all just hints of quantization vs gravity dualities popping up everywhere. reminiscent of modular/elliptic dualities that popped up everywhere. i think there's an isomorphism between these two dualities that goes beyond the trivial category theory-esque representation (which would hold even if they have no relationship) i bet there's a relationship though. see ryu-takayanagi and entanglement entropy vs how modular forms encode special algebraic symmetries.

but even if just the categorical isomorphism holds (with no meaning beyond the math representation), it would be interesting. it really would show that even seeing QM and GR as separate things that need to be linked is wrong and that they are just different instances of one gauge theory popping up its head in different contexts (GR being a gauge theory in the yang mills sense)

my intellect:

-ruffles feathers

-weathers storms

-is nigh unreachable

If I've stood on the shoulders of giants then I'm a contortionist because I"m the only giant around.

And this ruffles some feathers.

It's because of my intellect. And this ruffles some feathers.

I get a message at least once a week asking me to explain something about black holes.

Maybe half the time I can answer the question in a way that's satisfactory to the asker. But the other times, it ends up boiling down to the fact that more than any other physics theory, it goes hand-in-hand with the math. GR is difficult.

Please learn Differential Geometry. I get a lot of horseshit responses like "if you can't explain it to a five-year-old, you don't understand it" This is unrealistic horseshit. It would sure be nice if everything were simple enough that this facile bullshit were true. But there are many things for which it is not. Also it depends on the level of understanding you want to have and the "explain it to a five-year-old" level of understanding is generally not what the geriatric 40-year-olds that make up most of NG's population are looking for when they reach out to me.

You need to be comfortable with four-vectors, there are lovely clifford algebra texts you can get great mileage out of without needing to know anything beyond the elementary levels of ordinary differential equations and undergrad linear algebra. Tensor analysis is important to apply the Differential Geometry to curved spacetime.

Read John Lee's intro to smooth manifolds

And then the follow-up texts on topological and riemann manifolds

And also (in parallel or before) bishop's tensor analysis book is great.

And if these texts (which are introductory and fully intended for undergrad consumption) are too difficult, then the prereqs are too much and you should settle for a more smooth-brained grasp of GR, which you can get from laymen texts by guys like michio or brian green, etc.

Going forward, I'll be referring most questions to this post.

And this rubs some people here the wrong way.

And that does nothing to dissuade me in my march towards my goals, nor could it.

Nor could it.

This gets under many people's skin. Especially here on NG, where I'm regarded as a rebel, a genius, and a badass.

This, however, does absolutely NOTHING to stop the forward march of my mysteriously incredible mind.

give me an EXP-complete algebra and i'll show you a degenerate spectral sequence. (not based on a known cohomology; a perfectly non-trivial zero of the subspace of spectral sequences that just happens to have degenerate splines)

if i can't, i'll pay you .25 BTC and just know that bijections on spectral sequences and any abelian ring are verifiable in polynomial time. so if i suggest something wrong, you'll be able to prove its wrongness with more or less zero effort.

my pronouns are this / that

please use them accordingly as I decide what my identity is. not you.

who wants to team up and generate a bunch of diffusion matrices/operators for easy problems

I have one of those intellects you always hear about.