Quantum mechanical derivation of Einstein's equations

[Barnytron]

This result will shortly revolutionize physics. This short paper breaks the barrier which has kept time as a C-number in the quantum theory while the other spacetime dimensions are operators. Amazing!

http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0010

ABSTRACT: A non-unitary quantum theory describing the evolution of quantum state tensors is presented. Einstein’s equations and the fine structure constant are derived. The problem of precession in classical mechanics gives an example.

 

[Jorriss]

Did someone actually spend the time to write a paper like that just to troll physics?

 

[Simon Bridge]

Welcome to PF;
Has that paper been submitted for peer-review anywhere?
<reading> hmmm ... looks like the sort of thin you get from a random paper-generator.
Author's affiliation "Occupy Atlanta" at the start and the Anonymous logo at the end are suggestive...

Author has also:
http://vixra.org/author/jonathan_tooker

 

[Simon Bridge]

Only "sort of like" is what I said ... It has a similar peppering of jargon for eg. I like the way the golden ratio gets plugged into equations, apparently, without motivation. (All right - there's a reference to another vixra paper by the same author.)

vixra is a long way off the "low tier open access journal" indicated in the slashdot article. But you are right - it would have involved more effort than just running some kind of random-article generator... program... thingy.

 

[strangerep]

This result will shortly revolutionize physics. This short paper breaks the barrier which has kept time as a C-number in the quantum theory while the other spacetime dimensions are operators. Amazing!

http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0010

ABSTRACT: A non-unitary quantum theory describing the evolution of quantum state tensors is presented. Einstein’s equations and the fine structure constant are derived. The problem of precession in classical mechanics gives an example.

Normally, vixra papers are not suitable for PF. (Did you read the PF guidelines?)

My 1st clue that something is amiss is the title: "Tempus Edax Rerum".

My 2nd clue is the bottom half of the 1st column of the 1st page. The author (Tooker) defines
$$N ~=~ \{ x_-^\mu \in S | t_{min} \le t < t_0 \}$$$$H ~=~ \{ x^\mu \in S | t = t_0 \}$$$$\Omega ~=~ \{ x_+^\mu \in S | t_0 < t \le t_{max} \}$$(without defining $S$ any better than as a "Minkowski picture" -- without clarifying what he means by that). He also doesn't define $t_{min}, t_{max}$. He also seems think that $$\{N, H, \Omega\}$$ constitute a Gel'fand triple -- showing that he has no idea what a Gel'fand triple is. His $N$ is not dense in $H$ in any sense. Hey, $H$ is not even a Hilbert space.
Then he says:

The past and future light cones define the spaces $N$ and $\Omega$.

Huh? He just defined $N$ and $\Omega$ as something else. Then he says

...and the hypersurface of the present is a 3D delta function $\delta(t-t_0)$ in a 12D bulk. The present is defined according to the observer so it is an axiom of this interpretation that the observer is isomorphic to the delta function.

This is bizarre enough, but then he immediately contradicts himself:

With foresight, we point out that the Dirac delta does not have the properties which will be required of the observer function. We will require that this function returns an undefined value where the argument is null. [...]

Clearly, he doesn't understand that the Dirac delta is not a function but a distribution. So I guess it's not surprising he's also clueless about a Gel'fand triples.

Amazing!

It's not amazing -- it's crackpot rubbish.

@Moderators: I submit that this thread be locked for contravening the PF rules.