You actually describe in your second paragraph what's going on - modern theoretical physics is desperately looking for that kind of theory and, even more so, a suitable experiment to verify it.

If anyone achieves the latter, that's a safe Nobel Prize. At the moment we're sort of stuck.

The question of how gravity and quantum mechanics can coexist in the same theoretical framework is one of the biggest open questions in physics. Both theories are exceptionally successful in their respective domains, but they are based on different principles and mathematical frameworks, which makes unifying them challenging. Here’s a basic overview of the issues and some approaches to solving them:

1. Classical vs. Quantum: Gravity is typically described by Einstein's General Relativity, a theory that treats spacetime as a smooth, continuous fabric that can be curved by mass and energy. This is a classical theory, meaning it doesn’t incorporate the probabilistic and discrete nature of quantum mechanics, which governs the behavior of particles at the smallest scales.

2. Non-renormalizability of Gravity: One of the technical issues in creating a quantum theory of gravity is that gravity, as described by general relativity, is non-renormalizable when attempts are made to formulate it as a quantum field theory. This means that the infinities that typically arise in quantum field theory calculations, which can usually be systematically canceled out or adjusted for (renormalized), cannot be handled in the same way when it comes to gravity.

3. String Theory: One of the most studied approaches to unifying gravity with quantum mechanics is string theory. In string theory, particles are not point-like dots but rather small, vibrating strings. String theory naturally incorporates gravity by suggesting that one mode of these string vibrations corresponds to the graviton, the hypothetical quantum particle of gravity. It also extends beyond particles to include higher-dimensional objects (branes). String theory can potentially smooth out the infinities associated with gravity because strings are not zero-dimensional points and thus do not produce the same problematic infinities.

4. Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG): Another approach is loop quantum gravity, which attempts to quantize spacetime itself, unlike string theory which retains a classical spacetime backdrop on which quantum strings operate. LQG posits that spacetime has a granular structure at the Planck scale, and it focuses on trying to understand gravity through these discrete units.

5. Other Approaches: There are other less mainstream approaches like causal dynamical triangulation, asymptotic safety, and others that also attempt to reconcile these foundational theories.

The concept of unifying gravity and quantum mechanics has been a significant challenge in physics due to their foundational differences. Recently, researchers have proposed a new theory, known as "postquantum theory," which might offer a pathway to integrate these two pillars of modern physics.

This theory suggests a method to explore the quantum nature of gravity by examining how quantum mechanics and general relativity interact, particularly focusing on the potential quantum behavior of spacetime. It hinges on the idea that quantum effects could influence the classical concept of spacetime, potentially observed through phenomena like "gravitationally mediated entanglement" and the measurement of spacetime fluctuations.

Experiments designed to test this theory aim to detect these subtle quantum effects in spacetime by precisely measuring how long particles like atoms can maintain a state of superposition in different locations. These experiments seek to reveal whether spacetime behaves classically or exhibits quantum properties, which could fundamentally alter our understanding of the universe.

The theory also addresses longstanding paradoxes, such as the black hole information problem, suggesting that under certain conditions, information entering a black hole might be fundamentally irretrievable, challenging the prevailing notions of quantum mechanics.

This innovative approach could potentially lead to a new understanding of the universe where the quantum and cosmic scales are no longer seen as separate but as interconnected aspects of a single framework. For more detailed exploration of this theory, you can check out the discussions on various platforms like ScienceDaily, Earth.com, and others that have covered this breakthrough [oai_citation:1,New theory seeks to unite Einstein’s gravity with quantum mechanics | UCL News - UCL – University College London](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/dec/new-theory-seeks-unite-einsteins-gravity-quantum-mechanics) [oai_citation:2,New theory unites Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics | ScienceDaily](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/12/231204135156.htm) [oai_citation:3,New theory finally unites gravity, spacetime, and the quantum realm • Earth.com](https://www.earth.com/news/radical-new-theory-finally-unites-gravity-spacetime-and-the-quantum-realm/) [oai_citation:4,New theory unites Einstein’s gravity with quantum mechanics - ScienceBlog.com](https://scienceblog.com/540738/new-theory-unites-einsteins-gravity-with-quantum-mechanics/).

regards

H

In a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and gravity, spacetime and the wave function should be placed on the 7-sphere.

Harri Shore

The challenge of unifying gravity with quantum mechanics has led to various theoretical approaches, including string theory and loop quantum gravity. Recent proposals, such as "postquantum theory," offer innovative paths toward integration. "Postquantum theory" aims to explore the quantum nature of gravity by examining spacetime's behavior, potentially revolutionizing our understanding of the universe. Testing this theory through experiments could provide valuable insights into fundamental spacetime phenomena and address longstanding paradoxes like the black hole information problem. Overall, while the quest for unification remains challenging, diverse theoretical approaches offer hope for future breakthroughs in understanding the fundamental nature of the cosmos.

Igor Bayak

In theories that aim to unify quantum mechanics and gravity, such as certain formulations of string theory or loop quantum gravity, the concept of spacetime and the wave function might be represented in higher-dimensional spaces like the 7-sphere. These theories often propose that spacetime is not fundamental but emerges from more fundamental structures, and the 7-sphere is one mathematical construct used to describe such higher-dimensional spaces. In these theories, the wave function, which describes the quantum state of a system, may also be related to the geometry of these higher-dimensional spaces. However, it's important to note that the exact mathematical description and interpretation can vary between different approaches to quantum gravity, and the placement of spacetime and the wave function on the 7-sphere is just one possibility within this broader theoretical framework.

Regards,

Sandeep

Harri Shore

The challenge of unifying gravity with quantum mechanics has led to various theoretical approaches, including string theory and loop quantum gravity. Recent proposals, such as "postquantum theory," offer innovative paths toward integration. "Postquantum theory" aims to explore the quantum nature of gravity by examining spacetime's behavior, potentially revolutionizing our understanding of the universe. Testing this theory through experiments could provide valuable insights into fundamental spacetime phenomena and address longstanding paradoxes like the black hole information problem. Overall, while the quest for unification remains challenging, diverse theoretical approaches offer hope for future breakthroughs in understanding the fundamental nature of the cosmos.

Regards,

Sandeep

In my understanding, there is no broader theoretical structure than the evolution of flows on a compact manifold, but flows on the 7-sphere are exactly what we need.

Igor Bayak,

Thank you for your insightful response. I agree with your perspective that the evolution of flows on a compact manifold is a broad theoretical structure. It’s fascinating to see how these concepts can be applied to the 7-sphere in the context of quantum gravity.

The idea of flows on the 7-sphere indeed aligns well with the notion of spacetime and wave functions being represented in higher-dimensional spaces. This could potentially provide a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between quantum mechanics and gravity.

However, as you rightly pointed out, these are complex and abstract concepts that are still being explored and understood. The beauty of theoretical physics lies in its ability to continually evolve and refine our understanding of the universe.

I look forward to further discussions on this topic.

Best regards,

Sandeep

As a follow-up to this discussion, I suggest watching a parallel discussion https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_does_quantum_mechanics_say_about_the_geometry_of_the_universe

Igor Bayak

Thank you for sharing the link to the parallel discussion, Igor! I appreciate your engagement in these fascinating topics. I’ll certainly explore the discussion you’ve recommended. If you have any more insights or questions, feel free to share—I’m here to continue our scientific journey!

“How can gravity and quantum coexist in the same theory?”

- at scientific answering this question that

“…Our current scientific understanding uses two separate theories: gravity (general relativity) and the quantum world (quantum mechanics). These seem to contradict each other because gravity works on a large scale with smooth spacetime, while the quantum world is about the very small and operates in probabilities.…..”

- really is quite inessential. Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, and interactions in gravitationally coupled systems of bodies fundamentally by no means are interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass”, as that is postulated in the so principally incompatible with QM GR [and in really so fundamentally senseless attempts “to quantize the GR” as “String Theory”, “Loop Quantum Gravity”, etc.]

The scientific answer correspondingly is – the Gravity interactions, as all/every interactions of all other, i.e. Weak, Electric, Strong/Nuclear, Forces happen in the absolute

[as that is completely rigorously proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force]

Matter’s spacetime, at any interactions fundamentally nothing happens with the spacetime;

- and on QM scale the interactions of all Forces are fundamentally “quantized” in accordance with the same main common QM principles.

So real “QM gravity” theory will be without any fundamental problems developed after the really scientific “classical” theory of Gravity Force will be developed, which in a number of traits will be similar to the similar to Gravity Electric Force classical electrodynamics.

Though really deep understanding of what are the Forces is possible only on Planck scale, more see about what are Planck scale models of Gravity and Electric Forces in 2-nd link, section 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”, what is Nuclear Force model see 3-rd link.

To read SS posts in, say, https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO39Doubts_about_General_Relativity_4-Who_should_determine_the_spacetime_metrics_of_matter_itself/2it is useful as well.

Cheers

Sandeep Jaiswal If you want to go on a scientific journey as a reader, then as an author I suggest you start with

Preprint Mathematical Notes on the Nature of Things (fragment)

There is no chance of mixing macroscopic phenomena with the microscopic ones. It's the wrong way to go.

The microscopic phenomenon does not contradict the macroscopic one. For example, the Minkowski space is embedded in the algebra of linear vector fields formed by vector fields tangent to the Clifford torus.

The thread question is scientifically answered in SS post above, so only a comment to

“…There is no chance of mixing macroscopic phenomena with the microscopic ones. It's the wrong way to go.….”

- here is no any problems. In Matter “nearly ultimately” [really “completely ultimately” everything happens on Planck scale] everything, i.e. all material objects, existence and interactions at actions of all Forces, happens on QM scale; and in this sense Gravity by no means differs from any other Forces.

However the QM interactions aren’t observed mostly on macroscale [besides some Electric Force effects , say, at radiating/absorption of light, when Planck’s explanation of “light macro spectrums” and Einstein explanation of “macro” photo effect essentially resulted in farther QM development],

- only because that all what is observed on macro scale by macro instruments is/are only some averaged on huge statistics [tens of orders by magnitude numbers of] of QM energies, momentums, masses, etc., that exist and happen at elementary QM interactions. That’s all, and no any mystic, no any mathematics, only a bare statistics.

Cheers

First, let's try and discuss this question at the present level where physics is at.

1. String theory is old and incomplete. Superstring theory and M-theory are most relevant. Many research questions remain, e.g., tachyons and the function and product of calabi yau manifolds in near space.

2. Nassim Haramein is about to publish a paper on the unification of classical and quantum physics. A free course is available. Well worth enduring this discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dc25CcwfL4

3. There are discrete experiments, which claim to have produced matter from light. This makes theoretical sense.

The above knowledge artifacts offer a strong argument in answering the question posted here, but obviously, it's a holistic, broad, and deep subject area. The shortest answer is; the unification of the standard model and quantum physics is theoretically possible.

Rgds

Robert

Igor Bayak

1) Minkowski space is a mathematical construction.

If you use this mathematical design to explain physical phenomena, one must first prove that the physical phenomenon fit this mathematical model.

You must not use the math anyway!

Sergey Shevchenko,

Thank you for sharing your insights, Sergey. Your perspective on the coexistence of gravity and quantum mechanics offers an interesting alternative to the current scientific understanding. While I appreciate your emphasis on fundamental forces and interactions at the Planck scale, I believe there is still much to explore in bridging the gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

I agree that developing a comprehensive theory of gravity that incorporates quantum principles remains a significant challenge. Perhaps continued research into Planck-scale models and further exploration of the nature of forces will shed light on this complex issue. I look forward to continuing this dialogue and exploring new avenues of inquiry in our quest to understand the fundamental workings of the universe.

Cheers,

Sandeep

Jan Slowak,

Thank you, John, for sharing your perspective on the challenge of reconciling gravity and quantum mechanics. It's true that integrating macroscopic phenomena with microscopic ones presents significant theoretical and conceptual challenges.

However, it's worth noting that physicists have been working for decades to develop a unified theory that can accommodate both gravity and quantum mechanics. While progress has been slow and challenging, there have been promising developments in theories such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, and quantum gravity.

While it's true that reconciling these two fundamental theories remains one of the most significant unsolved problems in physics, many researchers continue to explore new avenues and approaches in the quest for a unified theory of everything.

Rather than dismissing the possibility outright, it's essential to remain open-minded and recognise that scientific inquiry often leads to unexpected breakthroughs. I appreciate your perspective, and I'm optimistic that ongoing research will eventually shed light on this fundamental question.

Cheers,

Sandeep

Cosmin Visan

Sure, I will do check them out.

Sandeep Jaiswal

1) "Thank you, John"

Thank you for responding to my post. My name is Jan, but maybe it's easier with English.

2) "it's worth noting that physicists have been working for decades to develop a unified theory that can accommodate both gravity and quantum mechanics."

You cannot merge two theories into one that is correct, working, when they themselves are incomplete.

3) "many researchers continue to explore new avenues and approaches in the quest for a unified theory of everything"

This is a project that cannot succeed.

4) "Rather than dismissing the possibility outright, it's essential to remain open-minded and recognize that scientific inquiry often leads to unexpected breakthroughs."

All my research in special relativity, SR, has been dismissed.

So why study, why research, why try, why even post here on ResearchGate?

