I don't believe it is predictable, or rather, it is impossible to know all of the causal frames, since observing them and measuring their state would invariably change their state, which would require that the whole of any mass group be observed at the same time and in such a way that the observation itself causes no change in state, and thus must also include the observer. Since the recording of knowledge requires a state change, there is no possible way for all to be known in advance without changing the state of the whole group and introducing uncertainty.

The entire model is based on independent causalities for each entangled set (fair to call them lie groups, as they are represented so in the model) within it's own Hilbert space. The expressions of boundaries along our 4-dimensions of space (3) and time (1) are carried merely by the propagation of the wave form harmonic. The internal state change can be predicted only insofar as probability mechanics can take us based on the knowledge of the properties of the closed set. That would be a function of its stable mass.

Indeed ,it is intersting for the categorifications of harmonic wave forms and so the informations.The spherical volumes are relevant for the steps and groups.

Algorythms can be applied respecting our mathematical laws peritting to sort,to superimpose or to synchronise.The spherical volumes are important it seems to me humbly.The internal state of these volumes can permit to see the good predictionswhen these volumes are respected with theirintrinsic laws ,deterministic if I can say with of cours the uncertainty principle.The functions appear.

You say Since the recording of knowledge requires a state change, there is no possible way for all to be known in advance without changing the state of the whole group and introducing uncertainty.Indeed ,it is logic in fact simply.And like we are not the creators of this universal 3D sphère and its quant and cosm sphères turning still and always towards this eternity ,so we must accept our human limits.That said we appraoch all days but we are still so far of all our universal laws and its détails.The universal mechanic, newtonian for me and gravitational ,is a so incredibla puzzle in its détails that we must accept humbly our human limits.That said our postulats and équations permit to write the universal partition of spherisation.Thanks for sharing Mr Sky.Could you predict if my theory of spherisation will be inserted in computing If my equaions are correct, it is relevant in all humility.Best Regards

The Washington Post has also declined publishing my op-ed article explaining why Einstein's Theory of (invisible) Relativity: the Special and General is incorrect.

Joe Fisher, Realist

The Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe have refused to publish my conviction that Einstein's Theory of (invisible) Relativity: Special and General was incorrect.

Joe Fisher, Realist

9 days later

North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis has forwarded my complaint about the awarding of the 2013 National Science Foundation $1.32 million Grant to the researchers at UCAL Santa Barbera and the Kavli Institute for wrongfully concluding that Einstein was right, to executives at the National Science Foundation together with my evidence that Einstein was incorrect. I submitted my proof of the Einstein error to MENSA, hoping that they will publish it.

Joe Fisher, Realist

    Dear Joe, this isn't a victory. It is a sad state of affairs that only reinforces the stereotype of amateur fringe researchers. Making it less likely that thorough, well thought out and meticulously considered research from other 'outsiders' will be looked at. You are doing yourself and others dis-service.You have written on this site that it can't be disputed, and you can not present a coherent argument in its support. So it isn't science or even philosophy. It's your unshakable faith and you are asking others to share it, even though it doesn't work with what is known. I am sorry that you have wasted the senators time and you haven't listened to well meant advice.

    In a finite universe, the there can be no infinities. In an infinite universe full of singularities, anything is possible. Multiverses, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy, eternally collapsing objects, etc., are just different ways of dealing with infinities.

    Since all observations to date show a finite universe with finite objects with finite actions, singularities simply reflect the limits of spacetime math for representing our finite reality.

    Quantum matter is never still and there are always finite orbit times for particles bound in quantum matter. Therefore all 1/r^2 forces, which have singularities at r=0, are really 1/tau^2 forces. Since tau is a finite quantum orbit time, tau is never zero and there are no singularities in the quantum universe of just matter and action.

    Gravity force is a pairing of the bonding photons of matter with their complementary photons from CMB creation. Although general relativity does a very good job describing much of reality, GR simply does not describe the quantum orbits that bind objects in the quantum universe. The biphotons of quantum gravity do show the quantum orbits of matter, tau, entangled with the quantum orbits of the universe, Tau.

    Centering the universe on matter and action instead of space and time removes the straightjacket of space and time. It is the straightjacket of space and time that keeps science from injuring itself during the current madness of an impossible quantum GR.

    Dear Georgina.

    You seem not to have noticed that you are alone in your refusal to accept my explanation of the reality of the Universe. You have no allies. I have no disputants other than you. For centuries now, people have been led like mindless sheep, to believe that English writers could accurately reveal the secret of the creation of the universe by either an invisible God, or by an invisible explosion of invisible nothing. Please be convinced that infinite visible surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, could never have been created. The Bible is a work of fiction. All theoretical physics books are works of fiction.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Dear Joe, lack of response is not the same as acceptance. I have been the only one to show interest in what you have written and tried to see if there is anything worth pursuing, useful or well reasoned. I have found by my own blundering that ideas built into concepts can seem at first good and are in a way seductive. However I now accept that they are like sandcastles. It doesn't matter how beautiful we think they are, or how much time has been spent on them; if they can't stand up against arguments then they must be let go. The remnants perhaps rebuilt more strongly to face another challenge. Being wrong doesn't make the ideas worthless as they are a means of growth and it isn't wrong to love them. Sandcastles can be exquisite and intricate works of art but they are also vulnerable, as they should be. My advice is let it go and then see if there is anything left that you think worth keeping for the next one.

