The Noise of Gravitons

ps and a real relevant technical thinker in maths and phycis, 1 improve the things known and utilised with proofs or 2 invent new mathenmatical tools, it is not your case, you just mix assumptions and tools known and after you affirm and furthermore the maths must be utilised with prudence because sometimes they imply confusions too , there are persons made to invent and create , others to repeat , make what you are made to do, your problem is for me is that you are not general, you have forgotten the generality of sciences and the philosophy, so how could you really create a relevant innovative revolutionary theory, your toe is for me total non sense with a repeatition sometimes of things known, you try to convice who in fact. Sorry to be frank Steve A but it is true , you affirm too much and you seem frutsrated even, you must be more humble and more general and less affriming your assumptions.

you see Steve A, sometimes it is better to not insist or speak you know, the real relevance of the theory of game of von neumann is the points of equilibrium and the disuasion, not the competition. I have read your paper and frankly it is some maths, some physics and an affirmation of assumptions, it is not like this that a real general thinker acts.Only the proved laws, axioms, equations are accepted, and a real seracher does not affirm his assumptions simply, I don t know who you try to impress and convice, but your general idea about this QG is not proved and your general philosophy it is the same , so why you insist, it is the question in fact. You have began by frustration so don t be surprised to have a retrun, the person slike you are irritated by better models than your model and innovative theories, they are even not able to recognise the relevance of these innovative ideas just by jealousy and vanity. Many are like this, they are even isolated and alone, and it is stupod because mit is in team and in skilling complemetarity that we ponder revolutionary papers, your paper is not revolutionary due to many parameters forgotten. Regards

I have taken the time steve A to read quietly your matter time aethertime on your blog on internet, It is respectable in the sense that you try to link several foundamental and that yoiu have taken a long time to create this blog, I respect thi. But it is true the entangled photons biphotons are an assumption and you ahve not solved the problem of this QG.

What you tell about the BHs and the cycle , it is an assumption too, nobody knows actually what they are really and if we must go farer than this GR and even if the singularities exist. You affirm so predictions and it is not proved.

You tell for example that The graviton noise of the universe is what makes all wavefunctions collapse and so is what makes reality real. It is still an affirmation not proved.

You speak after about the predictions of the discrete ether pulse , you explain some cosmological things and this and that but they are limited and not proved.

How it is possible to tell that the Single Photon Resonance as Fundamental Action is a truth and you tell the universe is a spectrum of this ether and you utilise thelorentz anmd fourier, frankly it is odd generally about what is our universe philosopjically.And the emmiter and absorbers are not the problem, the proble is our deepest unknowns to superimpose to the photons and this GR.

after you consider the qubit for this universe and you link with the uantum computing , but it seems that we have qutrits generally speaking.Furthermore the qubit and binar codes are a human invenction, the universe is more complex about the codes and informations, so I find this odd too.

You general midea about the qubit and the quantum computingt is an add of several known works where you conclude your own line of reasoning not proved still.

Sfter you speak about the strings, loops and branes for the anglual momentum spin, for your information we don t know the foundamental objects, we don t know is the lopps are correct or the points or the strings or the 3D spheres like in my theory, So it is still an assumption and there too you mix several physics like dirichlet, after the dbranes and the dimensions but all this are assumptions too.You speak about reasonances but in fact we retrurn still about the philosophical origin not known, we don t know is the oscillations and resonances of these photons are the key of this reality, so still you affim things not proved.

In fact you mix the works of Einstein, some maths and phycis and after some ideas about the strings and branes and you concloude your own model siuperimposing all these ideas ,

After you make the same for the BHs and the QG, like I explained here before and you affirm still these assumptions.You have made the same with the antiverse .

I liked that said the double slit diffraction for a btter understand of these photons but that does not imply they are the only one prinmary essence of the universe.

Steve Agnew, are you on ResearchGate?

No, I am not on ResearchGate... I am on Academia.edu...

I get the feeling that you definitely do not like my QG, but it is not clear to me why that is. If you have a technical issue, you should say what that technical issue is.

You mention photon absorption and emission, which is of course fundamental to what happens, as being "fundamental action as truth", which is true. Why that is a criticism is not clear to me...

Hi Steve A, I have nothing agiant you, it is not that I don t like your QG works , it is just that it is not renormalised or solved , I have explained why , I resspect that said your researchs and the time taken to do it .It is that said too a road that is I repeat respectable, regards

Here is why , imagine that we consider only this GR and photons like I told you and that we try to solve these divergences implying the problems of renormalisation.

Imagine that we consider these gravitons increasing in number like penrose told us and that they are so mlinked with the torsions and the curvature. and so we consider translations.

Now let s consider your matter action and we can even correlate with cartan and make couplings with the works of levi cicivita for these couplings , you can so consider gauges .