The thread question is scientifically answered in couple of SS posts on pages 2, so here only a note to

“…It's true that integrating macroscopic phenomena with microscopic ones presents significant theoretical and conceptual challenges….”

- again, see the SS posts above, here is no fundamental physical problems, really the difference of macro and QM physics practically completely is determined by bare/banal statistics. At that, moreover, because of that Gravity is “too extremely” weak fundamental Force, this problem in most cases in Matter doesn’t exist at all, gravitational quantum systems don’t exist on background action of other [Weak, Electric, Strong/Nuclear] Forces.

Though here are a couple of nuances

– extremely strong Gravity fields exist in the exotic cosmological objects, seems only “black holes”, where really “macro-QM” effects practically for sure exist - as, say, “macro-QM” effects [first of all Pauli principle] determine structures of white dwarfs and neutron stars;

- and, despite the extreme weakness of Gravity, its quantum nature with a well non-zero probability is rather easily experimentally observable at interactions of photons with Earth gravity, more see proposed yet in 2007 experiment in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests , section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”.

Correspondingly in

“….However, it's worth noting that physicists have been working for decades to develop a unified theory that can accommodate both gravity and quantum mechanics. While progress has been slow and challenging, there have been promising developments in theories such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, and quantum gravity….”

- that “that physicists have been working for decades to develop a unified theory” is quite correct;

- however that “there have been promising developments in theories such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, and quantum gravity” is quite wrong. The pointed theories really are nothing else than some physically senseless mathematical exercises, since are attempts to accommodate the GR, which is based on fundamentally wrong postulates, with much more adequate to the reality QM

And so that

“…While it's true that reconciling these two fundamental theories remains one of the most significant unsolved problems in physics, many researchers continue to explore new avenues and approaches in the quest for a unified theory of everything..….”

- really is fundamentally wrong claim as well. Again – see SS post on page 1, 4 days ago now, there is no any necessity in any “reconciling these two fundamental theories”. Really all what is necessary is the development of quite ordinary QM theory of a next fundamental Nature force, what will be done practically for sure by the standard way – after really scientific classical Gravity theory will be developed, its potential energies, momentums, etc., will be transformed by standard ways in QM operators, etc., as that, say, happened with “quantization” of classical electrodynamics.

Though, again, mainstream classical theories and QFTs really have rather numerous fundamental flaws, and really scientific theories of all Forces can by only in Planck scale physics, which must be based on the initial SS&VT model, more see the links 4 days ago now.

Cheers

A gravitational potential is known to

changd the phase of a matter wave.

Neutron interference experiments.

They cannot. Therefore, a paradygm shift is necessary.

The summary is about a model (the STOE) that suggests there is only one (1) force in the universe - the gradient of the plenum (an aether with specific properties - the term "aether" encompasses many different models). The summary paper lists many references where the model is compared to observation and where predictions are made and found. But, the summary is a bit lean on details which are found in the papers.

I'm making a series of videos. The first is referenced below. The next is nearly done and is STOE Cosmology which requires several of the concepts in the first video. After that is planned videos on galaxy anomalies explained in the STOE, a video on the solar system scale anomalies - Pioneer Anomaly (with the connection to galaxy redshift) and the Planet 9 observations.

One problem which aether models generally lack is an experiment that shows the aether/plenum exists. The things actually detected in measuring instruments are particles which the aether only directs. I suggest the transparent mask experiment (in the video) does not reject (proves?) the existence of the aether/plenum.

SUMMARY

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344442808_Scalar_Theory_of_Everything_STOE_unites_the_big_the_small_and_the_four_forces_GUT_by_extending_Newton's_model?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InF1ZXN0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwcm9maWxlIiwicG9zaXRpb24iOiJwYWdlQ29udGVudCJ9fQ

STOE on CNPS Intro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtbSroyJ4lU

Then search your consciousness!

John

I just gave you an example where they

Join.

Sergey Shevchenko,

Thanks Sergey, for your detailed insights into the question of integrating gravity and quantum mechanics. Your perspective on the fundamental differences between macroscopic and quantum phenomena sheds light on the challenges inherent in reconciling these two theories.

I appreciate your emphasis on the statistical nature of the differences between macro and quantum physics, as well as your insights into the potential observability of quantum effects in gravitational systems. Your proposed experiment involving photon beam distortion is particularly intriguing and warrants further exploration.

While I understand your skepticism towards theories such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, I believe it's essential to continue exploring a variety of approaches in the quest for a unified theory. While progress may be slow and challenging, the pursuit of a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental forces of nature remains a cornerstone of scientific inquiry.

Your emphasis on the necessity of developing a scientific classical gravity theory before attempting to quantise it is a valid point, and I agree that any unified theory must be firmly rooted in empirical evidence and rigorous mathematical formalism.

Thank you for sharing your perspective and insights, Sergey. I look forward to further discussions on this fascinating topic.

Cheers,

Sandeep

Scientific answer to the thread question see in SS posts on pages 2,3.

So only a couples of notes: to Sandeep

“…Thanks Sergey, … Your perspective on the fundamental differences between macroscopic and quantum phenomena sheds light on the challenges inherent in reconciling these two theories.….”

- well, though that

“…Your emphasis on the necessity of developing a scientific classical gravity theory before attempting to quantise it is a valid point, and I agree that any unified theory must be firmly rooted in empirical evidence and rigorous mathematical formalism.….”

- is mostly correct, however also is a bit vague: the wording “unified theory” in mainstream physics has rather numerous mentions, from “unification of all fundamental Forces in one "Theory of Everything”, which has became be well popular after the “unification” of Weak and Electromagnetic Forces in Standard Model was made, and as a rule now in the Model some “Electroweak Force” is used.

In this thread that is “unification” of GR and QM, however, again, that is fundamentally impossible, but there cannot be “unification” of correct “classical” and QM Gravity theories even both would/will be correct

- that will be different theories since describe/analyze fundamentally different objects/events/effects/processes of fundamentally different macro and QM scales.. As that, say is relating to classical and QM electrodynamics es.

That is another thing that all mainstream theories,

- because of that in mainstream physics all really fundamental phenomena/notions, including, say, [and well not only] “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc.,, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- are based on mostly transcendent and really so illusory/irrational/ so wrong, postulates, and must be developed additionally, basing on the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, links to 3 main papers see in SS post, page 2, 5 day ago now.

And a note to

“…A gravitational potential is known to changd the phase of a matter wave. Neutron interference experiments.….”

- that looks as quite interesting, though it would be better to point also some references to corresponding experiments.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko,

Thank you for your enlightening response and for further clarifying your views on the complex relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics. Your insights add a valuable layer of depth to this ongoing dialogue, and I'd like to delve deeper into the points you've raised.

