[talanum1 (OP)]

Geroch and Traschen showed that point particles and strings are not allowed as sources of gravitational potential. See: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2906.pdf just before chapter III.

[Bored chemist]

Geroch and Traschen showed that point particles and strings are not allowed as sources of gravitational potential. See: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2906.pdf just before chapter III.

So?

[talanum1 (OP)]

So?

So the Point Particle and String theories are incompatible with gravity and therefore invalid.

[Kryptid]

So the Point Particle and String theories are incompatible with gravity and therefore invalid.

I have my doubts that it's so simple, but more importantly, it wouldn't make your model correct. Your hypothetical particle still violates conservation of momentum.

[talanum1 (OP)]

They assume the point particle model, but then write down other mathematics (as in for example the magnetic moment of the electron) which assumes a different picture.

Anyway there was an error in the paper. Here is the corrected version;


Defining Particles 2 computerised computation.pdf (367.48 kB - downloaded 90 times)

[Bored chemist]

So?

So the Point Particle and String theories are incompatible with gravity and therefore invalid.

Do you realise that your model is also invalid?

[talanum1 (OP)]

Do you realise that your model is also invalid?

I showed that momentum is conserved by L⁰ having no momentum.

[Bored chemist]

Do you realise that your model is also invalid?

I showed that momentum is conserved by L⁰ having no momentum.

Yes; but we pointed out that it didn't make sense.

Perhaps the most interesting question is why is Talanum the only one who can sense these particles?

Which is more likely:
He's uniquely privileged
He's hallucinating?

[Bored chemist]

This
"where the Cn are circles on the "sphere" (Riemann sphere-anti sphere: RSS (an anti-Riemann
sphere is a Riemann sphere made out of left-out points)) "
Is still word salad.

You haven't changed this nonsense.
It's still wrong.

[Kryptid]

I showed that momentum is conserved by L0 having no momentum.

And I showed that still results in violation of conservation of momentum, because another particle would gain momentum when your particle interacts with it. Your model also clashes with special relativity because it makes a distinction between moving things and stationary things.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Your model also clashes with special relativity because it makes a distinction between moving things and stationary things.

Special Relativity says nothing about how velocity is encoded into particles. If they consider this, maybe they'll find the same distinction.

[Bored chemist]

Special Relativity says nothing about how velocity is encoded into particles.

That's because this "encoding" is bollocks you made up.

Your idea is still wrong.

[talanum1 (OP)]

That's because this "encoding" is bollocks you made up.

Don't you see that the properties of particles has to be encoded within them? Otherwise space would need to store an inordinate amount of data in order to preform the required operations, and where is it going to store it?. And how is it going to know to associate data D with the appropriate particle (which you say does not even carry a name).

You say nothing about my other particle: Z⁰_T.

[Kryptid]

Special Relativity says nothing about how velocity is encoded into particles.

It doesn't have to. What it says is that inertial motion is completely relative. Something moving in one frame isn't moving in another. The only way your idea can be consistent with relativity (and therefore reality) would be if particles have motion "encoded" in them in some frames, but not all frames.

Don't you see that the properties of particles has to be encoded within them? Otherwise space would need to store an inordinate amount of data in order to preform the required operations, and where is it going to store it?

You seem to keep likening the Universe to a computer. There may be certain parallels, but it would probably be a mistake to take that literally (unless we are in a simulation).

[Bored chemist]

Don't you see that the properties of particles has to be encoded within them?

No. That's just a hallucination of yours.

[talanum1 (OP)]

The mechanisms of spacetime must be equivalent to a spacetime that knows about all particles (even if this information is encoded in fields).

You seem to keep likening the Universe to a computer.

It is a computer (however implemented). Show me the mechanisms of spacetime and I'll show you a computer.

[Bored chemist]

It is a computer

That's an unproven assumption.
Unless you can show that it's true, you are not doing science.

[talanum1 (OP)]

A fulcrum and leaver is a computer: describable by a formula.

[Bored chemist]

A fulcrum and leaver is a computer:

Once you redefine a word broadly enough, it no longer has a use.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Once you redefine a word broadly enough, it no longer has a use.

I'm not redefining a word, I am stating a fact: anything that can be described by a mathematical formula is a computer.