Quantum Gravity by Jonathan Warren Tooker

What is needed is the models of the big and the small to derive from one model. It need not be QG. That is gravity must derive from a model of the small such as my model. Scalar Theory of Everything model correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics preserves current physics through the correspondence.

Dear Jonathan Tooker,

I cannot claim to have followed all of your logic but I did enjoy reading your essay, and I found several of your remarks insightful and helpful. For example you say

"... any theory that preserves establish physics and adds gravitating quanta is a working theory of quantum gravity."

I'm somewhat confused by your process (4). Is the meaning that a present state is predicted by physics to lead to a future state, which, when measured, becomes a record of a past event which we study in the present? Or have I completely miss the point? Are you perhaps speaking of signals traveling into the past?

I appreciate your description of the genesis of your equation (9); that sort of openness is rare in physics.

Your discussion of the "often ignored" Ford paradox was informative. I found only one search result on this and look forward to studying it. It deals with a most significant topic related to my essay.

If I interpreted your discussion of the renewed interest in fusion physics properly, that is most impressive.

And it's nice to be reminded that "Hilbert space is home to only the simplest quantum model of spinless particles."

Finally, I note that you state,

"To settle a debate about physics, physics is required."

That seems self-evident, but, again with regard to my essay, some seem to wish to limit the debate to math only. I see in one of the comments above that you have not treated entanglement. I invite you to read my essay and find out why you may not have to do so and I invite any feedback you might have.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

I seem to experience time as a continuum but if I ever want to calculate what happened before this present moment, that would happen on a countably finite set of previous boundary conditions. The past is defined on the imaginary number i which is unitary but the present and future are defined on pi and Phi which are real and non-unitary.

The equations of motion of a state undergoing process four should be understood as a complex third-order differential equation. The exact form of the EOM is given by an integral functional differential equation over the first and second derivatives of the computational time, The differential equation can be solved by the convolution of two spaces in a way such that terms at infinity are cropped, namely the injection of i of pi, Phi and with the attendant renormalizations. This forms an open system where fields never become singular because the stuff that would give infinity is factored out to infinity before contributing to local magnitudes. Something like that.

I wasn't even close!

Thanks for the explanation. I will reread with this in mind.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Very interesting essay!

Hello. You wrote : "As an exploratory calculation I produced some random numerical values according to El Naschie's prescription [8] but I did not find an interesting result. I gave up and sat on my futon to retire despite a powerful feeling as if on the precipice of a great truth. Minutes later I was struck with the urge to pray. I have not generally been a praying man so this was a most unusual occurrence. I prayed to God who is also called Elohim and Allah, and asked him to reveal the truth to me if it was there. I returned to my desk and immediately produced equation (9)."

Do you know another example of an important discovery in math or physics where the article reporting the discovery also reported that it resulted from an inspiration after prayer ? As for the famous crank El Naschie, I got to know about him during my critical review of Laurent Nottale's pseudo-theory of scale relativity.

Dear Dr. Tooker

Could you please explain to me why you thought that my comment about the real Universe was inappropriate?

You are I hope aware that suppression of the truth is unethical.

Eagerly awaiting your answer,

Joe Fisher

Dear Warren,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher