Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sridattadev: on 4/5/12 at 20:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr Ray, I hope you have experienced the blissful singularity with...

Wilhelmus Wilde: on 4/4/12 at 15:58pm UTC, wrote Dr Cosmic Ray, Your ideas will keep us inspired, your message "HAVE FUN"...

re castel: on 4/2/12 at 6:40am UTC, wrote Dr Ray, I think you now have the clearer answers than any of us here......

Andy M: on 3/14/12 at 16:26pm UTC, wrote There was sad news concerning Ray Munroe reported here: ...

Edwin Klingman: on 6/5/11 at 21:15pm UTC, wrote New evidence of "particle AND wave' versus 'particle OR wave': Ray, A...

Ray Munroe: on 5/10/11 at 20:04pm UTC, wrote Hi Ed, Admittedly, my religious beliefs do flavor my scientific...

Edwin Klingman: on 5/9/11 at 20:53pm UTC, wrote Ray, Just a thought about singularities and metaphysics. If a theory, such...

Ray Munroe: on 5/7/11 at 13:22pm UTC, wrote Dear Rafael, On your blog thread, YOU SAID: The Big Bang idea has been...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jonathan Dickau: "And I should add this... The nature and origin of time is the one area of..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Jonathan Dickau: "Dear Lorraine... It is too easy to blur the issues through multiple..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Robert McEachern: "All physical structures generate electromagnetic fields, in addition to..." in The Reality of the...

Robert McEachern: "Bell's theorem is based on a false premise, that was noted 40 years ago, by..." in The Reality of the...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Gary, There am only one visible singular unified infinite surface..." in Alternative Models of...

Gary Simpson: "All, This post and its attachment concern the basis for conservation of..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.


FQXi FORUM
July 27, 2017

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Scales Solve the Continuous vs. Discrete Paradox by Ray B Munroe [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Ray B Munroe wrote on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 15:32 GMT
Essay Abstract

It is the author's position that Nature is fundamentally both continuous and discrete, and that this paradox is directly responsible for the wave-particle duality of Nature. Two key catalysts in the collapse of continuous wave functions (waves) into sets of discrete quantum numbers (particles) are 1) Scales and 2) Lucas Numbers. These concepts – along with Supersymmetry – may provide the framework for the ultimate unification of bosons and fermions.

Author Bio

Dr. Ray B. Munroe, Jr. received all three of his degrees from Florida State University (Tallahassee): 1979- B.S. Physics/Math, Magna Cum Laud, Phi Beta Kappa, 1994- M.S. Particle Physics and 1996- Ph.D. Particle Physics. He also studied Plasma Physics and Solid State Physics at the University of Texas (Austin) in the early 1980's. Munroe performed Cosmic Ray research at the Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA - Huntsville) as an ASEE Summer Faculty Fellow in 1997-98 (and thus the nickname "Dr. Cosmic Ray"). He resides in Tallahassee as an Independent Researcher and CEO-in-waiting of his family's retail business, Mays-Munroe, Inc

Download Essay PDF File




Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 04:37 GMT
Dear Ray,

I enjoyed your essay and understand a few of your points better than before.

As I mentioned to Lawrence elsewhere, while I agree with you that "a physical infinity cannot exist within our Observable Universe", it certainly appears that infinite numbers of math formulas, relationships, solutions and structures can exist in the 'representational' universe.

Should a Theory of Everything focus on the infinite representations, attempting to produce "the one" universe, represented as the sum of some finite combination of representations, or attempt to begin with 'one' universe, the simplest possible, and physically evolve the universe we know today. Some of these essays appear to wish to accomplish this with a photon (a single photon?), some with a qubit (or two or four qubits). I wish to do so with a single field, the field of gravity.

The gravity field begins with perfect symmetry. A quantum of action implies that this symmetry can break, and a circulational aspect of the field come into existence, in addition to the original radial field. This circulation leads to vortices that can reach a limit (implied by the speed of light) and new Calabi-Yau curved structure come into existence-- particles.