The endeavour to unify GR and QM may seem Sisyphean, yet it embodies the essence of scientific curiosity and determination. While the path is fraught with complexities and paradoxes, it is through such rigorous and diverse explorations that we inch closer to a more profound understanding of the cosmos. Your contributions are a testament to this relentless pursuit.

Thank you once again for sharing your profound insights. I eagerly anticipate further engaging and illuminating discussions on this captivating journey.

Best regards,

Sandeep

Dear Sandeep Jaiswal,

To that

“…Thank you for your enlightening response and for further clarifying your views on the complex relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics. Your insights add a valuable layer of depth to this ongoing dialogue, …”

- well, thanks. However that

“…Unified Theory: A Multifaceted Challenge:…the pursuit of a Theory of Everything that unifies all fundamental forces, inspired by the success of the Electroweak Theory, indeed captures the imagination. ….”

- really is rather questionable claim. Really all fundamental Nature forces [see the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, links to 3 main papers are in the SS post, page 2, 6 days ago now] are fundamentally functionally different, and in this sense/case are independent on each other when make Matter to be as it is. So, again, really there cannot be any “Theory of Everything that unifies all fundamental forces”.

However all Forces’ charges are specifically concretely written in particles algorithms that have concrete limited “logical gates [i.e. the fundamental base on Matter – the binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE]] lengths”, and at exotic mostly in Matter energies, interactions, which happen in high energy physics, at some impacts on FLE that are marked by some Force, some FLEs in algorithms that are marked by some other Force can be also activated, and that, say, can be illusory interpreted as some “unification”, of, again, really fundamentally differentForces.

Including, say, it looks as well possible that the “success of the Electroweak Theory” is such interpretation, though that can reveal possibly real unknown and interesting physical effect(s). But, again, Electric and Weak Forces are fundamentally different.

And, again, really there is no any scientific necessity in development of any ““Theory of Everything” above, this theory now exist – that are classical and quantum mechanicses, which are based first of all on really completely universal for all Forces energy, momentum, angular momentums conservation laws, the least physical action principle, etc.,,

- though, again, existent theories, including the mechanicses, must be corrected/additionally developed in accordance with the SS&VT model above, more see mostly in sections . “Conclusion” in the linked papers.

And that

“…However, our current discussion focuses on the intricate challenge of reconciling General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Mechanics (QM). The inherent differences in the scales and phenomena these theories describe make this unification a formidable task, yet an immensely fascinating one.….”

- is, again, some questionable claim. Again, scientifically there is completely no any necessity in reconciling General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Mechanics (QM), the GR simply is fundamentally incorrect theory, while when the really scientific Gravity theory will be developed, after this will be no any problems in development of its QM version,

- really, again, that will be only incorporating in existent/[developed] QM of Gravity [say, something like 4D Electric Force potential] potential, potential energies, momentums, etc.

The post is rather long, so now

Just one thing .

QM treats particles in a potential.

Nothing excludes a gravitational potential.

But GR unfortunatly complictes this simple

concept.

Sergey Shevchenko

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for your continued engagement and detailed insights. I appreciate the depth of your perspective on the challenges of reconciling General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Mechanics (QM).

You rightly point out that the term "unified theory" is multifaceted, often referring to the broader goal of unifying all fundamental forces into a single Theory of Everything. However, in our discussion, we focus specifically on the unification of GR and QM. The inherent differences in scales and phenomena between these theories indeed pose a formidable challenge, one that highlights the complexity of merging classical gravity with quantum mechanics.

Your analogy with classical and quantum electrodynamics underscores the fundamental disparities between classical and quantum realms. This analogy serves as a potent reminder of the distinctiveness of each domain and the delicate balance needed to create a cohesive framework.

I find your critique of mainstream theories as being rooted in transcendent postulates thought-provoking. The Shevchenko-Tokarevsky Planck scale informational physical model you advocate offers a refreshing perspective on these foundational issues. I encourage those interested to explore your detailed posts and referenced papers, as they promise groundbreaking insights.

Empirical evidence remains crucial in our discussions. Your note on the gravitational potential affecting the phase of a matter wave is fascinating. For instance, the neutron interference experiments by Colella, Overhauser, and Werner (the COW experiment) provide concrete examples that enrich our theoretical explorations with observed reality.

The quest to unify GR and QM may seem Sisyphean, yet it epitomizes scientific curiosity and determination. While complex and paradoxical, it is through such rigorous explorations that we advance our understanding of the cosmos. Your contributions significantly enhance this dialogue.

Thank you once again for your profound insights. I look forward to our continued discussions.

Best regards,

Sandeep

Juan Weisz

Thank you for your contribution to this intriguing discussion.

You make a valid point: Quantum Mechanics (QM) indeed handles particles within various potentials, including gravitational ones. This is well-illustrated by experiments like the neutron interference experiments (such as the COW experiment), which show that gravitational potentials can influence quantum states.

However, as you noted, General Relativity (GR) introduces complexities that make integrating these concepts challenging. GR describes gravity not as a force but as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy, which fundamentally differs from the potential-based approach in QM.

The crux of the issue lies in these differing frameworks. While QM excels in describing particles and their interactions at microscopic scales, GR provides a comprehensive description of gravitation on a macroscopic scale. Reconciling these two frameworks into a unified theory that can accurately describe phenomena across all scales is a significant and ongoing challenge in theoretical physics.

This ongoing discussion about unifying GR and QM highlights the need for innovative approaches and continued empirical research. Exploring new theoretical models and conducting experiments that can bridge these frameworks is essential for advancing our understanding of the universe.

Regards,

Sandeep

Schrödinger's equation can be emerged from a stochastic foundation and be combined with stochastic gravity. This allows stochastic wavefunction collapse to release gravitational binding energy, mediated by the new spin-1 Lorentz boson with root-mass charge. Stochastic tools fall away, and we are left with quantum pre-gravity [1]. Above the electro-weak scale, we have SU(2)-Left x SU(2)-Right that is a gauge-group in the Left-Right symmetric Pati-Salam model. In the new model, after symmetry breaking, Left has electric charge and is our old friend from the standard model and Right is the new quantum pre-gravity mediated by the new Lorentz boson.

[1] Tejinder P. Singh, "Relativistic weak quantum gravity and its significance for the standard model of particle physics" on ResearchGate.

The thread question is rigorously scientifically answered in SS posts on pages 2,3,4.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Point well taken.

To look for unification at the universal level flies in the face of common logic. Physicists do not recognize their own brain fart.

When we encounter an omelet, does anyone really believe the egg is still whole, somehow? Of course not.

We live in a result, and that means the setup from which we originated had a fundamental mishap.

