Minkowski, Einstein's teach wrote:

What physicists do now is put spacetime into a 4-vector, to be added or multiplied by a scalar. They do not multiply one event in spacetime by another, or take the sine of an event in spacetime. My money says no one here knows what the sine of spacetime events looks like. When you take Minkowski seriously and start doing math beyond addition to spacetime, everything changes.

Doug

Hello:

Sentences like this are silly: "His theory states that the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space, projected into 3 dimensions."

No, the Universe has 3 spatial dimensions and one for time. If you take spacetime seriously, writing software to animate equations in 3D space + time, then you can get visual insights into physics that make sense.

Take EM. It has a symmetry called U(1), but non-technical people can understand it as a circle (in the complex plane for the technical folks). If you have an electrical charge, then you have a circle in a complex plane so you have the symmetry U(1), visualphysics.org/forums Why is electric charge quantized? Because you can count circles.

Doug
http://VisualPhysics.org

Hello: I just launched the web site http://visualphysics.org/ last week. See if they can download the software, install it, and make animations of physics problems. The number of animations are countable. Anything with 3 spacial dimensions and time can be animated, no exceptions.

Doug

The Schwarzschild solution assumes the source is static, spherically symmetric, non-rotating, and uncharged. There are other solutions that have rotation and electric charge. A small volume of spacetime with an enormous amount of mass is not going to be static, as in not changing in time. The Einstein field equations are too tough to solve exactly for a metric changing in both time and space, so people try to approximate a solution. Most people who work on black hole physics don't even do that much, sticking with Schwarzschild to see what that manifestly innappropriate metric implies.

Yes, there are small places with LOTS of mass, but no, we don't describe the math correctly at this time.

Hello:

Been working on my own unified field theory in the basement. It is a variation on the Maxwell equations, the ones that are cow-roped to quantum mechanics unlike GR which doesn't play the game. The trick is to write the Maxwell action using quaternions, then swap in hypercomplex numbers for the quaternions (use wikipedia, those are real math terms).

To make the hypercomplex numbers a division algebra, that can be done by removing zero and all Eigenvalues of their matrix representation. That has consequences for quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics one looks for what all the Eigenvalues of a particular equation can be - those are the only values that can be observed. The calculation one does is to determine the odds of being at each particular value.

In my work with hypercomplex numbers, the system cannot ever be at its Eigenvalue. I have no idea how it is going to pan out, but it will not be like the other three known forces of Nature.

Doug

Is it possible to make videos to show on all this hardware? I also did not see anything about what OS was required. "Gaming" often implies PCs.

A list of no-see-'ems in physics:

Dark energy
Dark matter
The Higgs boson

My work unifying gravity with the three other forces of Nature suggests that if done right, we get new math to describe how gravity works. All three problems will politely disappear in a few calculations on paper.

Here are 4 things that work great for real and complex numbers: a robust derivative, commuting, visualization, and many connections to group theory. If we can these 4 in 4D, then the major problems in physics will be resolved.

Tensors are not enough. They have addition and its inverse subtraction, but not multiplication and its inverse division. Only 4D tensors could come with division by being isomorphic with quaternions. This would eliminate ALL work on strings.

No one can visualize 4 spatial dimensions. We can watch 3D animations. I have written the software to do so (quaternions.sf.net). Move from Descartes static analytic geometry to dynamic analytic animations. Weird and wonderful things happen with math in motion.

Feel free to email me with questions. Lots of YouTube videos available.
Doug Sweetser
sweetser@alum.mit.edu