I would say that near the Planck scale quantum effects of the gravitaional field cannot be ignored. This is the real significance of that scale.

Thank you, Sanjay. And, Andrew, what you say is certainly true assuming that the gravitational field is quantized. But that's an assumption that Einstein and many others would disagree with. Personally, I tend to agree with them.

It seems natural to think that the gravitational field will be quantised, but for sure we do not have to tools to fully undertand this.

It is also true that trying to extend the perturbative methods that have worked well for particle physics to gravity does not work. But this does not mean that a quantum theory of gravity is impossible,

I'm not sure what is being talked about here. If one means force then what we know is F=GmM/r^2. If one means strength, that's G. If you go with this and you are imagining two of any known particles, m and M are so small that gravity affects nothing compared to any of the other 3 forces that might be acting. Planck scale forces can only be invoked at densities like the big bang. Even neutron star densities aren't sufficient since we have evidence that at least 2 of the 3 non-gravity forces are still acting. Of course we have no experimental observations of gravity at Planck scale distances so either the gravitational law might change or G may. Surely quanitization must apply.

Thank you, Olav. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts but I have to disagree with you on one point. I do not believe that Einstein's discomfort with quantum mechanics was "his single big mistake"; in fact I don't believe it was a mistake at all. Later in his life he seemed to suspect that there had to be some way for quantum mechanics to be true without God needing to throw dice. He spent much of the rest of his life searching for that way. Any theory, such as string theory, that's based on the assumption that the deepest level of reality involves interactions between fluctuating energy and spacetime provides an approach that does just that.

Hi Olav, The way I see it, string theory says that if one examines what's happening at the smallest possible distance, which is called the Planck scale, you'd find strings or loops of energy in a mutual dance with space-time. Those strings can vibrate in different ways depending upon whether they are loops or have ends and the shape of the space they're associated with. Each pattern of vibration is associated with a quantum particle at the level of energy and distance that we can observe in experiments. So there's a deeper level of reality that underlies quantum physics that we can't observe because it's far too small.

It's hard to imagine how enormous the difference in scales is but it's helped me to know that the difference between the Plank scale and the quantum particle scale is roughly the same as the difference in scale between a human being and an atom. The Plank scale is what I'm referring to as "the deepest level of existence". In string theory, given a specific kind of energy string vibrating in a specific shape of space, everything is determined. God does not throw dice.

Thank you for your comment, Sanjay. But why do you say that since gravity's just as strong as all of the other forces at the Planck scale, it would require a purely quantum mechanical description of gravity at that level? Wouldn't it be possible to describe the electro-magnetic force with a quantum mechanical description and the force of gravity at the Planck scale the same way it’s described by General Relativity as resulting from warped continuous spacetime and find the two forces to be roughly the same? Why would they both have to be described in the same manner?

Sanjay, some people, like me for example, intuitively feel that energy and spacetime are continuous, not quantized. I'm uncomfortable with abrupt discontinuities at any scale.

I find myself wondering that perhaps physicists are barking up the wrong tree by searching for a quantum theory of gravity to unite General Relativity and quantum mechanics. Maybe they should be searching for a continuous theory of quantum mechanics instead. I'm not sure, but it seems to me that string theorists are trying to do that.

If in fact, energy and spacetime were continuous, would that eliminate the quantum fluctuations at the Planck level?

Bill and Sanjay, fascinating and fundamental thread you've created here! Thanks!

Isn't it possible that some of the energy fields (like QED and QCD) behave according to QM rules and some (like Gravity) don't? Also at very short distances (below the Planck scale) (if space/time is continuous) you would have to say the strength of force of Gravity will approach infinity.

You make an interesting point, Mark. Even if spacetime is continuous, I think the Planck scale continues to be a fundamental limit. I believe it's calculated as the scale at which combining the equations of General Relativity and quantum mechanics produces infinities, which can't happen in the physical world. I think those infinities persist at smaller scales which would imply that the force of gravity can't approach infinity in the real world even if spacetime is continuous.

It’s easiest for me to think about my intuitive conjecture about “a theory of everything” from the bottom up. If one were to examine what’s happening at very tiny distance scales, the Planck scale, you would find minute concentrations of continuous energy in a mutual dance with continuous spacetime. That dance warps spacetime creating a gravitational field.

There’s no hope of ever being able to make direct observations at that scale. In fact, because of the limitations of technology, the scale must be vastly blown up or expanded to what we call the quantum scale before direct observations become possible. Physicists have only been able to understand what’s happening and make accurate predictions at that scale by using the approach of quantum mechanics. That approach seems to say that reality is not deterministic but rather probabilistic but that conclusion is just a result of their inability to make direct observations at the Planck scale.

When one asks what’s real, the answer depends on whether they are talking about observed reality or physical reality. For example, quantum particles are observationally real but they’re not physically real. On the other hand, vibrating energy concentrations are physically real but not observationally real. I believe energy and spacetime are physically continuous but observationally quantized.