--

In the Big Whisper model (a Big Bang model), the quarks are the essence and tell us the correct story. Here are just a few details:

Quarks do not exist by themselves, which means they were established under extreme circumstances, proposed is extreme pressure.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is the moment when the extreme circumstances of pressure finally subsided to a normal level again. That is the moment the newly created quarks were able to align themselves with other quarks, instantly.

There is no need for a super-hot state (though some heat expression will have been part of the process) because the forging of the quarks did not happen mid center. Rather, this occurred in Zone 2, quite a large distance removed from the mathematical center.

Preprint On Quarks Explaining Our Universe

Advice: Do not meld everything into one event. The scientific data is all about the first appearance of matter, not something else.

The scientific data is NOT about the beginning of energy, time or space, so please do not meld all into one event. That is erroneous, a brain fart.

We are NOT witnessing a creation story. We are witnessing a transformation story.

Fred-Rick Schermer

1) "When we encounter an omelet, does anyone really believe the egg is still whole, somehow? Of course not."

Is quantum theory about the discussion of omelet-egg states?

2) "Do not meld everything into one event."

No one can do that, an event is an event, another event is another event.

3) "We are NOT witnessing a creation story. We are witnessing a transformation story."

So beautifully said!

Jan Slowak

Thank you for the reply, Jan. I appreciate it. Good questions.

Is quantum theory about the discussion of omelet-egg states?

Quantum theory is about a specific reality of the omelet. It is not about the omelet as a whole, but about the parts inside the omelet, how they exist and hold on to one another to help form the omelet.

With quantum mechanics, physicists discovered that there is no certainty about the state the parts of the omelet are in. A bit like rolling a die therefore and not knowing if a 2 will end up on top or not. Yet roll a die one million times and we do end up with certainty, because the 2 will show up one-sixth of the time. We also know that a 7 will not be rolled.

So, on the inside of the omelet we find uncertainty, yet about the omelet itself we have certainty beyond any doubt. There are two realities to consider; this is not a single reality.

An event is an event, another event is another event.

That is correct, yet here we see once more that there are two levels to comprehend, not just one. Just like quantum mechanics is a specific truth and the overall outcome the general truth, we are forced to work with different realities (not because reality demands it, but because we are applying our brain, which is a tool; our brain needs to see and understand the different realities).

An event is a view from the overall perspective. It turns out that the eye of the beholder plays a role in how the event is perceived.

Our choice with the Big Bang event is

A: The first appearance of matter, energy, time and space, or

B: The first appearance of matter.

So, the advice is to double check what we include in an event. For science, we only have the first appearance of matter (some 13.8 billion years ago), and a good scientist will therefore not include the first appearance of energy, time or space in with that event because there is no information on that.

We do not know, nor will we ever know, how energy came about. We simply lack the data to tell that story. Let's focus therefore on what we know and not meld anything into an event for which we do not have a starting point. Let's focus on how matter came to be (and then the story is a lot simpler to tell).

Thanks once more, Jan.

All nice theories, a few claiming to be absolute.

Here's another thought, not vo.pletely my own. Suppose space was actually a geometric construct, with within its structure, inherent potential energy.

Which follows, when the geometric structure changes dimensionally, or merely stretches or contracts, directional energy is released.

This movement of space - as we call it - causing particles and some waves to be guided towards heaviest objects within the locality of influence.

This "attraction", being no more than an effect of the movement of space. Here we have one example of Newtonion gravity.

I think gravitational waves may be excluded from this direct effect.

Suppose further that 2 particles become entangled because of the forcefields of their spin. This occurs within a quantum dynamical environment. So much movement at micro scale all the way down to absolute zero. It blows the mind.

How do these waveparticles remain entangled in a non-locality manner?

I would suggest, via quantum gravity, which may well be a forcefield which is maleable and capable of remaining intact over vast distances, not unlike radiowaves.

How is it brought into existence? I think via quantum entanglement. This has nothing directly to do with Newtonian gravity, but where these waveparticles aggregate as sufficiently-heavy objects, these objects would have to conform to the effect of weighted bodies relative to the movement of space geometry.

Robert Benjamin

I like people with ideas, Robert, and you thought about this from quite a decent level, so congratulations on having a good working brain.

--

The one comment I have is actually a demand I believe is made within science: We have to start with the data first, and space is not a source of data. Allow me to argue that point.

When Einstein figured out his relativity theories, he actually did not yet know about the Big Bang model. That means that he was looking at the behavior of matter to figure out what was going on with the behavior of matter. The tools for him to express this were time and space. They indicate what happens to matter.

Yet Einstein did not incorporate the ultimate behavior of matter, which we consider with the Big Bang model in mind as the fastest speed matter is involved in. He did not know about it yet.

The Big Bang is the expression of a force of some kind, yet the subsequent motion of matter is not based on a sustaining of that force. The Big Bang was a one-time event.

So, with matter we have both gravity but also a non-force outcome (non-force meaning spent force). Once set in motion, matter remained in motion.

That First Motion was not clear to Einstein, and when it became clear to Einstein he noticed that as long as he talked about gravity alone his framework was still correct. He did not adjust his framework, probably because he did not know how (or did not have time to look into this).

Conclusion: Einstein's spacetime is not about space, not about time, and can also not be applied to the universe, but can at best be applied to a galaxy as the largest setting in which his relativity theories are correct.

That means I cannot accept space as the starting point of any theory. I cannot stand with my two feet on space. I can stand on Energy, and I can stand on Matter, but I cannot stand on space or on time.

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

--

In religion, one can stand with the big picture as the first thing given and then everything else (supposedly) falling in line underneath it.

In science, we cannot stand with the big picture as the first thing given. In science, we must begin with collecting the data and evidence, and only then can we try making our jumps to the bigger picture levels. While jumps are fine (you are doing a good job), the first thing to ask is where we are landing. With the starting point we can land a level higher, but we cannot land in the sky with space.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

@Fred-Rick Schermer

Thank you for validating my thoughts on this matter. Likewise, I appreciate yours.

I understand where you're coming from. However, I'd like to challenge a few of your assumptions.

1. You presumed I started at a big picture view. I didn't. I've been studying our known universe from the quantum level forwards. Einstein's equations for space assumed a vacuum. Space may contain vacuous subspaces, or voids, but science now attests to it that space is anything but empty. It's rather complex.

2. You assume that the universe began with the Big Bang theory and miraculously initiated time, matter, light, everything we know, even Earth and everything on and surrounding it.

However, recent data from the JWST refutes this theory. All the predictions made with regards a singular big bang, now proved in error.

Last, you asserted there could only have been one big bang ever. Now, there's no evidence to that effect. Science don't know how many there were, or even if Earth may not have been formed as a big bang by itself.

Why else is almost everything in space we observe from Earth moving away from us in all directions? (Just an afterthought).