These physical vortices are bosons, producing physical effects--fermions-- 4D stable Calabi-Yau structures... stable, that is, unless sufficient energy 'unwinds' them into a new vortex (boson).

'Struts' (reciprocal lattice vectors) that connect the direct lattice vertices "represent bosons", but it is mathematical, not a physical representation.

In this sense our approaches are 'reciprocal' or 'inverse'. In trying to find the simplest physical theory of our universe, I judge my success by the number of physics anomalies that aren't anomalous in my theory, regardless of representations. You seem to be trying to find the simplest mathematical representation of our universe without worrying about how bosons physically "produce" fermions (or vice versa).

Vortex bosons as physically real field phenomena lead to the particles and generations of particles that we have. Vortices of a left-handed C-field can only produce left-handed neutrinos. There are not, and will not be, right handed neutrinos, whereas SUSY, I believe, expects three right-handed neutrinos to explain the mass of the left-handed neutrino.

Your version of bosons, while not physically explaining how they work, represent connections between vertices (particles) and may be useful for predicting undiscovered particles.

A few more years of LHC operation should reward one of our approaches.

Yours is an impressive approach. You make many things fit together.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Ed,

Thank you for the comments.

I would like to believe that my ideas are not that different from your field approach (fields represent the continuous wave half of wave-particle duality) or Philip's string qubit approach (strings represent the continuous wave half, and qubits represent the quantum particle half of wave-particle duality) or even photon approaches (Light is a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear Ray,

In an effort to keep relevant points linked, I'm reproducing part of a response I gave to Cristi Stoica that relates to the above, particularly your statement that, "satisfying the Coleman-Mandula theorem is the crux of that balance."

The point was made that, "in Quantum Theory the time evolution is unitary, hence the information is preserved." I agree with this but think the following is relevant.

Veltman notes that Feynman rules are derived using the U-matrix, even though formal proofs exist that the U-matrix does not exist. (Diagrammatica, p.183). The U-matrix is unitary by construction, and implies conservation of probability, probability being "the link between the formalism and observed data." In my mind, this leaves some room for 'free will' in the universe, (with consequences for information) but I have not pursued the U-matrix much farther than that. Veltman claims the U-matrix and the equations of motion are to be replaced with the S-matrix, in which the interaction Hamiltonian determines the vertex structure.

Ray you attach significance to the Coleman-Mandula theorem, which (according to Wikipedia) states that "the only conserved quantities in a "realistic" theory with a mass gap, apart from the generators of the Poincare group, must be Lorentz scalars." But this seems to constrain only symmetries of the S-matrix itself, not spontaneously broken symmetries which don't show up directly on the S-matrix limit.

As the 'scattering' matrix is used to make sense of particle collisions, this seems reasonable, but 'scattering' of particles is a very artificial (if necessary) way of studying particles, that may attach undue importance to symmetry and, as I've noted in my essay, leads to a Lagrangian that is based on inventing fields, whether or not those fields actually exist in nature. If they can be solved for then they are considered in some way 'real', and this leads, IMHO, to much of the confusion today.

Veltman also says that "unitarity, Lorentz invariance, locality, etc, are in some sense interchangeable." It seems to me that this is problematical in light of today's push to banish locality from QM.

I don't claim to understand the solution to these problems, just to note that there seems to be some circular logic going on, and I'm not sure that logic is preserved around a complete loop of the circle.

This is part of the reason I start with the logic of one field, and work from there, ignoring, for the most part, the established formalism's of QM and GR if they don't map 100 percent into my model in a way that will satisfy experts in either field.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 22:08 GMT
In further response to your above remark that "everything is a quasiparticle involving both discrete particle Quantum-scaled phenomena and continuous wave Classical-scaled phenomena", I would call attention to the figure on page 6 of my essay, depicting both a massive particle and a mass-less photon. Both have momentum, which is 'mass current', mv, that is the gravitomagnetic analog of the 'charge current', qv, for electro-magnetics. Therefore both massive and massless particles induce a local gravito-magnetic or C-field circulation, which is inherently 'wave-like' while the particles are inherently 'particle-like' as well as providing a 'pilot-wave' type of phenomena accompanying the particle.