Thanks so much, Sanjay. That's the best explanation I've heard. I guess my only hope now is that QM simply doesn't apply at the Planck level and space is continuous. This whole conversation has been very useful to me even though it's narrowed my hopes significantly. At least it's framed them.

Thank you, Joachim particularly for pointing me to reference #2. Maybe there's hope that the universe makes sense after all.

No theory say string theory but you can say Recycle bin of physics in this century like ether of the past this string theory will delete in some day so you musn't give it any interist

I believe I've answered this quesstion before. Mere change of scale isn't sufficient to bring the 3 strong forces together. It also requires energy densities much larger than nuclear. The only place we think this may have occurred is in the big bang. Sp[eculation about unifying the 3 with gravity is theory only. We don'y have any experimental info that bears on this.

At the very small distances say planks scale, gravity almost unifies with other basic forces and if you know, all these forces were unified at the time of Big Bang. As the objects become closer and closer, the force of gravity becomes stronger and stronger but gravity also acts on itself. Scientists are already trying to generate the 'fixed point' under which gravitational attraction stops getting stronger.

The search for TOE is also there for which String Theory is considered as the best candidate but despite getting a lot of attention over decades, it is still unable to answer all the questions although it has given so many useful results

This link might be helpful for you

Scientists currently rely on general relativity to explain the gravity. However, no one is quite sure of how gravity works at very short distances, in particular the shortest distance of all: the Planck length, or 10-35 m.

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i14/e141103

I think a few limiting details are omitted from the popular explanations. Likely you can only approach the planck scale through gravitational collapse. In general relativity, since this occurs on the other side of an event horizon, it occurs also beyond the end of time in the observable universe, so no meaningful results could be reported from an experiment.

It is well understood that general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible, and prevailing opinion is that one or the other will have to give, and it's not likely to be quantum mechanics. I refer you to Steven Giddings' long review article in the April 2013 Physics Today.

The strenght of gravity is very interesting. It appears to be 40 orders of magnitude too weak to be explained by ordinary quantum fields. It is also very different in character from other fields, acting equally on all forms of mass-energy, and thus having always negative potential. Maxwell looked at applying field equations to gravity and decided not to go there on this account. Since Einstein's theory has "holes" in it (pun intended), you could say no one has proved Maxwell wrong.

There is an alternative quantum view of gravity, which holds that inertia is a primary result of quantum interactions, and that gravity is a 2nd order effect of a 2nd order effect of inertia. That explains approximately its weakness. In this theory, there are no re-normalization problems. For more information and links to papers see http://InertiaFirst.com .

Thanks, Robert. The description of gravity provided by general relativity is appealing to me but I agree with the prevailing opinion that it's the one that will have to be modified in order to bring quantum mechanics and general relativity together. I'm studying a paper called "On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton" written by Erik Verlinde, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1, in which gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. I suspect it contains some fundamental insights which raise questions that will lead to a rethinking of the nature of gravity.

I have read that paper and think it is very interesting. It might be correct. I think you would enjoy also my paper "On Dynamics in a Quasi-Measurement Field." It starts from an even more fundamental basis than Verlinde, and the math is not too complicated. (Naturally I don't promise any gravity theory is easy to follow, but it's not too bad).

@AbhimanyuSudhir Please see the reference, it is not my opinion that is being reported. I'm sure Giddings would love to hear from you. Thanks.

Permit me to state two things.

First, one might review an aspect of the above question/statement. Suppose electromagnetism and gravity continue 'as is' to small distances. For interactions between electrons (or electrons and positrons), the ~Q1*Q2/r^2 interaction will still much exceed the ~M1*M2/r^2 interaction. So, perhaps parts of the question/statement do not pertain to some cases.

Second, I may have developed a quantum theory of gravity that is easy to work with (for some purposes) and useful. The basis for this seems to unify all 4 traditional forces. The basis seems to straddle some aspects of space-time and energy-momentum space. It's not clear that space time needs to 'break down' at the Planck length. But, it appears that the uncertainty principle can still apply.

For anyone interested, a key question toward this 'unification' is "Why not represent a photon (or the vector potential) using 4 harmonic oscillators (to match the number of space-time dimensions) instead of 2 harmonic oscillators (to match the number of polarizations)? Such a representation seems to be OK. For example, the quantum number pertaining along the photon's direction of motion is -1, and no longitudinal excitation can occur. Such representations extend to include gravity (6 oscillators) and the weak and strong interactions. The work continues far enough (via simple symmetries) to suggest there are at least 24 types of photons. Perhaps each type corresponds to an instance of Standard Model particles. Each instance has its own photons. Presumably, from our point of view, 5 instances are dark matter and 18 instances are dark energy. To the stage described, there are 4 clusters, each having 6 instances of Standard Model particles and each having its own gravitons.

I attach the reasoning (and other results), in case anyone is interested. It would appear that some aspects of physics can occur on a scale of less than 10^(-79) meters. I would very much like to work with people to verify, refute, extend, or apply aspects of this attempted research.