I agree with you that the onus for scientific truth rests with science. How could one concern oneself with matter (the periodic table) and ignore geometry, space, time, light and gravity? Remove those, and there would be no neutrinos, quarks, atoms, and so on, to release energy, or combining and recombining into functional form (gestalt). There would be no movement, no flux.

How does science explain all this movement, great and small?

As complex as it may be, we have to progress from wholeness (generalization) to detail (specialization).

With regards the unification of gravity, perhaps we'll consider where the original recipe for breathing life - to have first emerged on Earth - came from scientifically?

Specifically, where from, and how did the information for the tRNA of first mammal come to be on Earth? Science needs to describe this auto-breathing process from origin and it should be tested empirically. Zero a-priori RNA existed (as far as science knows).

Not even a human heart, as the most-complex planes of matter humans might have, can restart itself automatically.

What forces of gravity, started up our first ancestors, knew those recipes? I'm currently researching that question. The question of original, breathing life on Earth.

Fred-Rick Schermer

4) "There are two realities to consider; this is not a single reality."

There is ONLY one reality!

5) "our brain needs to see and understand the different realities"

There is ONLY one reality!

6) "It turns out that the eye of the beholder plays a role in how the event is perceived."

An observer (our eyes) is all about subjectivity. But if the observer is a real physicist, mathematician and logician, one must come to a single conclusion because we have only one reality!

7) "Our choice with the Big Bang"

My research on the Big Bang is documented in the book Redshift factor, Absolute redshift, Galaxies red / blue distribution

8) "and not meld anything into an event"

In my opinion, the Big Bang never happened.

Jan Slowak

Thank you, Jan, for your reply. I appreciate it.

I do not mind that you are stating that there is just one reality. That is the ordinary word use, though the word reality actually allows us to use it in different ways as well. When I declare that there are two realities, then it is okay to ask me what I mean with that, or have me point out what those two realities are. It is from among the details of data that one can see how there is a fundamental duality (to describe this with different words) that exists. Here are some examples.

--

Gödel already mentioned how at the unit level of planet and star we witness a convergent behavior for matter, all that matter becoming one material unit for either planet or star.

Then, we see star-system formation, and one (big) step larger, we see galaxy formation.

Then, there is not any convergent behavior left. Rather, we see divergent behavior for matter at the largest of levels.

Two realities therefore with the behavior of matter: convergent and divergent. All matter at the local level exists also at the universal level. Two different behaviors witnessed in one.

--

With the neutrons and protons, we witness matter in the nuclei of atoms. Because the positive charge of the proton needs to be overcome somehow, the negative electron is present as well. Nevertheless, the presence of positive and negative in equal numbers does not annihilate the charge; it only overcomes the charge that is inherent to the proton. The exact same number of protons as electrons exist. Yet the electron is not found in the nuclei of the atom. The neutron and proton are self-based (not melding into one blob, but each remaining itself) and the electron is not self-based, even hard to capture.

Two realities therefore with the behavior of matter at the subatomic level. We have a neutral reality at the universal level, charge-wise, and we have a charged reality at the subatomic level.

--

Human beings are not all identical. There is no single human being who contains all human traits. For instance, no person is male, female, young and old all at the same time.

Each person may exist in his or her own reality; my reality is not your reality. One person may be born while you read this sentence, while another person dies. They all exist in their own realities.

--

The Scientific Realm (i.e. the all-inclusive reality we can also capture with the all-inclusive word Universe) is always larger than the Scientific Reach.

In other words, Science has its limitations. In effect, science is a tool in which we approach reality in very smart manners, but that is limited nevertheless. Science is therefore not the same as reality. Science has limitations and that needs to be recognized if scientists want to understand reality.

--

The hardest point to make come across (folks somehow don't let the following sink in) is that a tool has its own reality, and at that level of reality people can make a very important mistake that may not be recognized as such.

The example I use is paper, and how on paper we can draw a Cyclops. Everything about the Cyclops is accurate -- the hair, the head, the nose, the ears, mouth and chin. Even the single eye is accurate by itself. Yet a Cyclops is not an accurate representation of a person.

If you want to see what a Cyclops sees, all you need to do is close an eye.

Yet you are still not a Cyclops because the open eye did not shift to the center of your head. It is still located either to the left or to the right.

In Science, when something is zero (closed an eye), then sometimes it is fully removed from an equation. The remainders with values larger than zero are reshuffled, centered around themselves.

That is the mistake scientists can make when they work 'on paper.' They may recognize that an eye is closed, and then reshuffle everything else around itself, thinking the open eye should be in the middle.

So, when we discuss reality, then it is okay to declare it just one reality. Yet in that one reality we have multiple realities that are contradicting each other in an absolute manner.

Matter is finite. Space is infinite. Together they form one reality called the universe. Yet they are not behaving the same way at all.

Robert Benjamin

Thank you, Robert, for what appears already a good conversation.

I am glad to read you have a substantial background in science, and it is good to start at the smallest level, gather data and observations, and then walk this up to the larger level.

Yet as we know from Gödel, we will end up with an overall view that presents us then an incompleteness per that data. It is not that we are missing anything, but that we cannot organize all that information into one completeness.

What we often do next, in our minds, is that we make a jump to the overall level itself, and then declare that overall level with words of our own choosing, such as with words like Universe and Everything. These words exist at the overall level, and at the overall level only. These words do not show the details. Rather, they cover the details.

So, the first point to make, while not undermining your substantial background (it's rather helpful) is that we have to deal with how the mind organizes everything. As you know, science is a tool, it is a specific approach toward reality, and that means that it will have its limitations. We need to use our brains to recognize the limitations of the tools we use if we want to focus our minds on what we are examining. The big picture will be declared by the mind, and science will be its primary tool but not its only tool due to its limited nature.

--

I must correct you about your assumption that my Big Bang model declares that time, space, energy and matter all came into being. In the Lambda-CDM model that may be an unanswered question, yet in the Big Whisper model (named for Penzias and Wilson who discovered the CMBR) we only have a transformation event, and not a creation event.

Energy is a given in science, and I do not undermine that.

So, the Big Bang, per my model, is a transformation event of (some) energy becoming matter. Nothing more, nothing less. It may be confusing that I use Big Bang and then mean in specifics the Big Whisper model, but that is because there are aspects that are the same (just not prior to the CMBR moment).

I call out the Big Bang event as an extremely pressurized event, and there is no need for super-hot (just some heat, nothing super-hot). That truly sets it apart from the Lambda-CDM model.

At first the situation is ordinary (in as far as one can use the word ordinary for the prior state of the universe), and then there is the setup toward extreme pressure. In this event of extreme pressure, a quark soup got established from original immaterial energy. Subsequently, everything catapulted outwardly (quark soup plus all non-damaged energy).

