Quantum theory - are there limits to its validity? If so, can they be probed and tested? (contd.)

0:00 There are a lot, right? There are stars, there are galaxies, and obviously there's a black hole, so that means we have more than just singularities in the past, we have singularities in the future, we start with the black hole singularities, or perhaps we start with the black hole singularities. And in detail, although in the use-out model one seems to have a specificity in time, we don't expect it when we bring in the regularities. Now this is all tied up with the state of the world from the mathematics, which is absolutely brutal to pass. The state of the world from the mathematics, where do we come from? We arrive at the time of the theory, the state of the world from the mathematical structure, and that's where we get the state of the world from the mathematics. In fact, we have a very uniform universe in the beginning and in the end, but the fact that we can physically write stuff at the beginning and the end, either here or on the blackboard, gives the teacher the right drive to play the role. And you can work out the odds against the big bang. I'm going to come back to it with my charts. And the top, no less than, one top is 10 to the power, 10 to the power, 123. So, you might think that theory is a great mess, because it's a theory, well, we don't have a theory, but lecture is really something very precise there, and something extraordinarily different from what happens at the end in the back door of the great chemistry class we did. And we believe, as I said, from a conventional point of view, that theory of relativity and general relativity should come about through this union between general relativity and quantum mechanics. So this tells us that this union, this tells me, I don't know, so many people don't know this fact at all, but this union is very evident, very powerful in nature, and it's telling us something about this union, not just getting it to be compromised.

2:30 And certainly the conventional view is to figure out if there is a future for that union, but what seems to be not so unsuspected is the fact itself. In general, quantum mechanics is called theory, which is kind of symmetrical, because again, you are here, you are here, you are here, you are here, you are here, you are here, you are here, you are here, you are here, you are here, So let's replace the cap by simply some of the material, especially if we have the cap, or we have the photon going one way, or the photon going the other way, but if we replace the cap, if it goes one way... I know you see that if the photons are here, that means the station is here. But the different combinations of the two things, and I want to raise the question, is that combination... I want to try and argue that it's not, and that it's a bit like what happens with an unstable weakness, which decays into one thing or the other in a certain length of time.

5:00 I want to argue superposition of this process will decay into this or this in a certain time scale, which I'm going to show you how to do. And this depends upon this process being a gravitational phenomenon. Here I have a space-time picture of what is going on here. Initially, we have the lump in one place, and remember, according to Einstein's theory, the theory of the lump causes a distortion of space-time structure, which is based on the relative effect. If the lump stays in one place, then this goes up here. If the lump gets moved to the other place, then this goes up here. Like, if you have two traditions of two, you have to have a superposition of these two different states of time. Now, I want to try to argue that there is a fundamental conflict between the basic principles of outside-level relativity and of quantum mechanics. And if there's conflict, you can put a measure to it, which is quantitatively what I have in front of me here. It's the gravitation of self-energy of the difference between these two massive traditions. It's a little bit more easy now to say what it would be if you could imagine it is the root of displacement that's going on. There is a fundamental uncertainty in the energy of this universe. Now as with unstable particles, you can't even bring them into this, that kind of energy uncertainty, which according to the Heisenberg mathematical principle, is specifically related to the lifetime. So in the lifetime, which is h cross, that's the population's time, divided by this energy.

7:30 So I'm using that formula here, where this is how the formula looks like, so it's really easy to learn in the university, if you just go and take a step back and take a look at it. I think it's hard in certain ways, there are people who can also have gravitation schemes. They're all different from what I'm challenging here, one way or another. But it's certainly a little bit easier for the students, after what I've said so far, I would agree. And that's just to say what we're using. Now, just to make this perhaps a little bit more quiet, let's consider the law, which is literally in one place, and we have to ask what we mean by the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation has an operator, which is our unique Schrodinger time. They include the ocean, the time chain, the time that happens, the race chain, and the space, which is divided by the space on the field. Now, when the space is curved, because there's a lot of space on the field, when there's space on the field, you don't know what it means. You get involved in a little bit of everything. And I think the case is just the negative of what it means by looking down the arrow. In the first instance, you slide the space along the arrows. Now... There's no problem with that. However, if a problem does arise, then we start to replace one with the other. And you see now, that instead of just having one version of the three types of trees, you have two different types of them. And I said there was a sort of fundamental conflict between the two types of trees. There's the quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanics of the three types of trees. There's the addition of the three types of trees on here, and the reaction of the three types of trees. The topology is anti-science, which I think is equivalent. If you look down there, what that is, you've got two options.