And, I hope the work provides something people can consider when working with the question that started this discussion.

Sanjay:

Thank you very much for taking an interest in my comment (and perhaps more of my attempted research).

Your point #2 is the easier one for me to address. Let's stay with the hypothesized "along the direction of motion" oscillator. For photons, gravitons, (and some other zero-mass particles I predict), the quantum number value is -1 (or, in some cases -2, -3, or -4). These are bosons and have no mass. I call this the e-family (e for electromagnetism and some close relatives). For gluons, the same oscillator has a value of -2. Again, the bosons have no mass. I call this the s-family (s for strong interaction). For the Higgs, Z, and W bosons, the ground state quantum-number value for this oscillator is 0. Excitation is possible. Here, there is (of course) mass. I call this (and a predicted set of spin-2 relatives) the w-family (w for weak). Math also leads to an o-family. Here, the oscillator under discussion has a value of 0. These bosons would have mass. I propose in my book some 'functions' for some of these particles. (After publishing the book, I realized it is possible some of these possible particles are leptoquarks.)

I very much hope people (perhaps including you) will work with me to see how this approach and traditional approaches work together, contradict each other, extend each other, and/or etc. (and, of course, to determine the extent to which aspects of my approach lead to non-physical results). I did not explicitly use group theory or string theory. I focused on non-traditional applications of harmonic-oscillator math. I seemed to 'get somewhere.'

My lack of considering group theory means that perhaps it would be best for us to have a personal discussion (say, via Skype) regarding your point #1. I might need to learn something in order to be adequately conversant.) OK?

Regarding some of my work reprised above, perhaps you will look at sections 2 through 9 of the "half-book" I attached to my earlier-today post. Or, perhaps, it would be easier for you if we include some such discussion during a Skype call.

If we do have such not-on-line conversations, I hope we will be able to post key points - as part of this on-line discussion or elsewhere.

I would appreciate your thoughts and continued involvement.

@ThomasBuckholtz regarding your comment "It's not clear that space time needs to 'break down' at the Planck length. But, it appears that the uncertainty principle can still apply." To locate a particle at Planck distances, you would need very high energy, right? So are you talking only about looking back toward the early universe and unification? Or physics at the Planck scale in the present universe, where the location of particles is vastly uncertain with regard to Planck scales? If you are using, for example, a sum of histories sort of approach, would not the contribution from the Planck scales grow infinitely small? The forces go up as 1/R^2, but you are summing (integrating) 1/R uncertainty in 3 dimensions which might (I haven't done the math, guessing a little) decrease the contribution by 1/R^3.

Robert:

Thanks for your question and remarks. Thanks for suggesting bases that I might have used. It turns out I don't think I used those bases. To answer part of your question, … to the extent that relevant aspects of my work are valid, they may pertain 'timelessly' with respect to the evolution of the universe.

Permit me to 'ease into' the topic of 'space-time breakdown.'

My attempted research includes a method (based on mathematics related to harmonic oscillators) for cataloguing non-zero-mass basic particles. Solutions (to a standard harmonic-oscillator partial differential equation) that point to such particles seem to involve a limit in which a scale length goes to zero. The resulting catalog includes neutrinos, charged leptons, quarks, the Higgs boson, the Z and W bosons, some possible spin-2 relatives of Higgs/Z/W, and some possible integer-spin particles (that, like quarks, would not be detectable as free-ranging). (Aside: Solutions not requiring the scale length to go to zero seem to correspond to fields for some of the same particles.)

Other parts of the work suggest 'physics' corresponding to small lengths (perhaps as small as 10^(-101) meters). One application associates with an interaction (spatial dependence r^(-8)) that would repel fermions from each other and drive expansion 'early' in the big bang and for some time thereafter.

This work (including work that catalogs zero-mass basic bosons and provides for the r^(-8) interaction) pertains to idealized basis states. (Other physics uses such idealizations. For example, think of plane-wave representations for 'anything.') The work pertains to what I call 'quantum interaction space.' Work with this 'space' seems to involve some considerations that people might associate with space time. (Note some of my remarks above about lengths.) Work in this 'space' seems to involve some considerations people might associate with energy-momentum space.

For such idealized basis states (in my work and in traditional work), I think it's fair to say that people tend to downplay matters of uncertainty.

Traditional work with uncertainty considers superpositions of basis states and straddles space time (say, uncertainty in position) and energy-momentum space (say, to match, uncertainty in momentum).

People associate curvature of space time with the presence of mass or gravity. People produce useful results based on such work. My work suggests additional zero-mass bosons in a family that includes photons and gravitons. (The r^(-8) interaction comes from this family.) I assume people would consider that related particle (including fermion) properties (one of which is magnetic moment) and boson fields also warp space time. (Aside: For interactions between 2 electrons, one of these zero-mass bosons [with force proportional to r^(-4)] would have about the same strength as gravity [r^(-2)] at the 'black-hole radius' for an electron [~10^(-57) meters].)

I think it's fair to say that people need not associate such curvature with breakdown.