At the CMBR event the extreme conditions finally subsided. The CMBR is then the moment the quark soup can move about, and immediately aligns into neutrons and protons. The reason is simple: the quarks are deformed original energy and they are not capable of returning to their original state.

Due to the positive charge of the protons, the negative electrons are pulled into the now material environment.

If others are correct, then matter would be 4% of all energy, so the majority of original energy did not get damaged in the extreme event, just about 4% got damaged, plus a little bit more for the subsequent formation of the electrons.

--

I do not see any need for additional Big Bangs after the materialization process occurred. As you can see in my model, the prior state of the universe broke at a fundamental level. It is not possible to break the fundamental level twice. Breaking a vase happens once, and breaking a broken piece into more pieces does not constitute breaking the vase again. The vase broke once only.

--

I consider unification a non-starter. It is a brain fart. It is the human mind once more trying to meld everything into one. It is something children would do, not mature people.

When I see an omelet, I do not need to investigate the omelet nor do I need to see the egg shells to know with 100% certainty that the egg broke.

When I see an omelet, I will not look for unification because that is then a waste of my time. It is fine to be surprised how much the omelet particles cling to the whole of the omelet, yet unification with the egg shells is not going to happen on my watch.

--

Lastly, gravity is a force but it is not the only aspect that explains the universe.

In the Big Bang, a force was involved with the extreme pressure build-up, and that force was spent in the catapulting action when the build-up broke (in Zone 2). This catapulting action sent off all matter/energy on their current trajectories (there does not exist any matter at a standstill anywhere in the universe). So we have the sent-off that is from a force that was spent already some 13.8 billion years ago, plus we have matter that does not stop because there is nothing to stop that motion, plus in that ongoing environment we have other forces playing out their realities at their specific levels.

Einstein missed the most important motion among all behaviors of matter, so his spacetime is of limited statute, fantastic as it otherwise is.

Again, Gödel's Incompleteness (Einstein's best buddy) tells us to not jump to the universal level because that is a fool's errant. Anyone taking Spacetime to the universal level is not using his brains well. Spacetime can best be applied to galaxies as largest settings.

--

Thank you, Robert. It sounds like we may think alike. Curious what details and comments you have in your reply.

Fred-Rick Schermer

Thank you for a thorough reply. Much appreciated.

I am a scientist in mind, but other than that, I wouldn't claim to be more substantial than that. I have my specific areas of research, but my mentor does keep me on my toes.

I understand Gödel's Incompleteness theory to mean that in a mathematical system, there would always be some true statements, which cannot be proven. By implication, even sufficient data may not be enough proof. Paraphrasing this statement from the domain of quality management of systems: 'You get what you measure.'

Semantically, terms such as "universe" and "everything" are relative to the context of use. At a quantum level, there exists a universe of selectively-entangled atoms. As for the term "Everything", I'm reminded of an interesting French film: "Everything went fine". In there, the universe was a family challenge.

Agreed, we are all limited to the degree of understanding science by the extent of our mental faculties. While the mind by itself may be a great tool, I'd like to think that potential exists for consciousness to help out occasionally with an epiphany, or three.

I haven't viewed your Big Bang model, but in general the theory holds that it was instrumental in the origin of life. I agree with your view that a big bang could also occur with sub-zero temperatures. My purpose isn't to debate the completeness of the Big Bang theory though.

What I'm saying is that all things considered, science knows less than 15% of what is contained within the cosmos. I suppose it would be a little cheeky of me to suppose that the other 85% may have contributed substantially to the absolute reality aspect of total reality.

I don't see a need for multiple big bangs in space either, but it seems big bangs occur anyway. Our needs don't matter to nature. For example, quite a big bang in a super nova. How many have there been in tens of billions of years?

The evidence from the JWST suggests that the "fundamentals" weren't broken at all. The cosmos didn't break. It chugged along, hiccuped, and carried on as slightly disturbed. There's no evidence that anything broke. Perhaps nature is just so way beyond our understanding that we cannot comprehend such hiccups occurring somewhere in a parallel universe, even as we speak.

A theory for the unification of the gravity has already been completed (Haramein). Physicists, such as Carroll, are homing in as well. What we understand about gravity today is super interesting. Here, I'm mindful of R&D and reported advances in antigravitational technologies. It's the notion of quantum gravity, which still needs sufficient proof. To each his omelet.

You stated: "Anyone taking Spacetime to the universal level is not using his brains well. Spacetime can best be applied to galaxies as largest settings." As stated before, it depends on your definition of the term universe, but here I'd prefer to use the term, "cosmos" with adimensionality and infinite progression.

When space flexes its potentials, therefore gravity. That is the informed view today.

I'd like to add to that: therefore gravity [and time and light]. Even a passing wave may trigger such movement, as flux. Thus, light, time, and gravity may well be phenomena capable of being embedded in all possible waves in all worlds and states of matter. The wholeness of reality is united as a singular oneness already, always defaulting to the net inverse value of x/y = 1.

Carroll's latest view is as follows:

At a quantum level, equivalence is established between Geometry, Energy, and Entanglement.

Furthermore:

1. "That's precisely general relativity: energy causes spacetime to curve."

2. "Rather than postulating Einstein's equation, we can derive it using entanglement."

3. "The curved geometry of spacetime can emerge naturally from the wave function."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgalPdfHxM

I thank you for the debate.

Robert Benjamin

Excellent reply, Robert, and I am glad you took the time to write down your views this well.

I see we have a similar mindset, though I do come to different conclusions, and particularly at the largest level I have a different understanding (and evidence for it).

The interesting part is of course your stating that a completed theory for gravity exists. I do not disagree, since it is already accomplished by declaring gravity the synergistic outcome of the specific forces. The word Synergy indicates we have an additional and distinct outcome while nothing got added. Most physicists do not embrace synergy as full-heartedly as I do.

Yet gravity is not the single force that guides all, so let there not be a mistake about my position on gravity. Albert Einstein did not know about the Big Bang model, so he did not incorporate that motion of matter into his theories, whereas his theories are fully started from investigating the behavior of matter.

Einstein did not start out to explain time or space. Einstein just used time and space as handles to help express what he witnessed with the behavior of matter in solar systems and galaxies.

His best buddy Gödel showed him that rotational aspects in a galaxy would also explain parts of Einstein's spacetime setup, and Einstein actually agreed. There is therefore an alternative.

The point being, and I'll make this about the unification of gravity once more, is that the applicability of that unification to the larger setting of the universe is nil and void. We can't find a truth at the local level and then apply it to the overall level willy-nilly.

To show this, the following example.

Write your name on an envelope, your address, city, country, planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, and hand it to the postal person. The postal person will deliver the letter to the right person (in this case you), but mentions that of the 8 items on the envelop only 7 provided directions. The word universe turned out to be non-functional.

