Scientists have finally figured out a way to connect the dots between the macroscopic and the microscopic worlds. Their magical equation might provide us answers to questions like why black holes don't collapse and how quantum gravity works.
Edit: The paper is total nonsense. Sorry for wasting people’s time.
So, this has yet to be peer reviewed, and I am far from a theoretical physicist … I certainly can’t say its correct or incorrect.
It does seem … too convenient. As in, how could it possibly have taken so many physicists so long to not just try this decades ago?
Basically, they throw the Planck Length and Planck energy (from Quantum Physics) into the Einstein Field Equation (from General Relativity) …
… and are then able to mathematically derive basically the rest of the laws of physics, which seem to be quite close to or totally in line with the Standard Model (of Quantum Physics).
Unfortunately I do not see any direct comparisons if their predicted values for MeV’s of fundamental particles with experimental data…
Anyway, the paper notes 2 interesting, direct implications:
Dark Matter is not real, there’s no need for it in this model. Galaxy rotation speeds work out to what we see without need for additional, unseen, mass.
Either A, our universe is mirrored by and entangled with an antiuniverse of antiparticles which all travel backward through time (antitime?), or B, our universe is part of an evolution of … prior(?) universe(s?) which generate black holes, which do not form singularities but instead create entangled white holes as other universes, expanding spacetimes.
Bonus conclusion:
The Fine Structure Constant may not actually be constant.
I’m not a physicist either, but I’m close enough to tell you that this:
We further modeled the universe using the equation with Einstein’s lambda formalism and found that the universe dynamics could be considered as harmonic oscillators entangled with lambda curvature. This equation can be used to describe the energy transfer between two entangled spacetimes between the same universe and between any two universes (ER=EPR).
Sounds like gibberish. At the very least, these are all things they personally developed/made up. I’d read past the abstract, but it won’t load for me. Has it already been removed?
The fact that the authors are from the most misconduct-y region of the academic world and are engineers also doesn’t inspire confidence.
Hrm, Im on mobile, shittiest phone in the world, but maybe you can read these images. I can’t copy paste the latex formulas so… lemme see if i can throw this all in a spoiler so it doesnt take up half this thread:
First few pages of the article
Another conjecture in physics is whether the Einstein-Rosen bridge (ER) and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR or entanglement) are physically equivalent. The ER=EPR conjecture awaits rigorous proof [3]. This work also provides further proof of this claim. This work is different from other attempts at unification: (i) string theory, which still lacks experimental observation of extra dimensions [[4], [5], [6]], (ii) loop quantum gravity, which still faces challenges in its compatibility with the Standard Model [7]. In our study, we assume that the new equation should be written in a unitless manner on the Planck scale. Current physical models require at least ten physical constants. Meanwhile, there remain only two constants used in this framework: Planck length and Planck time. In addition, the proposed equation can explain the Gravitational Wave Background (GWB) observed over 15 years by NANOGrav [8].
Applying the Onsager principle on reciprocal relation to the Einstein field equation (EFE), we infer that if a mass can create a curvature (EFE), the curvature can also create a mass. We recap the Ricci tensor before proving each claim in this work. An important concept inferred from the proposed equation is that relaxation of the curvature can create a mass. Because this is a theoretical work, it is organized by topic rather than by an ordinary experimental article structure.
That’s thermodynamics. Another weird connection they have to explain somehow.
The rest you sent is basic explanations they could have lifted from Wikipedia, plus two equations where they shoehorn the Plank units into an expression of G using ≈. I’d give them credit for balancing the units like good engineers, at least, but this looks a lot like the equation for Hawking radiation temperature, so that may or may not be original work.
So, this has yet to be peer reviewed, and I am far from a theoretical physicist … I certainly can’t say its correct or incorrect.
It does seem … too convenient. As in, how could it possibly have taken so many physicists so long to not just try this decades ago?
Basically, they throw the Planck Length and Planck energy (from Quantum Physics) into the Einstein Field Equation (from General Relativity) …
… and are then able to mathematically derive basically the rest of the laws of physics, which seem to be quite close to or totally in line with the Standard Model (of Quantum Physics).
Unfortunately I do not see any direct comparisons if their predicted values for MeV’s of fundamental particles with experimental data…
Anyway, the paper notes 2 interesting, direct implications:
Dark Matter is not real, there’s no need for it in this model. Galaxy rotation speeds work out to what we see without need for additional, unseen, mass.
Either A, our universe is mirrored by and entangled with an antiuniverse of antiparticles which all travel backward through time (antitime?), or B, our universe is part of an evolution of … prior(?) universe(s?) which generate black holes, which do not form singularities but instead create entangled white holes as other universes, expanding spacetimes.
Bonus conclusion:
The Fine Structure Constant may not actually be constant.
I’m not a physicist either, but I’m close enough to tell you that this:
Sounds like gibberish. At the very least, these are all things they personally developed/made up. I’d read past the abstract, but it won’t load for me. Has it already been removed?
The fact that the authors are from the most misconduct-y region of the academic world and are engineers also doesn’t inspire confidence.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927650524001130?via%3Dihub
Whole thing is still loading for me.
Hmm. Just me then. The rest of what I said stands.
I have no inclination or standing to doubt you.
Hrm, Im on mobile, shittiest phone in the world, but maybe you can read these images. I can’t copy paste the latex formulas so… lemme see if i can throw this all in a spoiler so it doesnt take up half this thread:
First few pages of the article
After this its images as I cant copy pasta latex
That’s thermodynamics. Another weird connection they have to explain somehow.
The rest you sent is basic explanations they could have lifted from Wikipedia, plus two equations where they shoehorn the Plank units into an expression of G using ≈. I’d give them credit for balancing the units like good engineers, at least, but this looks a lot like the equation for Hawking radiation temperature, so that may or may not be original work.