I think you make a point about concentrated energy (perhaps associated with a rather precise measurement) possibly leading to space time breakdown. (Aside: I can be happy with traditional classical-mechanics treatments of black holes. But, …) Permit me to ask people, do we have verification for a quantum theory (or other theory) that would require such a breakdown?

People can apply uncertainty principles to measurements (including those 'made in nature'). Perhaps people should consider the extent to which people could and should assume that space time is 'continuous' at sizes much less than the Planck length.

I hope this note provides people some value. I welcome further discussion.

@ThomasBuckholtz. It was not the "breakdown" part of that comment that attracted my attention so much as the application of "uncertainty" at Planck-like distances. Though I think my original idea was a bit off the mark. In my mind I was incorrectly summing forces from various probable positions, not histories. I suppose one should look at trajectories as histories. In which case, offhand, the force over very short distances would only slightly affect the wavefunction, as relatively few histories come within that distance?

Sanjay: Appreciated. I agree - too much to discuss, especially in a context of the original question above. Per your suggestion, I tried to send you a pair of emails.

I'm glad you have typing-itis, Rodney because your comments are very interesting to me. It's going to take a while to read and digest what you've said but I'm sure I'll find it helpful and thought provoking. I'll get back to you.

Rodney, I've read and studied your answer and find it very interesting indeed. To better understand what you've said I'd have to ask you some questions but before I do that, can you tell me if you've read the paper which can be downloaded from my profile? I'm struck by the similarities between our ideas.

OK, Rodney. Here's a question. The relationship between energy and mass stipulated by E=mc^2 is fundamental to my theory. I assume it holds on all spacetime scales (which I think is true) and can be applied to the universe itself (which I'm not at all sure is true). It's not clear to me that it's valid to apply concepts that are true in parts of the universe to the whole universe as Lee Smolin has pointed out in his latest book about the reality of time.

So my question is "Do you think the fact that energy must equal mass times the speed of light squared imposes a constraint on the evolution of the universe?" If you do, I have a whole series of follow-on questions.

And ... I'd appreciate your giving me some things to think about ... perhaps one at a time would help.

Thank you, Rodney. Your answer is encouraging to me and I'm thinking about it ... which will take some time because your thoughts are new to me. There are two fundamental questions in cosmology in my opinion ... what kick started the universe (this is being discussed in another Research Gate post by Andrew Jonkers) and what constrains its evolution (which is what we're discussing). I think we're making some progress on both.

Here's my next question for you based on your answer: Since the universe is everything, there's nothing else for it to be related to ... the concept of relativity makes no sense if you're talking about everything. You said, "Einstein ... repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study." But ... when we're thinking about the universe what does co-moving mean? Since I believe it's meaningless, I wonder if E=mc^2 might be applicable to the universe in its non-relativity form but I'm not at all sure about that. It seems to me that this question applies to both of our ideas about the creation of mass. What do you think?

Hey guys, the idea that there is nothing for the universe to be related to (at least in the context of "everything" in your conversation) is precisely why the concept of relativity is needed. Energy, and therefore mass, are relative. See http://mc1soft.com/papers/ and scroll down to the one on laws of inertia and then the one on dynamics in a quasi-measurement field. The universe as a whole cannot really be said to have mass, or energy, except relative to sub-components. It is a mistake to start with energy, as it depends on time (it is the quantum conjugate of time). Looking for answers to gravity by starting with energy will always produce a dog chasing its tail. See paper for details. : )

What I'm most interested in, Rodney are your thoughts about the nature of the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism. My assumption is that there's a deeper reality underlying the particles and forces of quantum mechanics in which energy and spacetime are the only real things. GR says that gravity is the result of interactions between energy and warps in spacetime. Since gravity involves the only things I think are real it must be the only real force. All of the particles and forces of the Standard Model that we think are real (including electromagnetism) are emerging phenomena because they're the result of this deeper reality. How does that jibe with your ideas about the relation between gravity and electromagnetism? If gravity is real and electromagnetism is emergent I don't see how they can be intimately related in the way you suggest. So far you haven't convinced me that that's possible ... but I'm still hoping you will!

Rodney, there are two parts to the answer. First is that the inertia of an object is due to a 1/R effect as noted by Einstein in 1912 and Sciama in 1953 and others. This makes mass at great distances far more important than local mass, in view of its increase in volume (and presumably amount) as an R-squared effect. See my "laws of inertia" paper for complete citation of references,

The second part is to answer your implied question, why is gravity so much weaker than inertia? This has long puzzled physicists, and is an obstacle to a quantum theory of gravity, as gravity is 10 to the 40th power too weak. There is no one established answer, but in my theory, gravity is a secondary effect of inertia, thus explaining its weakness. You can skim through the "quasi-measurement" paper and pick up this concept without decoding all the math.

I am not certain yet if gravitational waves are contained in my theory. I have not proved they are not, but there is not an obvious mechanism, other than near field perturbations. I have tentatively suggested gravitational waves have not been found because they do not exist, or if they do, are undetectable. Consider that gravity affects everything, So if there is an effect on everything, there is a problem detecting that. Basically, you have to wait for a signal from outside the affected area. But I have not proved this rigorously, only made a qualitative argument.