10:00 If you look down here, you're putting your mind off from the other end. If you look down here, you're putting your mind off from the other end. If you look down here, you're putting your mind off from the other end. If you look down here, you're putting your mind off from the other end. If you look down here, you're putting your mind off from the other end. If you look down here, you're putting your mind off from the other end. If you look down here, you're putting your mind off from the other end. You're putting your mind off from the other end. And this, when you were really careful to see what kind of theory you needed, we told you that nothing there was so essentially equivalent to the number of spaces for Einstein to go to because he was very good at it. We told you, Dr. Keating, that you have two sets of space-time here, and there is no meaningful way to take the point of this space-time if you identify it with the number of space-time. In other words, pretty much the four words that are coming out to be mean. The four words are the regular points, but there's a general point of affirmation, so there's no notion that the points stick out in a comfortable way. In other words, many of these formulas say that the four words are the same. So, both of the two of them say it's not. But yet, I find if there's something within, that's the intuition that says it's not. And the truth, that I do, involves a certain ill refinement of the attention of the two spaces, from the right to the left, that can be identified in a way that is preserved in the form of a right-wing scheme, where it can have a relationship with the right-wing scheme, and where it is, that means that I'm focusing on the right-wing scheme, and that is the kind of problem that I would see if it's not right-right, and I would certainly be more productive if it's that way. So that's where the thought comes from. Okay, you might say, um, how do we do this? If the normal reaction of these people are physics techniques, it's only going to be ridiculous in time. If the gravitational effects are observed this way, we can be able to tell if they are real or not. It's not so easy to get to the system. In fact, it doesn't have to be a calculation.

12:30 Now here we have a few positions that are up here in the time-space that you can cover, and you can take notice of all the others, except for time-space, which is what you're going to see, and what you're going to find later. So this allows for a uniform sphere of the mass of a neutron, where the calculation would be a few million years. This is just as well, because some of our experiments have been performed on neutrons, and they do exist in two places at once, neutron spectrometry. And the diagram that I just showed you is from an experiment, and the rest is quantum mechanics. So, that's me. And, however, it's not to mention, you do have to observe these two positions, at least on one of the two points of the graph, for a theory to be able to do it. It's only a very time-tested effect. So there's no conflict there. This is only a rough calculation, but it's good to read it, because it doesn't seem to be clear enough. It's not going to be a problem in the future. If we took respect for warm-up, every time something is warm-up, just again, that's not going to give you a fear. If it's something like 10 to the minus 5 centimeters in radius, we get something of the order of hours. In decay time, field rate on mechanical. In my problem, if it's something like 10 to the second, it's going to be 10 to the minus 3 times 10 to the second. In radius, every decay time, 10 to the second. So it's a lot of aspects, not just one or the other. According to this theory. So you might be able to imagine it. Well, there's a problem with it. And that is that whatever is done in the field is true. It's very likely to be accompanied by some complicated environment. So it's a problem with quantum mechanics and physics, the environment that gets up with physics, and then you can do the practice phase of it yourself. So, in order to pick up these quantum mechanical effects, you need to get rid of these invariants as much as you can. You can put the invariants around them, and you can do the calculation. That's the same calculation as we did here. You can do the same thing over there. You can find that the daytime is actually much shorter. If you put them around, what you're doing is not right. And that's not much easier. So, what we have to do is experiment with which we...