You state: "If we over-emphasize one aspect of this wave-particle duality, then we underemphasize the other aspect." I believe my approach is the most balanced in that both are linked through "del cross C = p" and neither is unduly emphasized.

Finally, as I've hinted elsewhere, Peter Jackson and others have stimulated me to focus more on photons and I am finding fascinating results which I hope to describe soon.

It's always fun conversing with you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 00:09 GMT
In solid state physics the reciprocal lattice is what gives the discrete momentum spectrum of phonons. With T-duality involves an interchange x_9 - -> x_9 + 2π with the compactification of a dimension. A particle running around this circle has a momentum ~ 1/R, and this does connect in part with the idea of a reciprocal lattice. The mass of the particle running around the circle is m = n/R. A closed string can also wrap around a circle. The winding of a string w contributes and energy E = 2πwRT, T = 1/2πα’ the string. The mass is related to the winding number by

M^2 = (n/R)^2 + (wR/ α’)^2 + (1/ α’)(2N + w -2)

This has the reciprocal structure as well. The connection between the lattice and compactification and string/brane wrappings will have to be brought in tighter with a connection to compactified spaces.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray B. Munroe replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 00:36 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thank You for the details relating String winding modes with Solid State lattices!

The reciprocal lattice argument is equivalent to T-duality, and the Large Numbers/Inverse Large Numbers argument is equivalent to S-Duality. I know that I've said that before in one of these blogs. Maybe I should have put it in this essay, but I was trying to find that balance between "enough" vs. "too much" detail in my essay...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 10:46 GMT
Hi all,

In fact , it's not you insert details, but errors.

Thus of course you confound details and errors in a general point of vue.

It's sciences fiction all that.

I just try to change your line of reasoning.Because it's a lost of time simply to focus to all these ironic pseudo sciences.

I can understand that many continue the strings because it exists jobs and others but frankly where are we , on a rational platform I hope.

The creation of ideas you say, the fun, it's an other story than our foundamentals at my humble and sincere opinion.

There we see thus why we have an international scientific commission and a system of international unities.

At this moment I don't see strings, higgs, micro BH ,extradimensions, tachyons,multiverses,.....where are these equations....answer ....nowhere.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 12:50 GMT
Ray,

The Duff et al approach to 4 qubit entanglement is STU. The 4 qubits are assigned 4 electric charges plus their S dual magnetic monopole charges. S duality interchanges charges within a string type by a Bohr-Sommerfeld qg = nħ. This does permit one to switch a strongly interacting field with a weak field which is a perturbative field theory. This gives a correspondence between a non-perturbative field with a perturbative one. This is one component of what I am working on. For AdS_4 with a black hole the near horizon condition is AdS_2xS^2. The hyperbolic dynamics on AdS_2 is mapped to the sine-Gordon equation, which is S-dual to a Fermi field theory.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Author Ray B Munroe wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 16:15 GMT
Dear Steve,

In all frankness and rationality, FCC (Face-centered cubic) and HCP (Hexagonal close-packing) are close-packing lattices. Start stacking cannon balls, and you will build one of these close-packing lattices. In this manner, your spheres might/should build one of these lattices. I prefer to study the FCC lattice because it has a clear reciprocal lattice - the BCC (Body-centered cubic) lattice. My essay describes the FCC and BCC lattices if you want to start there.

Adding in more speculations and less rationality:

If the Holographic Principle is a real effect, then Subir Sachdev expects this to have a graphene-like boundary. Graphene is an effectively 2-D hexagonal close-packing lattice of Carbon atoms. This analogy is a graphene-like structure made of the very "fabric" of Spacetime (the vacuum or Dirac Sea).