As for the mechanics of how inertia is caused, without being circular (or at least overtly circular), it can't be a traditional quantum field, because they are all based on the uncertainty relation of energy and time . . . in small intervals of time, virtual particles appear and do the work of the field via momentum transfers. But one has to already have a concept of energy for that. So I use position-momentum uncertainty instead, and from momentum basically I can extract a definition of mass. I view the field interactions not as momentum transfers, but as measurement interactions between particles. There is some probability in the wave function the particles will be found far enough out of position to interact, and by the number of interactions they define their position better, giving them mass. Mass is basically the degree of certainty of position. I have greatly over-simplified these arguments for this posting.

@Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir: Semiclassical theory is nice for approximations, but is not a self-consistent theory. So, it is insufficient to show that there is no contradiction between QT and GR.

Conceptually, QT has an absolute time, GR not. QFT claims to be special-relativistic, but it is not really Lorentz-invariant on the fundamental level, it essentially computes everything in absolute time and then shows that all the observable results of the computations do not depend on the choice of absolute time. This may be satisfactory for extremal positivists. But all attempts to generalize this to GR have failed. (String theory essentially used a background to quantize gravity.)

Very good question Bill LaPorte-Bryan. I'll read all comments and I am sure I'll have something to contribute.

Bill: The answer to your excellent question is simply this: S=1/4(c^4/G).

Needless to say, "c" is Einstein's constant and "G" is Newton's constant (and please don't bother to check the units......)

Notes:

1) The value of S is *universal* just as "c" and "G" are.

2) Why the symbol "S" for a force? Because "S" stands for *Superforce" as one can readily check that S given above represents the *unification point* of the Coulomb's electrostatic force and Newton's gravitational force at the **Planck scale of distance, or energy.** In other words, S represents the *Planckian limit* of the electro-gravitational force. In this Planckian limit, "Planck mass" and "Planck charge" are interchangeable! In other words, again, S represents the expression of the "Planck force" obtained on purely dimensional grounds (except, of course, for the numerical factor "1/4") In this connection, before taking the limit of Coulomb's force, you may also wish to find out what the "Planck charge* is, using only Planck units (very useful exercise!)

3) One intriguing aspect of "S" is the absence of "h", Planck's constant, even though "h" is present in the expression of Planck's units!! The answer to this "sub-question" is truly fascinating!

4) Last but not least, it can be demonstrated the the super force S operates within the core of every Schwarzshild black hole......

Needless to say there is a lot more that is connected with your question and is all written up in an unpublished preprint......

As for the genesis of the ideas summarized above, you may wish to take a look at the following essay (posted on my website): "Planck's uncertainty principle and the saturation of Lorentz boosts by Planckian black holes"

Should you have more questions, by all means "ask and (probably) you shall find!"

http:// www.csupomona.edu/ aaurilia/ research.html

Thank you, Antonio. Your answer to my question is very interesting indeed and as you mention raises a lot of interesting questions. I'll read your essay and get back to you after I have a chance to think about it.

Your question is highly interesting but the answer is: we don't know the value of gravity at Planck's scale as there is no theory at that scale. Loop quantum gravity [1] is the most advanced mathematical work along this line, but it is not a physics theory as it has not produced any falsifiable prediction.

The present situation is a bit embarrassing as we don't even know the value of G at the nanoscale!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity and references herein.

My dear colleagues , I returned this week from the U.S. and have been discussing with Dr. Hans C. Ohanian on exactly this kind of link between gravity and space time.

I 'm almost 100 % sure that I found the final theory of physics , and the theory part of a vision similar to Dr. Rodney over time.

And answering the question Newton 's constant and equivalent in terms of energy Dirac 's constant .

Planck limits the minimum energy of a photon , the minimum energy Dirac possible to exist in this universe , in this same sense of Newton 's constant and maximum strength possible to exist between two particles . NOTE ALL MEASUREMENTS MADE IN THE SAME UNIT JOULE .

These results emerging from a string theory that developed in 5 Dimensions . this theory allows me to transform all the constants of physics and the four fundamental forces of physics in algebraic equations so manipulated and get exactly the same results as using the constants and forces of physics today.

This string theory there are four values ​​.

Two are the length and diameter of the string that would be the single fundamental particle of the universe .

And two variables are fixed but the reference to land and fix so relativistic velocity and density .

I posted in another DISCUSSION about time a demonstration of quantum algebraic equations that result from the theory.

Jorge Barcellos

That sounds interesting, Jorge. Have you written a paper that describes your theory?

Jorge do you predict anything that can be checked?

To Bil.

Came from the United States yesterday.

Where I treated with Dr. Hans c. Ohanian about the theory and how to publish it.

  As understanding and very different from traditional physical despite generate equations that are 100% compatible to traditional physics.

