User talk:Rjowsey

Let's be honest now...

Did you or not create User:Siddhant Singhji‎ as a sock to appear "confused" with general relativity because of its apparently "extraordinarily complicated" maths, so that you could respond and include your complex spacetime framework as a possible answer? M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 23:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Rjowsey (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I get it now, and will leave it here. Thanks for being honest as requested and good luck with your mathematical framework and eventual physical theory. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 23:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I don't have any fucking theory! I have some very useful math. And I study science history, for fun. Rjowsey (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Maxwell is one of my favourite dudes, in the history of science. I started messing with electronics and radio when I was 12 years old, the youngest guy in NZ to get a ham radio license, age 16. Built all the gear, from scratch. Employed by the University of Auckland as a research assistant, age 19. Helped with gravitational wave research in 1972, then studied physics with Prof Roy Kerr (the spinning black holes guy) at University of Canterbury. So I've had a life-long fascination with black holes and gravity, but by nature, I'm a generalist, not a specialist. I was reading a biography on Maxwell, and realised that his math used a complex manifold, with 3 extra imaginary dimensions. The great divide between GR and QM is that QM has complexity, GR doesn't. So I had a go at putting SR into a couple complex planes, one for position & momentum, the other for time & energy. And it fucking worked. Beautifully. Spits out exactly the same numbers as the classical Lorentz transform. So I went back to Maxwell, and found the clues he'd left in his Treatise, deliberately, because he loved puzzles. So I plugged his M = L³/T² into the Planck Units, and out fell 5 spatial dimensions. Gotta have 2 extra dimensions of space. They must be imaginary, because MATH. So I built a simulator to generalise the solution for special relativity, over the entire imaginary plane. The 2 Dirac spinors fell out, plus a whole heap of elegant, simple, beautiful MATH which solves GR and quantum spin. I tutor some gifted kids in physics, so I showed them this math, and they fucking loved it. So did their science teachers, because these kids knew more about relativity than they did. Kids badgered me to write a WP article, so I tried. End of story. Rjowsey (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Maxwell's frame was: (x, y, z, iλ₁, jλ₂, kλ₃) where ijk = i² = j² = k² ≡ −1 [quaternion metric]. It's the golden key. A unified framework fell out of that, which actually should've been found 100 years ago, it's so bloody obvious (once you've seen it). Rjowsey (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

...provides the coordinate basis for a 6D Quaternion-Kähler manifold, which is the perfect geometry for special and general relativity. And for massless bosons and fermions, per the Dirac equation (with π/4 phase offsets). High-school math. Simple, beautiful, elegant. Rjowsey (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In all the edits you've made, you've never written the fundamental equations in your theory that reduce to the Einstein field equations and the Schrödinger equation in the relevant limits (or at least some equations which reproduce their respective predictions). You contradict yourself by saying you have no theory just the maths, but then go on to say you have made some progress in developing physics. If what you say really is correct then publish and get your Nobel prize now. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 11:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

(3r+3i) 6D GR has already been done: Einstein & Straus ca. 1953 Rjowsey (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Feeling too much friction from other wikipedians?

Try writing for http://en.wikibooks.org instead. Original research allowed. Give it your own title. Need not fit into encyclopediac format. You could aim your prose to a particular audience, eg high school smarties, or whatever, if you choose to. Or even try http://wikinfo.org even more accepting. Cheers. GangofOne (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I don't actually want to publish "original research", but I've come to understand that even "original math" is frowned on (even when it's simple basic math that a 9th-grader could handle comfortably). *sigh* I'm happy to follow WP's "rules", now I know what they are, in practice. The friction doesn't bother me. I've too many years of zen meditation to let some ill-mannered blowhards bother me. I try and learn something from each commenter, even if they sound really pissed at me. Every insult is a learning opportunity, I reckon. Works better that way. Cheers! Rjowsey (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)