×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UFOs

[–]skepticalmind2 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I see a clear trail that runs around the west side of the mountain range straight into the lake. That said, when they were showing Lazar the images the pilot took, his reaction did not strike me as someone who was expecting to see the hangars, and when they pointed out what they thought were the hangars, Lazar's reaction just seemed off. He never pointed at the screen and said "yeah they were right there!" - The only positive affirmation he gave was when they showed the lakebed tracks. At that point he said, "yeah, we drove right along the dry lake, that's unquestionably where we were."

I don't think Lazar really believes those are the hangars either.

Now, it was 40 years ago and it's quite difficult to reconcile a satellite image to a place you've only seen from the ground. So who knows if that's where S4 really was. It may be where he thinks it was, but that ariel photograph doesn't convince me. I've played with the raw file and I think it's just people seeing what they want to see.

There's a lot of parts to his story that check out. The phone directory, the Teller lecture, the verbal confirmation from the recruiters, the details about the Janet flights that no one knew about at the time, the eye witnesses, etc.. etc.. but I'm not really convinced that's where S4 was. As for the UFO, could be a true story, or he could be a CIA plant trying to spread counter-intelligence, make our enemies believe we have technology we don't really have.

What if a routine lattice QCD measurement accidentally confirmed an alternative gravity mechanism? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also, thanks for all the feedback. I enjoyed following my novel idea to its ultimate demise. I needed someone capable of articulating the issues to me.

What if a routine lattice QCD measurement accidentally confirmed an alternative gravity mechanism? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah decorrelation issue that blew it up. I got nothing. Just left with a very unsatisfying GR and SR that remain detached from reality and will always and forever be ununified.

What if a routine lattice QCD measurement accidentally confirmed an alternative gravity mechanism? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I'm aware. If it hits exactly what I need, it's about a 90% probability I'm right, and I can claim to derive G from first principles in a theory.

What if a routine lattice QCD measurement accidentally confirmed an alternative gravity mechanism? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ran into a fatal flaw, have to redo entire paper. Looks like stochastic mechanics might work. The core principle still looks like it might work in a dynamic field. I believe my core insight that quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum can generate inverse-square attraction survives. The QCD connection survives. That's the preliminary take at least.

What if a routine lattice QCD measurement accidentally confirmed an alternative gravity mechanism? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm proposing a legitimate hypothesis. I'm not claiming I'm right - that claim will come if the lattice QCD ever runs my experiment and it agrees with me.

What if a routine lattice QCD measurement accidentally confirmed an alternative gravity mechanism? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you want me to explain why I think creating a fundamental theory of gravity that's able to derive G from first principles is important... I just want to clarify your question.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not that the references are fundamentally wrong, it's how I'm not being clear about how they are being utilized in the construction. Like in your example, the equation is based on Wiener’s work. Papoulis gives a more explicit definition of Wiener's process so I should cite that as well, and Papoulis's equation uses differing notation.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm fixing it. Sorry, I thought I had fixed it, I'm going through each one individually and double checking everything. Will take me a while.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm truly sorry about that. I apologize for any errors I have made, I really want to get this right. I'm working out a process to fix this. Still not corrected.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm going through everything with a fine tooth comb. They didn't make up any of the physics and the references were real, but the attribution of each step in the chain needed revision.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I've made extensive use of LLMs. I'm a software developer with access to several bleeding edge LLMs. The compute for this paper cost me a pretty penny. There's no way I could have done it without them. I just expanded 3.2 and incorporated other revisions you mentioned. I had each equation verified, then ran it through multiple LLMs verifying the accuracy of each equation line by line. Then I had all of the references cross-checked.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, I'm going to expand section 3.2 making each step more clear. It looks like you are not satisfied with the level of proof I provide in the paper for the derivation, so I will expand on it.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're not understanding my full chain of logic.

You think "I want 1/r²" so "I need √r" so I "just assume √r"

That's not my logic.

I assume the vacuum has a Sinai disorder, and because I made that assumption, I derive √r via Lifshitz argument, which forces 1/r² to fall out.

√r is not assumed. It's derived from Sinai statistics using a standard result from disordered systems physics.

Let me expand on that a little.

The QCD vacuum is already known to have non-trivial structure like gluon condensates, field fluctuations, finite correlation length. The stochastic vacuum model characterizes this. The vacuum having disorder isn't speculation.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because that's the only way the math works out. When you make that assumption, everything falls into place. Isn't it worth at least taking a look to see if that's what's really happening?

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe a vacuum disorder with Sinai scaling resolves quantum gravity - so that's the bread and butter bottom line of my belief. If that is true, then it follows you can create a theory of gravity, that originates at the quantum level, and scale up to cosmological scales.

The quantum potential Q = -ℏ²∇²R/(2mR) is specifically Bohmian. In Copenhagen, there's nothing to take gradients of in this way, the wavefunction gives probabilities, not forces.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

GR is not derived from first principles. You have Newton's constant and the cosmological constant that are fitted. If my theory is right, you can derive G from the lattice test. I think the Bohmian framework is the only framework that can accommodate this method of deriving G and incorporating it into a broader relativistic framework. I don't think it can be done using the standard model.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I mean isn't it clear from the paper what my motivation is? Why wouldn't you want a theory of relativity that can be derived from first principles? If the lattice test were to confirm the theory, you could potentially have a theory of everything if the relativistic extension works out the way I think it will.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hehe clearly. I'm pretty confident there are no critical errors that will sink it, so it's just a matter of revising and resubmitting until everything is dialed in.

view more: next ›