Are absolutely accurate algebraic equations for all four forces of physical constants and all such as electron charge Planck's constant.

and these equations as teem so 4 values ​​that are manipulated algebraically lets be simplified together simply replace the value of any physical equation of the corresponding equation and then manipulate algebraically and obtain an equivalent equation much simpler and try to exactly match the results of using the constant and normal forces.

I'll put some equation and how they drift with the relativity of quantum mechanics please read and comment me any questions I will have to clarify praser!

Jorge Barcellos.

To Bill.

The equations demonstration that the universe and massively parallel quantum computer, and that the processing unit and a string, with the same characteristics of a macroscopic string.

And that his harmonic oscillations that make computations mechanical design univerco this as an image of interference, a hologram.

It has everything to do with your company we're talking about a theory of information that explains the physics and the universe.

Jorge Barcellos.

To Charles.

About predict theory describes everything with precision and not statistically deterministic as quantum mechanics, which happens to be a theory of finite element theory end.

So the fact everything to become the next 4 numbers and functioning normally cally demonstrates that math is correct, because one can not operate with algebraic equations and get correct results if the equations are not correct.

The highest prediction that the theory does and can control gravity with electric and magnetic fields, neutralizing it.

Jorge Barcellos.

@Jorge. Do you really mean anti-gravitation?

To Charles .

Charles as all forces and measures such as mass of the electron , proton , neutron , strong nuclear force , weak nuclear force , gravitational force and the force electro-magnetic waves , comes from the same object and their interactions .

They are interchangeable . I have the equations , all I'm talking about and so does the perfection algebraic for what is done today with quantum mechanics and relativity .

It is possible to generate a vector of gravitational force to the side that is appointed or serves as propulcao neutralisa the force of gravity of a body , I know you will say that general relativity forbids this, but it is a matter of seeing that general relativity is trying the interaction of mass, energy , velocity and time and not generating forces

Now you have to see this is possible only because the universe and a machine and not as one imagines something born of the quantum fluctuation of space as string theories suggest or quantum mechanics indicates when extrapolated .

And as already said their analysis of fourie station to show the correct time limit around 1 x 10-26 seconds.

I know you will say that is not on the Planck scale but the problem of the actual physical and precisely the interpretation of what siginifica energy planck !

The time scale of Planck talks about 1x10 - 43 seconds but it takes into account to calculate this time one applies equation where the constant of gravity so as not adequate because until the actual physical not know what constant and newton thing I have defined with absolute need in my model and generates an equation like all the others already posted .

Jorge Barcellos .

For Sanjay .

Dear Sanjay and the energy scale much smaller than the currently envisioned in quantum mechanics , which speaks in energy as the wavelength of a particle with Planck length scale of 10-35 meters but on a scale of 10-17 meters .

 out there to see what the visoens are very different on the same issue however the equations who are there can not faser what fasem those derivation of the model of the universe that I found . For example said Higgs boson in my model of the universe and a string of Archimedes spiral and generates what is meant as dark energy of the universe and has a relationship with a 20 to one in relation to said baryonic matter .

The quantum mechanics and relativity are correct .

But have a theory that these low and deterministic and allows you to calculate everything with absolute precision such as Newton believed .

Course requires computing power and woe absurd quantum mechanics is very useful because it addresses the problem in a statistically at the expense of absolute accuracy .

As for the gauge field and a mathematical artifice that is using this to treat the situation without a unified vision , after 1927 most of the jobs lost track and went for a universe almost mystical . The vision of Heisenerg be imposed on the broglie of which was the right one to understand the whole, not the Hilbert space of this wrong but , more math and less geometric , and what I found and geometric and helps explain and unify all including that was not thought possible to know , for example because each particle has a mass and energy it has.

Jorge, in a comment you posted two days ago, you said, "I posted in another DISCUSSION about time a demonstration of quantum algebraic equations that result from the theory." Was that a discussion in ResearchGate? If it was, I can't find it so can you tell me what the question was? If it wasn't, can you point me to the discussion?

Dear Bill

A key point of my theory has been discussed in the following question:

Is time quantized?

this question was made by Charles Hirlimann.

But to ease your search will add here the practical result of my theory that allows you to convert all the 4 physical values ​​that are constant with a variation of one part per billion in the visible universe.

And the most interesting and she predicts with accuracy better than one part in 10 million all the constants of physics present in the form of algebraic equations, which are liable to be simplified between them. This would be possible only in the equations mathematically faser being right! Or is there another explanation for this feature of the equations?

The theory and very different from what we have today, however the results are many really easy to use with elementary math!

And a theory of information, starting where the hardware of the machine I get the language and this language is born physically we have today.

Ex

Dear Sood .

The theory that I have a totally different way of seeing the universe, but it has for each existing theory now an equivalence , however with a different point of view , I will try to make an analogy to be made clearer .

First let by the assumptions of the theory :

And a theory of information that is we are talking about calculations on a computer .

Hardware has a constructive geometric shape , similar in structure to a liquid crystal .

Everything and made ​​of a single type of object and a string .