      Hello Mr Agnew,

      Happy to see you again and thanks for sharing.We have a different interpretation of this universe,but it is interesting to see your thoughts.Isee that the majority of the sciences community search this gravitation.I have seen a lot of works trying to interpret this gravity.But I have seen that the problem was(for me and it is only my point of vue of course,it is not a postulate)to consider this gravitation like an emergent force due to electromagnetic forces ,magnets, mmagnetism,electricity are relevant, but I beeive that gravity is not this.Gravitons for example so are not possible in my point of vue .People wants to explain this weakest force just above our electromagnetism ,weaker.And also they consider these particles weaker than photons.The problemis to have forgotten the bridge above theprotons neutrons with their quanrks at this nuclear forces with gluons.The gravitationl force there increases and at the electromagnetic decreases.We have soa road toards theentire entropy because we go towards the main central singularities, gravitational coded by the cosmological singularity.GR for me acts on the luminerous aether, this photoniic sphererespecting the special relativity,that is why we have the time of arrivals of signals for LIGO,The quantum scale is Under the special relativity but the general do not really work there due to scales.The GR is for the cosmological scale?i agree about so the quantum GR.That said the mass curves spacetime ....Spherisation gravitation are natural ....ps the singularities for me are themain cenral sphères, coded gravitationally implying a stability in space time, that is why these baryons have not a linear velocity and are stable in the topography of our universe.Best Regards and still thanks for sharing.

      Dear Georgina,

      Lack of any response concerning my unified visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light conviction from the forty physics professors including Professor Max Tegmark, who happens to be the Scientific Director of FQXi.org that I have shown it to clearly means that they have accepted it. It makes sense. Hawking etal have strived to write a theory of everything calculation, Every real thing has the same real unified visible surface. Although I did not get any response from the Physics Institutes of America, China, Canada, Russia and Manchester University, the European Institute of Physics Journal Editor advised me that article reviewers would now be given 90 days instead of 60 days to present their reviews.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Dear Joe nothing means nothing, it doesn't contain any information. That it is a positive response is your own imagining. Long ago I did get a response from John Gribbin. He asked me not to send him a book, as he gets that kind of thing all the time. Wise decision on his part.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #71

      Georgina,

      Nothing does indeed mean nothing, primarily because nothing has never existed. On the other hand, something has always meant something. One real observable Universe could only have one unified visible physical condition and the one condition our real Universe has is infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality can only consist of minimal finite information.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      25 days later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #72

      There was a time that promised never to end, in which people would read popular science and have their batteries recharged by the order and discord in science working together encapsulated by a greater shared vision. Things were

      progressing and that is comforting, especially at times individual lives and the common wellbeing were not. Science said there a future.

      All of that is haemorrhaging away now. When I go to the once awe-inspiring public interface now....I'm trying to give it up......I come away depressed and fearful of the future. Or as lately, more and more just resigned.

      There is no progress and physicists, because of the pressure to rationalize a productive contribution, that grants still flow are endorsing and affirmation when most likely they continue because the foundations that issue them, feel they have no alternative.

      Right now a generation is retiring off that produced very little progress through no fault of its own, is retiring off or being kicked upstairs by the current generation, which Sean Carrol counts among, Sabine Hossenfelder, and the others about that age. They will increasingly now be the top table, able to speak as they see fit, with no higher seniority.

      This is a generation of individuals with no significant accomplishments to decide between them or to order seniority in the event of discord as to the right course to take. The pecking order of seniority is the same as for non-science. The same, for the music industry. The boy-band domain within it.

      This is a disaster. Not because of what it is, in itself, but because of the human nature component which inevitably and inexorably begins to act as a force in which hubris and politicking skills become selected, and courageous thinking and willingness to face scorn and social and academic shunning de-selected. Everyone is playing the game, and that means no one is going to face the problems that might have been soluable if they had.

        Dear Ming,

        The National Science Foundation shelled out $1.32 million to researchers at the University of California at Santa Barbara to validate Einstein's Theory of (invisible) Relativity: Special and General. I am a researcher in good standing. Einstein, and all of the theoretical physicists have been utterly wrong about the Universe. The real Universe is sublimely simple. The real Universe consists only of a single, unified, unique visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        18 days later
        18 days later
        7 months later

        Hello,

        I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific discovery of quantum gravity and quantum antigravity.

        Present quantum gravity theories suffer from too many space dimensions, and from too few experiments that could provide conclusive verifying, or falsifying empirical evidence. On the contrary, my hypothesis is simple, clear, and easily empirically verifiable:

        https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com

        Should anybody need clarification, I am more than happy to answer any questions.

        Naturally, I am also open to meritorious criticism, and any suggestions for improvement.

        I am sure other researchers could greatly contribute to further development of this hypothesis (almost a theory).

        Thank you so very much! :)

        19 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #77

        Maybe quanta results because there is simply always more energy than there is space at any time to contain it as a homogeneous concentration. Call it conservation of space-time, thereby allowing for the laws of thermodynamics while also allowing for creation of more energy. And more space at any time. Creating more energy. Creating more space at any time...

        7 months later

        This article states,"Carroll believes the misfit between the two theories persists because people usually approach the problem the wrong way around. "People usually start from 'classical' theories--where objects have precise positions and velocities as outlined by Isaac Newton--and then quantise them," says Carroll. "Instead we need to start with the quantum world and ask 'what does it looks like classically?'"

        I believe that Carroll should not be making this statement until he already figured out how to unite GR and QM. He makes it seem that everyone else is approaching the problem wrong and that he has a sure fire way to solve the problem. What happens when his approach is just as crappy and unsuccessful?

        It seems that the world is getting impatient with physicists (and I don't blame them). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw88utUCx9M Time to look at approaches from outside physics academia.