At the other spectral extreme of speculations:

Does the core of a Black Hole approach a singularity (I reason that a phisical infinity cannot exist within a finite observable universe), or does a lattice structure prevent its full and complete collapse? IMHO, the strongest lattice with the most proper symmetries is the Carbon-60 Buckyball (once again, realize that I am talking about a lattice built up from the very fabric of Spacetime). It is true that a sphere has the perfect symmetry, but a sphere is not a lattice - there are no lattice bonds to prevent gravity from crushing and deflating a perfect sphere.

The Buckyball might explain the non-collapse of the Black Hole core, but succesive radial layers of lattices would build one Buckyball inside of another Buckyball (with flipped symmetries). After about a thousand vertices, these layered Buckyballs will begin to resemble another lattice - the very strong Diamond lattice.

I know that these extrapolations bother you, but they are based on real world models.

Regarding Scales - Dirac started addressing this issue in the 1930's, but he didn't have access to all of the experimental observations that we have, and his first Cosmological model was eventually proven incorrect. I don't quit because the first model is incorrect - I move on to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. The Genius in in the Generalities, but the Devil is in the Details.

I held back in this essay - I didn't hit the world with all of my wacky ideas.

Have fun my Belgian friend!

Dr. Cosmic Ray



Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 00:25 GMT
Hi

dear American friend,

hihihi people are going to say I am crazzy, let's have fun.

I repeat Ray and it's very very veryyyyyyy important.

Imagine a sphere, now a serie 1 2 3 and after we continue with a decrease of volumes, spherical.....how are your lattices, for me they disappear if we insert the serie towards a kind of very important number of spheres, smaller and smaller towards our planets and bigger and bigger towards the center Ray.

Your lattices do not exists thus because all spaces are completed by the serie, the fractal .Incredible Ray no!

Well now let's assume like our Unievrse a space between spheres ,it's spheres without rotations thus without mass......thus of course it's always spheres and the lattices in fact do not exists simply in realistic and relativistic point of vue.

ps you are surprising in fact,perhaps I am in the error when I am parano,but we evolve.My other big default is my arrogance and of course it's a bad road,Sometimes I say me , Steve be more quiet and why you have said that or that.I say me you don't respect really people, you are right for that.I am parano and I become crazzy ,my emotions pass above my quiet simply.I am going to meditate about that a little, I think ,yes that becomes even essential.

You know Ray you are going to take me still for a unstable,I contacted Berkeley and The DR Horst ,I was a little arrogant still, probably my past hihihi and my health , my head hihihi he probably thinks also I am crazy.

ps good luck in the contest, I stop to bother you,

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray B Munroe replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 01:30 GMT
Dear Steve,

Again, I have never read your complete theory. Suppose you start with a close-packing lattice of equal-sized spheres, then fill the empty spaces with progressively smaller kissing spheres. I'm pretty sure that the centers of these smaller spheres represent the Miller indices of the Reciprocal lattice - please see:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indices_de_Miller_et_indice
s_de_direction

I think that the biggest difference between our models is that I represent "infinity" by expanding outwards (building a larger crystal) whereas you represent "infinity" by collapsing inwards (with more and smaller kissing spheres).

Perhaps you heard about that crazy guy (Jared Lee Loughner) who shot the congresswoman (Gabrielle Giffords) and 17 other people in Arizona. Apparently, Loughner smoked Salvia, and it can cause paranoia. I understand that lots of stuff is legal in Belgium, but be careful with your agricultural experimentation...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 10:56 GMT
Dear Ray,

Never a theory is finished and I have difficulties to resume.

I will publish in the future probably if I have a good team with me perhaps.

For me it's not important the publication, only the research of truth is essential.

Ray I have already explained you my past and my problemns in Belgium.

