I'm a physicist. I figured it out. I will be conversing with a mathematician colleague at my university in the next month who specializes in geometric topology. We will synthesize some models and rebuild both QFT and GR from scratch. It's not that one is right and one is wrong. They're BOTH wrong. Well, they're both right too. I will not give any more hints. A simple modification will fix everything, and by modification I mean to both. If this upsets you, consult pic rel.I will not be sharing the details here yet. I will not be posting it into ChatGPT. The literature currently has nobody tackling it from this angle. It's simple and it's elegant too. I cannot find any previous papers in the literature tackling it from this angle either.
I care
>Non-schizo solution to quantum gravityThere isn't one - gravitation/relativity and quantum physics are un-unifiable because their root causes are fundamentally different; energy/momentum exchange between discrete/quantized particles and geometric changes to a continuous spacetime. We'll eventually realize that physics can't be unified into a single model because of this incompatibility, but also that the incompatibility will probably explain a bunch of shit we don't currently understand about physics - it's all weird mathy shit that falls out of mixing discrete and continuous systems.There, I just saved you twenty years of going down a theoretical rabbit hole.
>>17090022you have to give at least one hint to prove that you posted it on /sci/ before it gets published. This would be legendary, like the Haruhi problem https://oeis.org/A180632/a180632.pdf
>>17090022Cool. Keep us posted. Question: do you expect this angle of attack to yield any testable predictions that are not already explained by present physics or is this just gonna be string theory 2.0?
>>17090166Fair point. The issue is related to metric spaces.>>17090174Good question. I'm not sure yet. We will have to see what pops out of the models. I cannot promise you when the update will be shared, but it will be shared.
>>17090022Just because it's novel doesn't mean it's right.Did you get it peer reviewed? No? Then why should I pay any attention to this?>t. mathematician working in mathph-adjacent field
>>17090022>they're BOTH wrongBoth make incredibly accurate and tested predictions so your theory has to reduce into both of them somehow.
>>17090022information. right? ;-)good luck, anon.
>>17090022That's so cool! What inspired this approach to GR and QFT?
AI already figured it out sorry faggot OP
>>17090372An AI excels at rearranging data, not invention
is this like MAGIC?
What's the spin of the Higgs boson in the model?
OpenAI should get together a team with op (because of the scrunty)
>>17090022If you don't share the details here now you're full of shit. Good bait thread
>>17090650stop stealing Sam
