Page 9 of 9

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:04 am
Atla wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:43 am
or that GR and QM aren't compatible
The incompatibility between GR and QM is precisely one of quantisation.

How do we quantize the tensor?
qm-gr.png (10.18 KiB) Viewed 526 times

### Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:40 am
Beside me is the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Or it's not.

Simple solution? It bloody well is not!

Occam's razor really does have some legs to stand on still, with or without iron pants.

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:40 am
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:04 am
Atla wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:43 am
or that GR and QM aren't compatible
The incompatibility between GR and QM is precisely one of quantisation.

How do we quantize the tensor?

qm-gr.png
Hey, Dipshit.

I've not the slightest ideas about how to interpret this equation. I do not know the variables, or the implications. I do know that tensors or vectors are components of analog geometry and cannot be quantized. QM deals with a different level of physical observation.

Perhaps you'll detail it for me, and for others? I'm guessing that you are not capable of doing so. If you actually are, and if frogs can fly, let's have a conversational go. Otherwise, STFU you mindless nitwit.

GL

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:49 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:40 am
I've not the slightest ideas about how to interpret this equation. I do not know the variables, or the implications.
So you want me to explain general relativity to you. Where shall I start? At classical mechanics or primary school algebra?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:40 am
I do know that tensors or vectors are components of analog geometry and cannot be quantized. QM deals with a different level of physical observation.
It seems to me that you understand the fundamental problem. Two theories for the same universe. One is analog, one is digital.

How do we unify them? Is the same as asking "How do we transition between analog and digital?"
A basic course in electrical engineering or signal processing will cover how a DAC (or ADC) works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-t ... _converter
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:40 am
Perhaps you'll detail it for me, and for others? I'm guessing that you are not capable of doing so. If you actually are, and if frogs can fly, let's have a conversational go.
Since frogs can't fly, I won't be wasting my time unless you have a specific question.

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:05 am
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:49 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:40 am
I've not the slightest ideas about how to interpret this equation. I do not know the variables, or the implications.
So you want me to explain general relativity to you. Where shall I start? At classical mechanics or primary school algebra?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:40 am
I do know that tensors or vectors are components of analog geometry and cannot be quantized. QM deals with a different level of physical observation.
It seems to me that you understand the fundamental problem. Two theories for the same universe. One is analog, one is digital.

How do we unify them? Is the same as asking "How do we transition between analog and digital?"
A basic course in electrical engineering or signal processing will cover how a DAC (or ADC) works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-t ... _converter

Actually, the unification of QM and analog (Newtonian/Einsteinian) models of the universe is a more fundamental problem that DAC/ADC conversion, which is merely a technological issue.

I've not worked with ADC (Analog to Digital conversion) in a half century, when I used it on a consulting project for a Dr. Lieberman at Hines VA hospital. He had a PDP-8 computer (4K memory, 12-bit words) hooked up to a batch of ADCs. Two got feedback from vertical and horizontal accelerometers; others from angle-measurement devices positioned around shoulder, elbow, hip, knee, and ankle pivot points. I wrote some code that converted information from the body movements of an injured military serviceman on a treadmill into a visual image of a stickman figure, which made problems easier for a skilled physician to analyze by reducing the information to essentials. I just now checked the internet; apparently Dr. Lieberman's work in that area of research has expanded usefully.

I subsequently worked for the same physician using ADCs to analyze neurological problems, but that's too esoteric to explain here.

I used DACs in the mid-80's as a consultant on the LHX (light attack helicopter) project, converting digital commands into engine control systems. This was originally an experimental lab project, but I'd added some useful features to the original specs, and eventually my software was moved into the engine design department. I had other work to do by then (a Lockeed subcontract for Reagan's "Star Wars" project, managing the pointing end of the point and shoot technology) and did not participate in further LHX developments.

I have about 30 credits in EE, plus physics and math, but I'm getting fucking old and stupid. Thanks for your update. May you grow old and less stupid. Lots of luck with that.

The unification of QM and analog physics is a mathematical problem, not a technological issue. You'd know that if you were sufficiently intelligent to peruse my book, which explains this in detail. Lots of luck with that, too. Stay an ignorant pinhead forever. Frogs can't fly and you cannot think beyond the tidbits of bullshit you've been taught.

I challenge you to detail the equation you offered, for me, and for anyone else who has nothing better to do than read this irrelevant philosophical bullshit. Do it or STFU.

GL

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:40 am
Perhaps you'll detail it for me, and for others? I'm guessing that you are not capable of doing so. If you actually are, and if frogs can fly, let's have a conversational go.
Since frogs can't fly, I won't be wasting my time unless you have a specific question.

### Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:02 am
I've not worked with ADC (Analog to Digital conversion) in a half century,
Maybe that's the problem? In 1948 this dude called Shannon published a paper called "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Actually, the unification of QM and analog (Newtonian/Einsteinian) models of the universe is a more fundamental problem that DAC/ADC conversion, which is merely a technological issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E ... ng_theorem

If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart.

So you've heard of Planck lengths, right? ℓ P
This determines the shortest (hypothetical) wavelength possible in this universe.
I am sure there is some mathematical equation you can use to determine frequency from wavelength. I hope it's not too difficult to figure it out.

So this universe has an upper bound on frequencies? I wonder if one can use the Nyquist-Shannon theorem here to draw some conclusions.

We can only dream of technology which can sample with such precision!
Or technology that would be able to process that much information!

We have no clocks that come even close to such a sampling rate!
The unification of QM and analog physics is a mathematical problem, not a technological issue. You'd know that if you were sufficiently intelligent to peruse my book, which explains this in detail.
Since you think DAC/ACD is a technological issue disconnected from Mathematics then I am definitely not going to read your book!

### Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:03 am
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:02 am
I've not worked with ADC (Analog to Digital conversion) in a half century,
Maybe that's the problem? In 1948 this dude called Shannon published a paper called "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Actually, the unification of QM and analog (Newtonian/Einsteinian) models of the universe is a more fundamental problem that DAC/ADC conversion, which is merely a technological issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E ... ng_theorem

If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart.

So you've heard of Planck lengths, right? ℓ P
This determines the shortest (hypothetical) wavelength possible in this universe.
I am sure there is some mathematical equation you can use to determine frequency from wavelength. I hope it's not too difficult to figure it out.

So this universe has an upper bound on frequencies? I wonder if one can use the Nyquist-Shannon theorem here to draw some conclusions.

We can only dream of technology which can sample with such precision!
Or technology that would be able to process that much information!

We have no clocks that come even close to such a sampling rate!
The unification of QM and analog physics is a mathematical problem, not a technological issue. You'd know that if you were sufficiently intelligent to peruse my book, which explains this in detail.
Since you think DAC/ACD is a technological issue disconnected from Mathematics then I am definitely not going to read your book!
Logik,
You make some interesting points, although they have little to do with anything I wrote. Clearly you are conversant with physics and mathematical concepts that pertain to issues that you and I both share.

You know some shit that I've lost track of (I read about Shannon's information theories, back when) and I'm certain that you know some shit that I do not.

You and I might well collaborate on the development of related, or unrelated ideas. Could be productive. The problem is that you and I are both arrogant assholes, each with a need to be right.

Or, maybe not. I've been searching for the truth about existence and consciousness since I was in 4th grade. I've developed theories about this, one of which got published in novel form, and is still available as a kind of cult classic on the internet. My attempt at self publication really sucked; I was too angry. As shitty as that book (Digital Universe -- Analog Soul) is, it does contain most of my ideas.

You do not need to like me to appreciate the value of any idea I might have offered.
Perhaps we could make our conversations about ideas, rather than personalities?
Greylorn