They took me all Ray here in Belgium with my production of plants, I have lost 12000 plan,ts in 1 day Ray, due to bad people here.It was my rentability for my enterprize and its begining.A work of 3 years Ray.And ho they kill my plants and my monney, even my piano they took it and my car of work.I love horticulture and vegetal multiplication, it's a big passion for me.

After that Ray, you shall be how after all these human comportments.

For my health Ray, I have like I say you some neurologic problems many headacke due to a kind of epilepsy.

My revenge will be with love and rationality, I have a revenge for the politicians of my country.If you know people who wants create an enterprize here for this nice and logic revenge, all are welcome.I just want create jobs and put into practice my inventions and models.

The vegetal multiplication after x time arrives at an exponential.

See my post on the thread of Dr Loty about ecology.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 19:27 GMT
Hi Ray,

I enjoyed reading your essay. As usual, I was not disappointed in how you establish surprising connections and try to uncover the truth behind them, where others may see just coincidences. I particularly like and adhere to your openness to the possibility that things which seem incompatible, may be able to coexist.

Good luck!

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Author Ray B Munroe replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 21:45 GMT
Hi Cristi,

Thank you for your comments! I enjoyed your attack on "Infinity" and its inverse. I likewise reason that a physical infinity cannot exist within a finite observable universe, and I think that scales address this issue.

I think that the apparant incompatibilities derive from the apparently incompatible wave-particle duality.

In some ways, I think that my approach is universal - because I see my approach as an umbrella within which different friends are tackling different parts of the TOE problem. At the same time, I feel a need to be somewhat skeptical because an open mind can fill itself up with all kinds of stuff - worthy and not-so worthy.

Have Fun & Good Luck in the contest!

Dr. Cosmic Ray




Vic Aderhold wrote on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 21:02 GMT
Ray-

You are a heck of a lot smarter than I am, and I think I understood a little bit of what you are talking about. Next time I see you, maybe you can explain it to me in person.

Vic

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 22:59 GMT
Thanks Vic,

I'm sure that we'll eventually bump into each other.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 19:17 GMT
Dear Ray,

We are definitely in agreement that a solid state model is a good approach to understanding space-time. I'm not certain I agree with a fixed point lattice approach; yet there remains something "odd" about that whole issue. Fixed point lattice structures are incompatible with expanding universes. Well, I suppose the stress-energy tensor would agree with my sentiments.

Physics is replete with relationships like:

AA^-1=1

B+(-B)=0

...

The list of symmetries is endless. When you said, "SUSY was introduced to solve the Standard Model Hierarchy Problem – “Why are both the

Weak and TOE energy scales stable?” which IS a Scale Problem."

It got me thinking about the nested loop nature of reality. In other words, parentheses are not just the irritating mistakes that screwed up our homework, they are something more fundamental and deeply entrenched within the laws of physics.

report post as inappropriate

Author Ray B Munroe replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 19:58 GMT
Hi Jason,

You said "Fixed point lattice structures are incompatible with expanding universes." The Spacetime we observe seems smooth and continuous because there are a very large number of occupied states at the Observable Universe scale such that these states blend into a seeming continuum. I was suggesting that the Dirac Sea (which is also reprented by the apparently discrete annihilation of creation ladder operators of Quantum Mechanics) might be a close-packing lattice when probed at the appropraire scale (say the vev of 246 GeV). If the "lattice bonds" of the "Spacetime crystal" are very weak (say on the order of Gravitational interactions ~10^(-41)) then these bonds could easily inflate and expand. If a very large, inflated Spacetime is the reciprocal lattice of a very small non-inflated Dirac Sea, then these scales and "lattices" may look and behave very differently.

