This infographic shows how my derivation of gravity from a quantum

>>8941722
What does Euler's function have to do with gravity?

>>8941726
Please don't feed the schizo

>>8941726
I'm not sure. Why do you ask?

>>8941739
God willing I kill your entire family, your entire professional organization, every friend you ever had and all of their children.

>>8941722
>I'll just assert that some state vectors map to the the exact components of the EFEs.
>Ta Da! Gravity form Quantum mechanics.

Lol.

File: 15079015_1808291662772196_7621499880751253750_n.jpg (15KB, 480x421px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x421px

Kek, what the fuck is this shit, I literally do not understand anything written in there. Thank god I'm a CS fag

>>8941722
what the fuck is this shit
did you just get random shit and throw them together with a subpar understanding of them?

>>8942255
>with a super understanding...
Yes that's right. When I was in grad school I really took it to heart when Feynman said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." I looked at my classmates and professors trying to pretend like it was totally flawless to say, "It makes perfect sense, all you have to do is quantize the classical theory," and I thought that I should really give it a lot of thought to see if I could do better and I did.

>>8942092
>I'll just assert that some state vectors map to the the exact components...
No dumbfuck. The coefficient of proportionality in Einstein's equation [math] 8\pi[/math] appeared without any input from me. Then I defined maps between the quantum and gravitational objects. Also, there is no map on state vectors and you are clearly retarded. Steve vectors look like [math] |\psi\rangle [/math] but [math] |\psi\rangle\,\hat e_\mu [/math] is state tensor, so my map just changes the notation, exactly like the maps Higgs used:

[math] f^{-1}(B_\mu)=A_\mu-\frac{\partial_\mu\Delta\varphi_1}{e\varphi_0} [/math]

Did you know that a map is what we math people call "a function" and that it is completely valid to say, "Let there be a function that does what I want it to do." Functions can be purpose built to perform "functions" such as the mapping you don't appreciate.

>>8942420
lmao, I love /sci/s schizophrenics. They're so entertaining.

>>8942433
woe to you unbeliever. God willing, you will rue they day that you became aware of me.

File: what_the_fuck_are_you_laughing_at_you_fucking_whores.jpg (77KB, 600x536px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x536px

>>8942449
Kek Also
> it is completely valid to say, "Let there be a function that does what I want it to do."
>Let [math] f : \mathbb { N } \to \mathbb { R } [/math]
>By the above function, we can map the naturals to the reals

CANTOR BTFO
CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS BTFO

stop laysplanning me

>>8942454
functions mapping naturals to the reals exist, just not bijectively

>>8942201
its just because its in physicist special snowflake notation

>>8942454
you mean like this?

[math] f(x)=x\,\,\,x\in\mathbb{N}\implies f:\mathbb{N}\mapsto\mathbb{R} [/math]

>>8942454
how could you fuck up this badly

>>8942420
>completely valid to say, "Let there be a function that does what I want it to do."
Let there be a bijective function between the reals and the naturals. (Cantor BTFO)
Let there be a bijective function between {1} and {1,2} (Common sense BTFO)
Let there be a continuous function that is equal to [math]I_{\mathbb Q}[/math] (The identity on Q) (Lebesgue BTFO)
Let there be a contiunous function f such that [math]x_n \to x[/math] and [math]\underset{n \to \infty}{lim}f(x_n) \neq x[/math] (Everyone but WIldberger BTFO)

I can go on with this if you want, but you are clearly an idiot. Some of the most important theorems in many fields of mathematics (stuff like Hahn-Banach) deal with EXACTLY the question when a certain function exists.
You have clearly no clue about mathematics, which COMPLETELY invalidates what you are talking about.

>>8942496
None of those things you mention are what I wanted to do but nice straw man. You really set that straw man up well and knocked it right down. Good on you child, you will go far.

If you feel like writing something relevant, you should write about how I wanted to map a tensor written in the notation I invented into the notation Einstein invented.

I just refuse to learn any of this due to the dumb µ/v - notation. Can't anyone make it look like vector calculus?

>>8942646
>straw man
dude learn english, that is not a strawman that was me debunking your idiotic """theories""".
Hilarious how you retards get mad after I debunked your schizophrenic theories.

You clearly haven't the SLIGHTEST clue about physics.

File: Capture.png (24KB, 601x412px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 601x412px

>>8943190
No it wasn't dumb fuck. It was you debunking your own straw man. I said "that does what I want it to" and you argued against some random bullshit that had nothing to do with what I was doing.

>>8943217
What anon is trying to say is:
>You can't just assert a mapping exists, you have to prove or at least demonstrate that it exists.

In your case you're asserting that some state vectors, somehow, map exactly to the components of the EFEs. You've not shown that it exists mathematically or even argued that it exists physically. Thus the derision here >>8942496. Your ideas are at best nonsensical. Please fuck off back to vixra.

File: Capture.png (64KB, 450x190px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 450x190px

>>8943238
>you have to prove or at least demonstrate that it exists.

The fact that I was able to draw an arrow from one rank-2 tensor to the other is sufficient demonstration of the existence. It is exactly what Higgs did with an equal sign in pic related.

However, where Higgs' main result was his maps, my main result is that the dimensionless coefficient [math]8\pi[/math]appears in a polynomial equation exactly of the form of Einstein's equation even without making reference to the maps you take issue with, and this is all done in the same framework that produced the important dimensionless coefficient from quantum theory: the fine structure constant.

[eqn] 2\pi+\big(\Phi\pi\big)^3\simeq137[/eqn]

File: Capture.png (39KB, 594x230px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 594x230px

>>8943238
Perhaps if you weren't a brainlet regurgitater who has never had an original idea in his life you would have asked,"How are the gravitational tensors you map to related to the spacetime in and around the lab where the state [math] \psi[/math] is measured?"

Then I would have answered, "This paper is about the derivation of the dimensionless coefficients that need to fall out of the same framework if GR and QM are to be unified."

File: 696793.png (303KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 600x375px

>>8941722
Why the fuck do (16) to (18) have µ and v as indexes, if these variables don't appear in the former equations?

>>8943403
>unassailable truth of [math]2\pi+\big(\Phi\pi\big)^3 \approx 137[/math]
>it's actually closer to [math]138[/math]

>>8941722
You're posting on a board full of highschoolers and freshmen. Of course people are going to be jelly haters. Just ignore and keep up the good work.

>>8941722
Please stop. It is just sad.

File: Capture.png (66KB, 204x194px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 204x194px

>>8943432
Thank you very much. It's like these detractors didn't even read the abstract.

>>8943414
>Why the fuck do (16) to (18) have µ and v as indexes, if these variables don't appear in the former equations?
I said right here >>8942646
that " I wanted to map a tensor written in the notation I invented into the notation Einstein invented."

>>8943424
Yes. It is also true that [math] 137\simeq138[/math]

>>8943217
>"that does what I want it to"
Retard. I demonstrated that you have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

You CAN'T SAY "a thing with these properties exist", you need to PROVE it. And NO! your incoherent ramblings are no proof.

It is idiotic to say "a thing with these properties exists" a lot of math (LOOK AT HAHN-BANACH) is done to prove these existences.

You are just a clueless retard with not even the slightest clue about physics and even less knowledge about mathematics and your schizophrenic replies make me consider that you need to see a mental health professional.

>>8943432
>Just ignore and keep up the good work.
Shitting on a piece of paper is "better work", OP has neither the slightest clue about physics nor mathematics and probably needs to go back to his burger flipper job.

>>8943462
>137≃138
RETARD NEITHER 137 or 138 ARE SETS. GOOD LORD KILL YOURSELF YOU CLUELESS RETARD.

File: 32.jpg (28KB, 390x310px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 390x310px

>>8943462
>137≃138

>>8943391
>The fact that I was able to draw an arrow from one rank-2 tensor to the other is sufficient demonstration of the existence
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Comedy Gold.

>>8943462
yeah 1≈2,2≈3... blah blah blah
greatest natural number is now 1
checkmate ur wronk