Now let s consider for this method the lie groups, and consider for example 2 E8 and the lorentz group too, so you can play with groups, subgroups, the vectors, scalars....and even the associativity, the non associativity, the commutativity, the non commutativity and after you consider many different partitions with the reals and imaginaries and the padics analysis

All this so permit to rank the symmetries, the geometries, the topologies.....wity the klein or carrtan geometries even for example.

You have so a framework, now let s consider your ide3as superimposed with the matter action amd let s consider yout idea of biphotons and so after this lets consider the fields and let s try to solve the divergences of the gravitons interacting with themselves and let s consider the unification of G c and h in considering these gravitons like the quanta of gravitational waves aqnd lets assume they are massless, and let s take your matter action and let s consider a matter coupling with the cartan connection for example and the levi civita coupling.

So we try to make a kind of improvement of this GR in trying to renormalise this QG , but that does not permit to solve with all the mathematical possibilties.You can utilise even the works of Noether for the translations or others , or the wworks of Connes and all the partitions possible , that does not solve .

all this to tell that is you consider that gravity arises from this gauge work of translations and thqt you consider different partitions and constriuctions with field gauges coupled with the matter actions and matter fields in an minkowski reasoning for example , you don t obtain the possible resolution for this gravitation even under all the translations possible and partitions even with the E8 and the non commutativity.....

so yes I insist on the fact that the problem is mainly philosophical about the origin of this universe , the problem is really to consider that these photons are the primary essence and that this GR is the cause of our standard model with the fields but in fact I believe that the error is due to fact that we have photons encoded in this SM and so they create these electromagnetic fields and so the thinkers thought that this GR and the EFE so are the cause of this baryonic matter and the SM.

Einstein was famous but he has created a philosophical prison and now all the thinkers are persuaded that this GR and the photons and now the strings or points in 1d inside these photons oscillating vibrating in 1d are the truth for all our reality but like I said there are many problems philosophical about this reasoning and furthermore we cannot solve the deepest unknowns, mainly this QG and the constant cosmological problem.

The fact too that they are massless these gravitons and the quanta of gravitational waves is an enormous problem and it is there that all they trurn in round in this philosophical prisoin trying since more than 70 years to renormalise in this logic this QG.

It is appropriate that you are skeptical about renormalization, but that is exactly why a biphoton graviton works so well... since charge force is due to photon exchange with an infinite sea of virtual oscillators, renormalization removes that infinite energy. The action-centered photon exchange removes the 1/r^2 singularity of matter-centered charge force. Note that the virtual oscillators of QED is my aether and they are not virtual anymore, but real.

Instead of an infinite energy, aether is finite, but just very large and so it photon exchange with the aether field that is charge force. Since a biphoton graviton uses this same aether field, there are no singularities with gravity force. Instead of gravity being a force between bodies, my TOE makes gravity a force between each body and the rest of the finite universe.

Quantum forces are then all due to photon exchange, but the Hilbert space has the dimensions of matter and action and quantum phase. The universe is a wavefunction pulse in that space and that wavefunction decay gives us a cosmic or Connes time. A hydrogen atom (and all atoms) wavefunction gives us atomic time, but is also subject to cosmic time.

This means while blackholes are singularities with their 1/r^2 Newtonian gravity in spacetime, blackholes are just a transition to a different matter action outcomes beyond space and atomic time. Blackholes are simply the destiny of all matter, but are all decaying matter and growing action in cosmic time until the next antiverse cycle of growing matter and shrinking action.

Sure. Academia.edu encourages commentary on papers and I have commented on many different papers.

Like I told you I respect your works, but you must recognise that you have not solved this QG , I can understand that we are all persuaded about our models but it is true what I tell ,it is not renormalised .If it was the case it is the nobel dear friend. And between us, let s be concrete, what I tell too about the philosophical origin, we don t know it, why so the majority consider only these ^photons and GR, you understand this you.

We must accept our limitations simply and we have many things to disover, I don t understand so why some thinkers utilise the name TOE , that has no sense . And I repeat we are persuqded but your general philsophy too is not proved. I beleive steve A that we are taken seriously by the sciencex community when we don t affrim our assumptions and when we doubt and too when we work correctly about our models of course too. I like you and if I have an advice, it is this one, don t be persusaded about your assumptions please and don t utuloise the name toe, we need all the recognising , I can understand but we shqll not be respected and recognised like this in affriming our assumptions and in telling the name toe, that does not exist and even if we survice in 1 millions years that will not still exist a TOE due to these limitations in knowledges and in philosophy of origin. But your model is respectable anfd general a, it si the most importnat, it gives food for thoughts....take care, regards

you tell steve A ....since charge force is due to photon exchange with an infinite sea of virtual oscillators, renormalization removes that infinite energy. The action-centered photon exchange removes the 1/r^2 singularity of matter-centered charge force. Note that the virtual oscillators of QED is my aether and they are not virtual anymore, but real.