I'm out of town for half of this week, and trying to do a week's worth of work while I'm here. Hopefully, I can read your essay within the next 24 hours - otherwise I'll travel with it and have a response by Friday.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray



Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 03:07 GMT
Dear Ray,

The other argument against a closely packed lattice is that it would result in light traveling at different velocity dependent upon which way it was going. It would be possible to test for a preferred orientation. I would continue to use the model because it is helpful. We just have to remind ourselves that the model doesn't work for a Lorentz transformation.

report post as inappropriate

Author Ray B Munroe replied on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 14:44 GMT
Hi Jason,

To your point: If Spacetime is a true lattice, then we could have weird effects like dispersion, polarization and birefringence.

I agree with you that Spacetime doesn't behave exactly like a lattice at low energies. There are two reasons: 1) There are so many states in the Classical realm that they blend into a seeming continuum (and I gave some examples in my Introduction including relativistic mass - I think that Lorentz transformations are still OK), and 2) IF there is a close-packing lattice behavior to the Dirac Sea, we won't see it until we are at least at the vacuum expectation value (vev) of 246 GeV (a relatively high energy). Remember that the vacuum or Dirac Sea is often represented mathematically with the very discrete-looking creation and annihilation operators (I said this earlier, but I think I had a typo). See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_annihilation_o
perators

Good Luck in the contest! I hope to read your paper by Friday.

Dr. Cosmic Ray




re castel wrote on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 04:46 GMT
Hi, Dr. Ray:

It is my position that reality has both the continuous and the discrete.

The big questions are basically what fundamentals get quantized and how these fundamentals get quantized. I think my essay points to the answers.

Because we obviously have hierarchical discrete/quantized phenomena, it is plausible that overall the cause is also a hierarchical process. Perhaps this is why you have your scales.

You might also consider a full-tensor (3-D) factor in the relativistic mass equation, instead of just the Lorentz half-tensor (2-D) factor -- after all mc2 (final E) is not m0c2 (initial E0).

Castel

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Raphael,

Please call me Ray.

You said "It is my position that reality has both the continuous and the discrete."

I whole-heartedly agree! And this conclusion is due to Wave-Particle Duality.

You said "The big questions are basically what fundamentals get quantized and how these fundamentals get quantized. I think my essay points to the answers."

I propose that the sub-quantum (Dirac sea) scale behaves like a close-packing lattice, and the near-lattice and discrete properties of my essay's Table 1 (and Lisi's E8 Gosset lattice TOE) are caused by this close-packing property.

You said "Because we obviously have hierarchical discrete/quantized phenomena, it is plausible that overall the cause is also a hierarchical process. Perhaps this is why you have your scales."

Yes - there is a hierarchy. Why are both the Weak and TOE energy scales stable when radiative corrections should drive the Weak scale up to the TOE scale? This hierarchy implies the importance of SUSY and Scales.

You said "You might also consider a full-tensor (3-D) factor in the relativistic mass equation, instead of just the Lorentz half-tensor (2-D) factor -- after all mc2 (final E) is not m0c2 (initial E0)."

In the absence of fields, we can decompose the general 3-D Lorentz transform into an equivalent 2-D transform with components that are parallel and perpendicular to the motion.

My E=mc^2, etc. equation on page 1 is the same as your E=mc^2, etc. equation at the bottom of page 5 of your essay, but you further break the equation down into the low-energy classical approximation. I didn't because that approximation wasn't necessaary for my argument.

I quickly skimmed your essay, but need to reread it more carefully before I'm in a position to comment on it.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear Ray,

I was actually impressed by your view's bit of focus on the wave-particle duality. Basically, my bit of focus is on the fundamental idea of motion.

The electromagnetic theory describes transverse wave motion. So, to me, light, the phenomena in nature, is of the fundamental essence of motion - and the electric and magnetic are of the same fundamental essence.

My idea regarding particles is that the waves/motions get wrapped or folded into the particulate essence - perhaps in somewhat the same manner as that of the loops of space of Astekhar, Smolin and Rovelli, only that I see loops of motion instead of space.

