0
0

Infinitely Complex Topology Changes with Quaternions and Torsion (vixra.org)

7even6ix2wo が 投稿

全 9 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]The_MPCMathematical Physics 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

I didn't read through the whole paper, but to start with:

  • Factual error in the abstract: string theory hasn't got a "torsion field," although I'll leave it to someone else to confirm whether infinite complexity does.

  • Second sentence: poor job of hiding that the author has no idea what a transition amplitude is.

  • Third paragraph: that is not the definition of unitarity. That is the definition of an inverse. Unit determinant does not imply unitarity.

Sorry to be rough, but OP, you ought to know that this is hogwash. Don't bother with Vixra.

[–]7even6ix2wo[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (6子コメント)

I am the author.

  • String theory does have a torsion field, you are mistaken.

  • The transition amplitude is the "square root" of the probability that a particle will start in state A and end up in state B.

  • Paper says unitary matrices have an inverse, maybe if you read all the words in the sentences your comprehension wouldn't be so low.

[–]The_MPCMathematical Physics 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

The torsion is not a propagating field in the sense usually used in physics. If you want, you can compute it from the metric on your base space, but you can do that on any manifold with connection.

Contrary to the claims in this paper, there is no amplitude associated to the dynamics that a particle undergoes, only to the final and initial measured states.

My mistake, I thought that line was stating the definition of unitarity. In any case, having unit determinant still does not imply unitarity

Good call removing the end sentence in which you insulted my mother.

[–]7even6ix2wo[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I don't care if it is a propagating field or not. Torsion twists vectors along parallel transport and that happens all the time in string theory. What makes you think I care if it is a propagating field and why did you feel the need to bring that to my attention?

You say "contary to the claims in this paper." Which claim are referring to? Quote it or admit it doesn't exist.

Yeah, that last part is your mistake. Same as the first part and the second part. Good job trying to shit on my paper with your nonsense.

[–]The_MPCMathematical Physics 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

The claims about amplitudes are in the short paragraph I already indicated. If you would prefer (since you're getting down voted pretty heavily, which is never fun), I would be happy to discuss this privately.

[–]7even6ix2wo[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

The downvotes of fools are like delicious candy to me. I wrote:

Z is the probability that a particle will undergo certain dynamics in the presence of a source J

Do you see something that indicates something other than a dynamical transition from an initial state to a final state? I don't. You'll have to clarify or admit that not one of your three points have any merit.

[–]The_MPCMathematical Physics 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You'll have to clarify or admit that not one of your three points have any merit.

Actually, no. I've stated my views and I'm not obligated to debate your paper with you. If you want to keep discussing it, I am more inclined to do so privately. Best of luck with your work.

[–]7even6ix2wo[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You have stated your views. The third view was due to your inability to read and comprehend sentences. Your first view that propagating fields are the only ones that exist is patently stupid. And when stating your second view, you failed to cite any part of my paper which might be relevant.

[–]doctorbongGeometric Measure Theory -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Neat, you cite 7 of your own papers on vixra. Thanks for clarifying that you're a crank.

I especially like how the author lists their professional affiliation as Occupy Atlanta on one of the cited papers, together with the Anonymous logo.