Starting from these premises we start to see the theories that are the foundations of physics .

The electromagnetic theory whose carrier force one photon that appears in the standard model as a BOSON massless .

The electromagnetic part of the assumption that the electric field propagates on the magnetic and electric over the magnetic oscillation in a endless empty space

At this point the first question that arises is a field ?

And something magical ethereal or something that physically unaware ?

In my theory and real and born as a wave propando Crystalina about the structure of space .

The following is the theory of relativity which deals with the Convert to energy in matter and matter into energy.

Here is another interesting aspect , as depending on the frequency of the photon and therefore their energy is possible to materialize a pair of particles of all known species and also any particle with its antiparticle annihilates into a pair of photons with energy equivalent .

Here it is evident that in addition to energy and matter are the same thing is also clear that only can be made of a single object , as the principle an electron and a neutron very different but both can be built by photons that pure energy and therefore energy and converts it into something that any particle stuff!

Well my theory on the string and the object behaves as energy and time as it is combined geometrically generates all stable particles known ie first generation of the standard model .

The quantum mechanics of the principle of harmonic oscillators with a single anergy we call Planck constant .

The interaction of this wave and the view on the Hilbert space as an infinite number of stacked dimencion a matrix that can be infinite .

And assumes that two points of this matrix can communicate instantaneously generating quantum entanglement ,

In my theory , and a pressure wave that propagates in the liquid crystal and has the same properties of quantum mechanics .

General relativity deals with the relation of time and space in relationship to the speed and density of reference .

In my theory the same thing and made ​​but this time as the transfer of a wave ( photon information ) who suffers a delay to be transported by the liquid crystal in the strings that builds the space . In my theory the photon carries only one information of a mechanical perturbation of the structure of the liquid crystal . and this crystal forming particles that have strings as their distribution and density generate the same effect of gravity and density to suffer the same motion effect in relation to contraction of the Lorentz transform .

At this point we clarify my theory is 5 dimensions , the zero , which is virtual , where speed and almost infinite and acts as a compression wave in the crystal .

The sizes one, two three that are the dimensions of Euclidean space .

And the virtual dimension and four who is also works as a perturbation between the structures of strings that create the liquid crystal of the space ,

Here I speak of dimension zero and four as virtual because they only carry information , so they are one perturbation of the liquid crystal that builds the space and not something material and palpable !

Now speaking specifically of the standard model and he made ​​a theory in reverse predicts nothing and will not be making mathematical models and entering values ​​measured in tests to try to reproduce what occurs in nature . In the standard model has a 19 values ​​that are entered manually as a result of measures in accelerators and other equipment to measure mass and energy of particles known .

And a model built in the 70s trying to put it all together for tenth goes down making measurements and inventing explanation for what you observe . so that these inventions mathematical mean who are not certain but just work on what is known and not work on something you invent something else . And if you have signed the zoo of subatomic particles present and their explanations to fit the standard model !

At this point I think I clarified where I am and would like to see the previous article the algebraic equations that result from this model that I described .

And that can play everything that happens in the universe in its smallest detail but the starting point is very different and has concepts that do not apply because they were invented in the standard model to reproduce what was observed by optical internal to the system and not a vision outside the universe.

You can Diser I'm crazy to rebuild the physical scratch , but the truth and that worked very well and . own the Einstein one year after finishing general relativity already spoke the final theory would have to be invented from scratch .

And you can be sure that the standard model is not this theory !

And the theory of strings in M 10 , 11 or 60 dimensions is not able to create something that lets explain why letron has the mass and energy that has or any other particle or force of nature .

So I'm detailing the model created and this has to be seen without prejudice because the opposite will not be possible to understand how it works and much less understand where it comes from deterministic equations that allow to make any calculation of physics with absolute precision and leaving only the 4 numbers !

Dear Sood .

The force of gravity inside my theory and a mechanical relationship between the strings that builds the space and the strings that move over it , which is understood as particles .

this relationship is born with spontaneous and differs waves carrying information whether in dimension zero for quantum mechanics or relativity to four .

The Newton constant becomes an algebraic equation that describes the mathematical relationship of this interaction and may be used and manipulated algebraically as the other equations of the remaining forces and constants of physics and always use only 4 numerical values ​​of which 3 are in normal use two physical being applied in its pure form and the third uses a version of that calculation and the fine structure constant . the fourth number is very complex because it describes the interaction of all bodies in the univerco relationship between them . In my theory Newton 's constant would be the quantum of force of gravity as the Planck constant and quantun of energy .

As you can see it is very difficult to speak of gauge theory within this vision of physics . as to start the conversation gauge theory would have to define what is a field ?

And at this point we entered more in theology than in theory , because I will tell you that a field and a field, and I will describe a mathematical relationship , but what it represents in the physical universe ?

The magnetic field that is ?

and the electric field that means ?

 These concepts born with faraday and become accepted as absolute truth and without a physical description , to his epoch was a remarkable advancement but for today's technology and an escape from a basic problem without solution . A description closest to the concept of electromagnetic field and the storm that quantum mechanics judges exist on the basis of space -time that builds the fabric of the universe .