I have been thinking about the idea of a hierarchical cosmos wherein the cosmic subsystems have alternating periods of densification and attenuation that establish the upper and lower limits for the quantization of the particulate cosmos. My idea is that gravity gathers and densifies the cosmic subsystems, and eventually, with their increased mass-energy, each cosmic subsystem is taken by its own increased orbital momenta towards an orbital apex that initiates a period of attenuation with the cosmic subsystem getting fragmented. This renders a picture of an expanding and spiralling cosmos but with cosmic mass-density accordingly maintained and the particles multiplied.

The above is a difficult picture. But, is this possible in your view?

It would be a beauty if you can describe a picture of how your scales look like - especially if you go 'vectorial' just a little bit in your explanations.

(What I've described above is still a rather simplistic picture. What I really envision is a process that involves relative motions from all directions for each cosmic subsystem in the hierarchical cosmos. This suggests to me the reason for the occurrence of gravity and why the observable phenomena are 'waves' of radiant motion or 'particles' of concentric motion wrapped around their centers. This is somewhat like the cyclical chicken-or-egg reasoning; and I am therefore a bit abashed to present the idea in full.)

Anyway, I just wanted to express my opinion - hoping that I might get some positive ideas from you.

In any case, many thanks to you.

Rafael

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 17:49 GMT
Dear Rafael,

I was hesitant to present all of the details of my ideas, because some are a bit maverick, and probably too detailed for this type of essay. I competed in the second FQXi essay contest, was in the top five after the public and community votes, but didn't finish in the top 18 - I attributed this to the fact that that essay was very mathematical.

In my "The...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 10:53 GMT
Thus far, from you posts, I see the following:

- the Super-Cosmic scale (Multiverse scale), with the [Vector] Gravitons, and this scale is associated with a Graviton space or field (continuous)

- the Cosmic scale (Universe scale), with the [Vector] Gravitinos, a Gravitino space (discrete)

- the Classical scale, with the Vector Bosons, a Vector Boson space...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Ray B Munroe wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 15:14 GMT
Dear Rafael,

You started out summarizing some of my prior posts. I would like to clarify a couple of points. You mentioned [vector] gravitons and [vector] gravitinos. Gravitons are spin-2 tensor bosons, and gravitinos are spin 3/2 fermions. If these quantum charges can be represented by "crystalline" lattices, then the "vectors" (reciprocal space) that connect one "gravitino-like" vertex to...

view entire post





re castel wrote on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 14:52 GMT
Ray,

I am taking our discussion to my own FQXi forum link. I think this will inspire me a bit more and make our discussion more interesting. I hope you will grant me the courtesy of following our discussion at my turf. HeHe!

Rafael

report post as inappropriate

Author Ray B Munroe replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 15:47 GMT
I posted this response here and on Rafael Castel's blog site (topic # 835):

Dear Rafael,

You asked:

"Considering the idea of the Multiverse - what do we have in the spaces between the myriad of universes of the multiverse? Do we have quantum Gravitons there?"

I think that the Multiverse is an infinite Cantor set - hollow but not empty - with self-similar scales. The...

view entire post





Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 00:38 GMT
Ray

Excellent read (between all those numbers!) and I found myself more convinced than I'd expected with your notions.

I've already raised this with Edwin, but have you considered the toroid form of tokamaks as a complete unit scalable both up and down, my current paper identifying them as not only the galactic black hole and quasar configuration, but also as a candidate for recycling the universe in the Big Blazar! How's that for a crazy notion.

The point of it is it has intrinsic spin, and dual axis / helical spin, producing... anyway I'm sure you understand them much better than me.

I feel a good score coming in your diretion. I particularly agree with the equivalent of your conclusion, most current physics is at least half wrong!

I'd be interested in any views on my own paper, if you can think without numbers!?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 01:19 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank You!

If you read my 2009 FQXi essay, you would know that I was holding back on those numbers!

