taby said:
Why do these numbers exist if not to be found out?

They don't exist until you invent them.
Then they do exist to drag you into a recursive downwards spiral of fallacy.
Beware. It's the devil who gave us the numbers, to profane gods wonders.

; )

I’m not quite born again Christian LOL, but I believe that God invented, and we discovered. I’m not the one who made these numbers the way they are, that was entirely up to God… or the devil perhaps. I only found the numbers.

It’s just amazing to me that if you decompose the precession based on quantum rules, you get the correct amount.

In any case, thank you for sharing this journey with me.

taby said:

I get the following bit to angle conversion table:

Must be more luck…….

For 20000 initial speed, the relevant bit(s) are:
bits   angle
21     27.86
22     76.62
23     52.9
These total 157.38, where the analytical solution is 162.09.

For 25000 initial speed:
bits   angle
22     17.04
23     47.8
24     38.95
These total 104.59, where the analytical solution is 103.7.

For 30000 initial speed:
bits   angle
23     46.45
24     27.8
These total 74.25, where the analytical solution is 72.04.

For 38858.47 initial speed:
bits   angle
24     46.8
The analytical solution is 42.9.

Finally:

For 42500 initial speed:
bits   angle
26     51.7
The analytical solution is 35.8.

So… there must be a weighting system.

taby said:
So… there must be a weighting system.

I can see the pattern, but…

It will only give you the angle to tell how fast the orbit rotates, or an approximation of that.
However - it will not give you the right trajectory. Since you can not add up multiple trajectories obtained from multiple runs of varying precision, each of them calculated independently.

So what's the point, if the only 'correct' result you get can be obtained from the analytical solution at higher accuracy and much lower cost?

I did it just because I could. That's the only reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation​

Also, don't forget that it all fails when you don't quantize gravity in the first place. So, only quantizing gravity works.

So you draw parallels from quantum physics to astrophysics.

But there are some problems with this:
Mercury does not behave like particles. It's not wave, it does not wiggle.
We can measure its position and velocity at the same time.

And afaik there are many simulations of general relativity reproducing Mercurys trajectory.
But they neither quantize, nor do they average paths, i guess.

And finally: I guess the quantum physics path integral gives an averaged trajectory with the highest probability, actually a field describing wave like particle behavior.
But you do not take an average. You sum them up. An average would be just as wrong as any of the chosen trajectories.

You borrow concepts such as quantization or path integrals from quantum physics, but they do not correlate.
To the informed audience, this just looks like pseudo science.
You should come up with your own names for your new concepts, in case they turn out working.

I know that it sounds like bullshit.

But there are too many coincidences for It to not be realistic.

Path decomposition is the name.

They also say ‘shut up and calculate’, which we have done in abundance. We've done our due diligence.

I am working on the paper now.

https://github.com/sjhalayka/quantum_path_decomposition​

Anyone want acknowledgement?