Some people do not like that and add the 9th item of Multiverse to the list, and interestingly the word universe becomes functional then: it is then OUR universe, not one of the others. Yet the non-functionality got kicked down the road. Now the word multiverse has become the non-functional word.

No matter how we organize ourselves, the largest word will be non-functional, even when our mind understands it completely without suspecting any problem.

That is the same Gödel showed with his Incompleteness Theorems, but then told from a different perspective. The outcome is the same.

We can place the term Universe on top of it all, no problem. Yet what we are doing then can cover up the gap in organization; we can then blind ourselves, not seeing the lack of completeness in organization. Then, most people refuse to talk about it any further because they do not want to look at the gap in organization. They want to deny it is there. They want their word Universe to be functional and will go through great lengths to avoid what is shown to them.

---

The quarks are telling the real story, Robert. The quarks cannot exist by themselves, and so we know that something had to have gone wrong, and I place that at 13.8 billion years with the Big Bang model. I did not do any of the measuring myself, but that fits me well. I don't need to reinvent what others provided as vehicle.

There is no other option for quarks to have come about than in some kind of gruesome accident, and in the proposed Big Whisper scenario the normal situation of the prior state ended through a collective inbound motion among all that energy. That inbound motion changed the situation from normal to extreme in which the quarks were forged. Then after the accident there is the return to normal conditions, while everything was moving outwardly. At the CMBR, the conditions are finally normal again, but the deformed quarks could not return to their original state. They formed neutrons and protons instead.

As such, the foundation as energy existed prior did indeed go kaput. One cannot get something new from something unchanged. That would be impossible, so we must always agree to the fundamental breakdown of the foundation that ended up presenting us something that had not existed in that format before.

That also means I must reiterate that a vase can only get broken once, and not multiple times, so you and I have different ideas what a Big Bang is. In case of the Big Whisper, it was not a bang, but a Big Crackle. Wilson and Penzias called it out as a whisper, so there is the explanation for the used name. The vase represents the original foundation and it cannot exist today any more as such, nor can it get broken a second time. I do not mind if you invent words for the other forms of matter first appearing, but the words Big Bang are taken.

Others have called the Big Whisper model out as the Big Blender since the center of the concentration was fully stuck in place, not budging an inch, due to the extreme pressure buildup. Meanwhile, Zone 2 around that large center was also under extreme pressure but friction was still available for it. That caused the energy in Zone 2 to churn, and have that energy in Zone 2 become deformed.

In my article, I explain why there are 6 different kinds of quarks and why the 6 quarks nevertheless end up becoming either an up or down quark. I hope you'll read it. The quarks came from Zone 2 only, and the center (Zone 1) did not produce any quarks. Zone 3 of the collective inbound motion was the largest setting involved and it did not produce any quarks either because pressure in Zone 3 never reached criticality. That energy remained as original energy (also on their way out with the catapulting action).

--

I embrace science fully. I love it. I think it is the smartest approach to understanding how the universe came about. Yet the human brain has work to do because science cannot make that last step. Like the word Universe on an envelope, science cannot conquer the non-functional level, and if scientists step on that level they are in fantasy land (see some of your words about the largest level). So, it is the human brain that has to work a little (not much).

It is like the omelet in front of us in a restaurant. We do not need to see the egg shells in the garbage bin in the kitchen; we know they are there based on seeing the omelet. We also do not need to investigate the omelet at its subatomic level to know that the egg got broken. Our brain can indeed conjure correct conclusions based on what was presented.

Let's quickly look at the subatomic level of the omelet, because we do see how the protons and electrons are equal in number and have equal (opposite) charges. The charges are not annihilated. That means the proton sits in one reality and the electron sits in another reality; they cannot get to the essence of the other.

That means we have an action on our hands plus a reaction. Of the two, the proton got produced first (through sustaining damage), and subsequently the electron got pulled in to neutralize the charge, apparently that neutral state is quite important. Our universe as a whole does not have a charge. Nevertheless, the proton is based on deformed energy, whereas the electron derived from the (large) remnant of the original state. It's like a tiny iceberg expressing the large field that we do not see (because the energy is immaterial). At the subatomic level, neutrality can only be achieved as a stale-mate. That should tell you as much as the omelet in front of me tells me.

I hope you'll read my article. It explains why the quarks are what they are, perhaps not written in the best scientific language, yet delivering more than what most scientists dare to write because many are held back by their scientific upbringing.

Preprint On Quarks Explaining Our Universe

Thank you for sparring with me. I appreciate it.

Jan Slowak Robert Benjamin

Jan and Robert,

Thank you once more for communicating with me. I really appreciate it.

To make one point come across better, I wrote an article that I'd like to share with you.

Preprint On the Non-Functional Reality of the Universe

The largest of levels is always non-functional and it appears (nearly all) physicists ignore that truth. Instead of accepting reality for what it is, they desire to hold reality by the horns and have it behave the way they want it to behave.

A good scientist investigates reality for what it is, and does not make reality what it is not. In this article I show how easy it is to fall into the trap of thinking to know something for certain while reality does have this trick up its sleeve for certain.

Thank you for reading my work. I appreciate it.

Fred-Rick Schermer

I am commenting on what you wrote to me on June 7:

9) "It is from among the details of data that one can see how there is a fundamental duality (to describe this with different words) that exists."

It goes without saying that there is a lot of data regarding a physical phenomenon we are talking about. But there is only one reality! That we interpret the data in different ways is another matter. If we create two or more mathematical models, descriptions, of a physical phenomenon, it does not mean that this phenomenon exists in so many copies in reality!

10) "All matter at the local level exists also at the universal level."

These levels are only models, descriptions, of a single reality! This does NOT mean that the same real object exists in different copies on each level!

11) "Matter is finite. Space is infinite."

Do you mean that in an infinite Universe there is a finite amount of matter? That doesn't sound logical!

Fred-Rick Schermer

Re: article on the non-functional reality of the universe. Seems you've opened up an imaginary can of space worms.

Here are a few of many:

1. In terms of dimensionality, what constitutes the "largest space"?

2. Please define your use of the term "function".

3. Which "reality" are you referring to?

4. Where does adimensionality and infinity fit into this statement?

5. Whch single, English word do you think denotes the "largest space" possibility?

The thread question is rigorously scientifically answered in SS posts on pages 2,3,4.

So for those readers who really want to understand what are “gravity” and “quantum”, and how gravity and quantum “can coexist in the same theory”, i.e. how the scientific theory of fundamental Nature Gravity force can be introduced in QM equations – as that, say, happened in the fundamental Nature Electric force case; and why it is fundamentally impossible to do that with the GR,

- more see the posts and links in the posts.

Cheers