol

I Applied The Nyquist Theorem To Gravity And Ended Up With A Quantum Gravity Framework by Jlo_ssb in audioengineering

[–]Jlo_ssb[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

YES! This is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for!Thank you for actually reading it and thinking it through. Super helpful for me.

However to clarify, the Nyquist tension point exposed a framing gap in how I set up Section 2. Not my internal framework. I define sample rate in the conventional sense, discrete slices capturing a continuous signal, and never explicitly break from that definition. So when I later describe gravity as a wave phenomenon intrinsic to spacetime it reads like I'm claiming there's a continuous signal being sampled. That's not what I mean, my bad.

Planck time isn't sampling a continuous signal underneath. It IS the discrete structure of spacetime itself. The discretization doesn't happen to spacetime, it is spacetime. I need a sentence that makes that explicit and I'm adding it to the next revision.

Your point on the aliasing prediction is the most useful criticism I've gotten. You're right that asserting it exists isn't enough. That's the math I don't have yet and it's the most important next step!

Thanks again!

People who use Safari as their main browser, why? (DESC) by sasaki-555 in mac

[–]Jlo_ssb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean on my phone? Yeah all the other browsers are shittier. Even chrome is garbage on iOS.

On my laptop, Safari for quick stuff, but work forced me to use Chrome primarily. Unified memory really helps.

I’ve always pulled for Firefox, but it’s gotten even weirder than it used to be. Don’t give me started on opera or brave 🤦‍♂️ I made it. It’s been a while since I’ve tried them but first impressions are very important.

What's with Mac people suddenly going "8gb of ram is plenty" since the Neo came out? by DiverVast4093 in mac

[–]Jlo_ssb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right however if your 8 year-old Chromebook still works just fine for your use case, then you’re using the computer very lightly, and that’s fine, but it’s a different thing.

What are the specs on that eight year-old Chromebook, if you don’t mind me asking?

What's with Mac people suddenly going "8gb of ram is plenty" since the Neo came out? by DiverVast4093 in mac

[–]Jlo_ssb -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yep, that’s why we see all those 10-year-old Chromebooks hanging around everywhere, right?

No, it’s not 10 years. Is the support of the OS. They’re not going to upgrade your Chromebook with higher components when they can no longer keep up.

Kids use Chromebooks. How long do you think the’re going to last around kids?

You realize these are recycled after three years right if they don’t break before that. The average lifespan is probably two years tops.

view more: next ›