I am sorry but it is an assumption because the ether is an assumption , I can understand that you tale your action from this but it is not proved , descartes, einstein, newton and others had their own ether, a luminiferous one or a gravitational one or your or mines in my model made of particles in a superfluidity, all they are assumptions and we just invencyt an assumption to give causes and to solve probloems that we cannot solve with our actual models, so please don t be persuaded about your ether the pulses, the biphotons, the antiver, the cycles, we don t know simply .

let s be frank and let s go farer about the origin of this universe, what is the cause, do you consider a god , or a mathematical accident. For example what was this energy before the begining of this universe, be frank, you speak about cycles and an anitverse but explain more , in all case, nobody has a concrete proofs, nobody in fact know the truth about this . It is this that I try to explain you, so pleae be frank, tell me more

It is important to be frank about this I believe, mathematical accident or God, we must try to have a general philosophy, for example me I consider that before this creation of the universe, it was an infinite eternal energy in 0D wich is not an infinite heat and this thing that we name god has deceided to create a project in evolution with particles mainly in a supserfluidity, because I have remarked that an infinite heat conscious or not having fractalised the heat in photons and strings inside in 1D and so that the fields are the causes of tranafornations matter energy cannot be true philosophically speaking due to several reasons, mainy that if a thing like god has been able to create a so incredible universe with oscillations, and its more than 2000 billions of galaxie3s, so why it has not created a more perfect universe more quickly with fields and why for example it does not stop a murderer or an accident with a specific field if this thing is omnipotent , so it is not possible, that is why I consider a central cosmological sphere a kind of super matter energy able to send all kind of informations mainly in the vaccuum of the DE for the main codes and that we have 3 main primary cosmological series of Spheres,the photons, the cold dark matter and the DE , and so a superfluid for all this, it seems more logic and explains the evolution and why we exist .

So please, be frank, tell me more about all this , I will see clearer dear thinker.

we can extrapolate a lot about the philosophy, why we exist, what is the future, what is god . In fact I have thought a lot about this, why .....maybe simply this infinite consciousnes energy was alone during an eternity and maybe this thing has having taken an eternity to create this central cosmological sphere, a kind of super matter energy, it is there that god codes and sends the informations for me, it is paradoxal about god this god is there in this ceneter in 3D and is everywhere too in 0d , but it does not interact with fields or oscillations, it does not play at guitar if I can say to create the universe, it needs a 3D physical thing and 3D informations for this. Maybe so it was alone indeed and maybe it feels what we feel, so we cannot blame god and we must accept the project with wisdom, a reasuring thing is this evolution, it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation, and if the souls exist so it is wonderful the future, sometimes I tell me that we create it this thing that we name the paradise due to this general optimisation of the universe. There are so cycles of evolution yes but with recyclings and transformations, we die maybe just electromagnetically but not considering the main codes of our consciousness , it is an assumption but I see like this.

Tell me more about your general philosophy of origin, be frank and tell me why

My aether is equivalent to QED's aether, which is an infinite sea of vacuum oscillators. The only difference is my aether is very large number of very small particles, but finite. Just like QED's vacuum oscillators, my aether doesn't really exist in space and time like Newton aether, rather space and time emerge from aether action.

So, once again, biphoton gravitons are renormalized in the same manner as photons are renormalized. I do like to pay tribute to Newtons aether and so I have adopted the ancient spelling. Since I am a chemist, ether to me is just a type of organic chemical and so has nothing to do with aether... except as alchemy history, or course.

Science measures things that happen in this cycle of the pulse universe. Only models tell us about the antiverse and other cycles. The term TOE has become popular and I like to use it despite the well known limitations of Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

I don't use the term GUT because my TOE is not limited to just gravity and charge, but includes social relationships from neural action potentials. The matter action of neural action potentials is what consciousness is all about and so also involves... you might have guessed... photon exchange.

The bond or conflict of a social relationship is due to people exchanging photons, which excite neurons, which the excite or inhibit action. Any TOE worth its salt must include social relationships.

However, Science truths are not the only truths and there are five transcendentals: beauty, truth, feelings, consciousness, and identity. The transcendentals ground our reality and also ground Science. Science cannot measure the transcendentals and we only know about them from the Grand Narratives. Science only gives us nihilism and relative morality and so the objective morality we all share also comes from the Grand Narratives.

ok thanks for developping, it is important to go farer in philosophy. So tell me mmore about god or no god please, what it is and why it has created this universe. I have too extrapolations for the social studies , that is why I have created this forum global collaboration, because I believe that this consciousness is a result of evolutiona dnthat the intelliegcne and this consciousness being emergent evolutive properties, thyey are tools for god to improve what we can improve, so tell me more please dear friend about god and the universal altruistic love and why we are and what is god really for you