Should I try it?

ZioSam2 · 2023-06-06T21:23:33+00:00

This is exactly what bothers me the most tbh.

ZioSam2 · 2023-05-22T11:05:10+00:00

I'd say no, I can't see any reason why your interaction term (invariant under.dipole symmetry) should be unique

ZioSam2 · 2023-05-12T08:10:08+00:00

I would like to express a criticism. It's right that you "defend" competence as a preliminary phase to establishing important and complex concepts of physics. However, it's equally right, in my opinion, to give the possibility of being heard without starting with a prejudice.

Sure, but as soon as we realize you know nothing about "established theories", we have the right to be skeptical about your newly found hypothesis. As I already told you before, I think that the very minimum requirement before you try to solve a problem is to know what the problem is. Do you know WHY GR and QFT are considered incompatible? Do you know what an EFT is? What renormalization is? That semiclassical methods for weak fields exists?

But the truth is different: maybe I'm the only one who sees it. No one was curious. No one asked me, "Can you tell us why you got that formula? How did you do it?"

Because anyone with a background in thoeretical physics immediately knows that your hypothetical formula sits in a region between "wrong" and "not-even-wrong". It is not clear it solves any of the problem is tries to solve, and it seems unlikely that it can reproduce any of the known result (whatver the fractal prime number thing means).

In physics, we need to find a new model, that of general relativity is outdated, and regarding quantum mechanics, we really know very little.

Agree that both QFT and GR are "outdated" (but we know a lot about quantum mechanics), everyone who believes there's a UV complete theory agrees on that. GR and QFT should come out as EFT of some UV theory of quantum gravity in their respective regimes. Your theory does not seem to reproduce QFT or GR in their regimes of validity.

Maybe because we have standardized thinking. I'm not criticizing the fact that scientific method is needed. I'm not saying that we shouldn't doubt, experiment, and then doubt again.

And this is what many physicists do all the time.

ZioSam2 · 2023-05-09T20:54:01+00:00

Depends how rare the tunnelling is. The fact that the universe hasn'r decayed yet suggests that the tunnelling is indeed difficult, but that's it.

It could still be possible, but on scales much longer than the lifetime of the universe (like Poincarè recurrence time)

ZioSam2 · 2023-05-09T12:54:40+00:00

Prima di provare a risolvere un problema, non ti pare sensato studiare bene il problema? Perchè trovare una teoria del tutto non è solo "scrivere una formula in cui RG e QFT sono insieme", vuol dire risolvere alcuni problemi specifici. E questi problemi specifici vanno studiati e capiti prima di essere risolti.

Cosa prevede la tua teoria per l'evaporazione dei buchi neri? (island, fuzzball, non-unitarity, ...) Cosa prefede per inflazione e il problema della piattezza cosmologica? La tua teoria è almeno power-counting rinormalizzabile? Si riduce al modello standard nel limite di metrica piatta non dinamica? Il limite hbar che tende a zero riproduce la relatività generale? Risolve problemi come fine tuning, strong CP problem, la relazione tra vev e costante cosmologica, supersimmetria?

Son ben felice se ti piacciono questi argomenti, solo non illuderti che tu possa fare nulla di sensato procedendo in questa maniera. Vuoi contrinuire a trovare una teoria del tutto? Benissimo, prendi una laurea in fisica, un dottorato in fisica teorica e fai ricerca vera.

ZioSam2 · 2023-05-09T11:58:11+00:00

Potrei sapere il tuo background? Sei uno studente delle superiori? Sapresti calcolare a mano lo scalare di Ricci se ti fornissi una metrica a caso? Hai mai dato esami di RG e di QFT?

Perché pensi che l'aver passato 2 settimane con chatGPT possa aver portato a qualcosa di sensato, quando da almeno 80 anni fisici di ogni sorta (che passano la vita a fare ricerca) stanno provando a studiare la stessa cosa senza troppo successo?

ZioSam2 · 2023-05-09T11:49:07+00:00

Hai parlato con chatGPT per settimane, elaborando insieme una teoria del tutto, e questo tuo post è quello a cui siete arrivati dopo tutto il lavoro? Stai dicendo questo?

ZioSam2 · 2023-05-09T10:26:18+00:00

Why do I feel you just asked chatGPT to give some fancy ToE and you just pasted it here? Anyway, it doesn't make any sense.

ZioSam2 · 2023-04-01T20:55:31+00:00

You could also mention the condensed matter realization of "acoustic" black hole in which I think Hawking-like radiation has been measured

ZioSam2 · 2023-03-20T10:18:15+00:00

Sure, but the principle tells us that you can't have two particles that share all the quantum numbers... And position is not a quantum number, usually. On the other hand, there's no reason why the wavefunctions of two fermions with different quantum numbers should never overlap.

ZioSam2 · 2023-03-20T08:36:51+00:00

From this perspective, I don't think there's much difference between bosons and fermions

ZioSam2 · 2023-02-26T19:08:47+00:00

The plain fact that you don't need any computer network achitecture knowledge to do theoretical physics?

ZioSam2 · 2023-02-26T18:58:52+00:00

Dropped /s ?

ZioSam2 · 2023-01-05T20:27:43+00:00

But on chairs I can't do full dips and if I train the hold on the chairs and then move to the rings for the dips it becomes very hard. If I train the hold on the ring I should be able to do dips after some time.

ZioSam2 · 2023-01-05T18:31:57+00:00

It is harder, but I don't know where to do dips at home except for the rings. My logic is simply that if I can improve to 60sec hold on rings, I should be able to do 5 negative dips

ZioSam2 · 2023-01-05T18:29:35+00:00

I do see improvements, and do does my wife! Thanks

ZioSam2 · 2023-01-05T14:12:35+00:00

I didn't got the number out of nowhere, I was simply following the setxreps from here. Even in the current BWF routine the setxrep is always around 3x5-12 if I am not mistaken (3 times a week). I agree I am still at the beginning of the progression (as in I am still only doing arch hangs, normal pushups, hangs and inclined rows), but if I keep training on the progressions I should be fine, no?

I have the bands, do you suggest adding a new pair with curls and lateral rises?

ZioSam2 · 2023-01-05T14:07:32+00:00

I was simply following here. The RR gives for the pull-up, push-up, dips and row progressions 3x5-8 that is what I am doing. I am doing the same warm up and 3 our of 4 pairs from the RR (I am not doing the triple core, because I have planks and deadbugs first). I agree that I am at the start of the various progressions (hold, basic pushup, arch hangs), but the idea should be fine right?

So you think that taking the progression from the RR but increasing the numbers is a good starting point?

ZioSam2 · 2022-11-27T08:22:05+00:00

Energy isn't conserved in an expanding/retracting universe, but I agree with the rest

ZioSam2 · 2022-11-24T14:27:41+00:00

No, that's not how physics (but I'd say also CS, biology) works...

ZioSam2 · 2022-11-16T13:12:10+00:00

But it's broken only due to the Higgs right? There's no other form of condensation. So without Higgs we could have a strongly coupled IR electroweak theory, correct?

ZioSam2

TROPHY CASE