15:00 Now, I'm not an experimentalist, so I think that any idea might have been suggested to be a bit ridiculous, and you have to have thought. But that theory is really interesting. I talked about it in a group of interviews, and there are some that I've seen being uncalled for. I did a lot of experiments. Basically, I did what I suggested based on something that I got from one instructor, the one I knew in high school, on the nature of what's called a multi-professional, and that is a specific experiment that I'm talking about, where we have a proton here coming from the source, there's a big figure again, so we put it on the strip, it's going one way or the other way. The crystal, the impact of that photon is such that the crystal has a hole at the surface, rather than the vibrational mode or something like that, probably. And I'll start by putting it on the floor. It's the actual hole. So if you're storing it for a few minutes, it's squeezed back and comes back again. We've got the range here. Well, first of all, we could say of something like 10 to the 15th of nuclei, 10 to the 15th of nuclei, according to my calculation, you would get 10 times 10 to the 10th. So you can't replace it. When nuclei are replaced, they're in the other here, they're just one state and the other state, they're in the other, and then you have to keep each part of the photon state. In the time period of time taken, for about a tenth of a second, we release this one right here, which is the twistor spun back into its place, and we'll mention that the twistor is peeled off by a third one as it comes down, and we're getting back to where it came, which has to be exactly behind, which is the same value as this one, and then we can just put it here, which there is no loss of any of it, because it's just going to be a vibration, a step up or something like that. And so on and so forth, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth,

17:30 This one either displays or not displays. Not only that, the photogram is either going to display or not display, and this means that it's going to be flipped on the way back, half the time it's going to be flipped, so you shouldn't particularly be able to tell if the photogram is going to be real. The one big snag of this experiment, however, is that to give the crystal a significant impact, the photogram has to be an X-ray photogram, and this is a real challenge to keep an X-ray photogram. And I think there are a couple of others that I'm going to try to explain to you today that I'm going to teach you next to a program that I'm going to teach you next to a program that I'm going to teach you next to a program that I'm going to teach you next to a program that I'm going to teach you next to a You keep the x-ray photos on the mirror, turning it up from one space to another one, there's a difference between the order of the time on the Earth, and it takes about 10 to the second for light to get from one space to the other. So that is the way of keeping the x-ray photos on the mirror, and this idea was developed in the 19th century. I took a look at Felix, he doesn't have a name, so I'm probably not going to, you don't have a name, you don't have to take this term seriously, but Felix' name, he's a great fellow out there, he's a great chap, and Felix, and then we'll call him any type of thing, walk back to you and ask him about it. Here's my answer for it, it's a field, it's a experiment, it's a very good department, it's excellent. So, you know, that's what we thought. I'm going to do that in minutes. If you're trying to get this experiment to be part of the test program, or some other experiment, it's very expensive to bring these platforms out there, but if somebody else brings some space platform out there for some other reason, and they do get to go in a certain circle, then there's a good chance that they might have a part of the test program in this year. And what I hope is that JBL and NASA will take us on in the experiment that we're going to do next.

20:00 There's actually a telescope, which is due to go up, something like a test, and part of the test program, you're going to have to take some really good up-to-date studies and learn a little bit of stuff about it. In the next three to five years, you might be able to do it, but I think it's best to take a little longer than that. But never mind, I think it's easy. But there is a bit of stress in doing this, there's also a bit of pain when you think about it, and maybe I'll put it together. The answer would be that you have to do this many, many times. First of all, you have to know the top of time. You can't just do it that way. But you also have to know that it isn't just some decoherence. It may be gas in the way or something, something in the way. You can't just expect it to be there. There's a way to do decoherence. So, what you want to do, first of all, is to get that economics down to a level where most of the time the photon will be on the slope, and the only effect will be a twistor here, and the only effect will be on the plane. But in order to test whether it really is an effect or not, you have to do this many times. Hopefully we'll get to this topic, which I feel like we're going to get to in a certain amount of time. This is the pathway, this is the side of the crystal, and this is the base of the crystal. And there's, unfortunately I think, different materials, because in this calculation, the important thing, the important thing that I didn't actually stress here, you have to worry about what maths you can actually do in this calculation. That's what I'm going to compare to this chart. We can say it's a VCI, and then you have to worry about how, you know, the localised part of a VCI, how you're going to have to do it that way. You certainly can't do it by reducing it right down to the third part, which is right down to the fourth.

22:30 Because the fourth consists of some particles, and then you've got to get the second piece to do that, and then you have to do it all over again from there. But that's not what we do. What you have to do is do some... I'm going to work out what's going to be flipped out here from the yellow, and work out what's going to be flipped out here from the yellow, and work out what's going to be flipped out here from the yellow, and work out what's going to be flipped. If you'd like to know what the mathematics of physics are, you can do a calculation and it will give you a very good analysis. So, if I want to go to the test list, I'm going to take this for too long. I think it's a good idea. Of course, I hope it goes out the way I say it. But I don't know if it's going to be a good idea. Thank you very much.