Which in my theory and crystal orderly and not a structure of virtual chaos particle being created and destroyed so freaked !

The conclusion I reached and that physics was too complicated so unnecessary , because the universe and much simpler than this guessing !

Jorge, I read your paper entitled "Projection of the Zero Dimension in the Relativity of InfoQuantics - String Theory in Five Dimensions (Each String is a qbit)". The results you have achieved are very impressive indeed. When and where are you planning to publish a complete description of your theory? I assume the paper will be peer reviewed and I'd like to read the reviews if they're made public. While I can get a general understanding of the way your theory is related to a theory of information, I'm eager to have something to read and think about that will help me understand it better. It's particularly interesting to me that your approach is through the use of mathematics, algebra, while other physicists have tackled the problem of finding a theory of everything by using radically different geometries. The history of physics is full of examples (general relativity and quantum field theory, for example) of progress that was made when mathematical and geometrical approaches to understanding the same phenomenon turned out to be describing the same thing thereby revealing deep truths. Perhaps this is another one.

Dear Bill .

I am very glad you liked what you saw !

I've been a few days in the U.S. seeking to talk to some people , but the truth is that much of the physical is closed for a radically different thinking .

I have all the equations and the origin of how they are born. however have to join these equations to a model of the universe which is a quantum mechanical computer . So you can well understand how everything works .

The model demonstrates that there is a universe parallel to this at a distance of 1x10 -16 meters, this universe and being made ​​of antimatter which are orthogonal to . I also have the quantum gravity algebraic equations in which works together with the other perfectly. But at this point I have a great concern because with this understanding it is possible to build machines that generate vectors of force of gravity and can act as propulsion system and this vector can be generated with electric and magnetic field applied in a proper geometric shape . not to mention other implications that exists to unify all physics on a theory very simple to handle in terms of mathematics and keeping full compatibility with the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics .

I need help to propel the ideas you have to help me ?

Mankind with supreme power over the laws of nature can be very dangerous to other places in the universe since the theory will be very easy to travel outside the solar system.

Thank you for attention .

Not sure what you mean. While there are candidate theories that seem to make them compatible, none of these are complete and verified theories. Of course nature itself does it.

What about G (gravity constant) not being constant and vanishing at small scale, say at Planck's length.

Dear Manuel .

The Planck scale and a mistaken interpretation of the meaning of Planck's constant . If you see my work will see that this constant is the constant drift of the quantum vacuum , and has a variation as the location of the space that is .

Despite this being a maximum variation of about 4 % in the visible universe.

Planck's constant and the dividing point between the strings and the geometry of the hologram they create giving printout of materiality to the universe . the universe is a hologram and only the memory of a computer . something like the facebook games . The constant G has an equation of the same nature as the others who 've posted here on the site . but in general the gravitational constant- would be the equivalent of Planck's constant for energy. Ie the quantum of energy and hbar = h/2pi . and quantum field force of gravity is observed G. But understand this equation allows you to manipulate gravity and the work I'm doing now , building a propellant of gravity .

Also to prove I'm not kidding posted the equation of the emission spectrum of the black body of Max Planck , in his version of the projection string this universe . Put another way so the values ​​of the quantum vacuum , and the curve and exactly the same state of 1ppm in accordance with the work of Planck !

Strength of the force of gravity at the small distance ( 10^{-35}m) at Planck time (10^{-43}sec.) is zero. At this time gravity has not separated from the other three forces collectively known as the electronuclear force. In Big Bang theory particles were created in particle anti-particle pairs. In the quantum gravity theory listed below, this process is reversible. Therefore in this theory when particle anti-particle annihilate each other, the force of gravity between them disappear. But this can happen only at Planck energy scale because Planck energy (~10^{19}Gev.) is the maximum energy that can be contained within the Planck length (~10^{-35}m). When particle anti-particle annihilate at this scale, it exceeds the energy limit imposed by the Compton wavelength and the particle wave would collapse and become flat and motionless (no mass gap). This is a perfectly motionless state of energy which cannot be called energy because by definition energy is always in motion. The zero point energy has a non zero mass gap. Therefore motionless energy is described as the unmanifest in this theory and it does not interact with energy in motion and therefore does not gravitate. This unmanifest also replaces the severely warped space-time of general relativity mentioned by you. This space-time fabric of the general relativity is based on the concept of zero energy universe which states that the total energy of the universe is always zero. When the positive energy is created, equal amount of negative gravitational energy is also created and this negative energy resides in the warped space-time fabric. Gravitational waves are supposed to be the ripples in this negative energy of the warped space-time. We have plenty of evidence for the positive energy but no evidence for the negative energy. Detection of gravitational waves would have provided the first evidence for the existence of negative energy and the warped space-time. Absence of gravitational waves puts a question on the entire theory of zero energy universe. In the theory given below, space-time fabric is replaced by the unmanifest.

Article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology