Quantum Gravity made too simple.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the simplification of quantum gravity concepts using unconventional units and mathematical assertions. Participants explore the implications of these simplifications, often in a humorous or satirical context, while referencing various mathematical and philosophical ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes using supernatural units where \hbar = c = 1 and further claims that this leads to a simplified Lagrangian of \mathcal{L} = 1, which they argue yields accurate predictions.
  • The same participant introduces a series for the S matrix and claims it results in a value for g that is in remarkable agreement with experimental values, suggesting a grand unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
  • Another participant humorously suggests that the initial post is a joke, indicating skepticism about the validity of the claims made.
  • A different participant draws a parallel between the discussion and a comedic segment from a television show, highlighting the humorous nature of the conversation.
  • One participant introduces the idea of a "landscape of popes" in relation to vacuum states, suggesting a philosophical interpretation that connects to broader existential questions.
  • Another participant references a well-known divergent series, 1+2+3+\cdots = -\frac{1}{12}, as a humorous conclusion to the discussion, implying that it provides clarity to the preceding claims.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as the discussion includes humor, skepticism, and competing interpretations of the initial claims. Multiple viewpoints and interpretations remain present throughout the thread.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes unconventional mathematical assertions and philosophical reasoning that may not align with established scientific principles. Participants engage with these ideas in a playful manner, which may obscure the underlying assumptions and definitions.

Jimmy Snyder
Messages
1,137
Reaction score
21
I will work with supernatural units in which [itex]\hbar = c = 1[/itex] and further, [itex]\pi = e = -1 = 1[/itex].
Using these units, and some minor calculation we see that the Lagrangian is:

[tex]\mathcal{L} = 1[/tex]

This not only simplifies matters, but leads to remarkably accurate predictions. For instance, if we assume that the S matrix is given by

[tex]S = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}S^{(n)}[/tex]

where

[tex]S^{(n)} = 9 (.1)^{n+1}[/tex]

Then we have [itex]g = 0.99\overline{9}[/itex], in remarkable agreement with the experimental value of 1, the error being only [itex]0.0\overline{0}1[/itex].

What's more, by setting 0 = 1 we have the following grand unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

[tex](i\not{\partial} - m)\psi = 0 = 1 = 0 = R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}R - 8GT_{\mu\nu}[/tex]

In my next paper, I will investigate the implications of the further simplification [itex]\frac{1}{2} = 8 = 1[/itex].
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Okay, I admit- you got me. I actually wrote out a response pointing out all the errors when, while trying to decide how to respond to the last line, it finally hit me- this is a joke!
 
Funny! I came to this thread immediately after watching a Samantha Bee episode on Daily Show, and it's right in the same vein.
She was explaining the terms used to describe the gathering of Cardinals to elect a Pope.
 
There is no single pope but a landscape of popes; you find the correct vacuum state by catholic reasoning which requires 3 = 1; from this equation you can derive both the existence and the non-existence of god, so it's a theory of everything.
 
tom.stoer said:
vacuum state by catholic reasoning which requires 3 = 1;

only if you have the correct ... wait for it...cardinality
 
Don't forget:

[tex]1+2+3+\cdots =-\frac{1}{12}[/tex]

Now everything makes sense.

:-D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
961
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K