The torus is important. The rank of a Lie Algebra is related to the minimum toroidal dimensionality of representation of that group. When I say that E8 is 8-dimensional, I mean that it can be reduced to an 8-D torus. E8 is also cool because it can be represented by the 8-D Gosset lattice.

In my (and Lawrence Crowell's) "The Nature of Dimensions" paper, we proposed that the Black Hole "singularity" may be similar to a Carbon-60 Buckyball lattice (only made out of "discrete spacetime" rather than Carbon). You can convolute two nested buckyballs into a torus - which once again confirms a potential toroidal application.

Besides, I briefly worked on the TEXT Tokamak at U. Texas (Austin), and like toroidal geometry.

I apologize that I haven't been more active in this review process. I was out of town on business last week, and haven't caught up yet. Your paper is on my "to read" list.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Ray B Munroe replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 14:42 GMT
Hi Peter,

A little more detail to my earlier response:

There is a smooth homotopy between a pair of nested buckyballs and a torus. Please see:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TruncatedIcosahedron.html

On
Jan. 22, 2011 @ 16:15 GMT , I wrote the following to Steve Dufourny:

"Does the core of a Black Hole approach a singularity (I reason that a phisical infinity cannot exist within a finite observable universe), or does a lattice structure prevent its full and complete collapse? IMHO, the strongest lattice with the most proper symmetries is the Carbon-60 Buckyball (once again, realize that I am talking about a lattice built up from the very fabric of Spacetime). It is true that a sphere has the perfect symmetry, but a sphere is not a lattice - there are no lattice bonds to prevent gravity from crushing and deflating a perfect sphere.

The Buckyball might explain the non-collapse of the Black Hole core, but succesive radial layers of lattices would build one Buckyball inside of another Buckyball (with flipped symmetries). After about a thousand vertices, these layered Buckyballs will begin to resemble another lattice - the very strong Diamond lattice."

Perhaps a static Black Hole does build layers of nested and flipped buckyball lattices into a distorted (distorted at the center) diamond lattice as I suggested earlier. But perhaps spinning Black Holes crush and rotate successive layered pairs of buckyballs into tori, and layers of tori. These layers of tori may behave like spin-2 Gravitons and/or WIMP-Gravitons and/or GEM-Gravitons (or would that be Gravi-Electro-Magnetons?)

Also, I discussed tori on the last page of this attached article:

Ray Munroe, "Symplectic tiling, hypercolour and hyperflavor E12", Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 41 (2009) 2135–2138.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

attachments: CHAOS6407.pdf




Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 21:40 GMT
Ray,

You've probably noted my comment to Lawrence and to others that they should check out Joy Christian's new work here.

It is highly mathematical, but then, so are you. I was surprised upon reflection to realize that I don't really know where you stand on issues of 'non-locality' and 'non-reality'. Anyway, I would love to hear what you have to say about Joy's work. [Some of my earlier remarks said 'she', but Joy is a man.]

I particularly hope that you manage to study this work before drawing any conclusions about my essay. My essay is based on a theory of local realism that goes against the grain of the 50 year old 'non-local', 'non-real' entanglement interpretations that have flowed from so-called 'violations' of Bell's inequality, which, if Christian is correct, were all based on Bell's faulty calculation of 2 instead of the correctly calculated 2*sqrt(2). This is major.

As a consequence of Bell's result, 'local realism' fell into disfavor. On another thread Florin remarked that something "has the smell of local realism", even though I pointed out many current quotes from Phys Rev Lett that clearly stated that these issues had not been proved beyond a doubt [for reasons that may no longer be relevant.] As a further consequence, any theory, such as mine, that *is* based on local realism starts off with three strikes against it. For this reason, I am overjoyed [pardon the pun] that Christian has shown Bell's calculations to be in error, thereby rescuing local realism from near death.

I have placed some further comments summarizing Christian's results on my page, and don't wish to clutter up your page with such.

I look forward to any comments you might have.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 22:27 GMT
Dear Ed,

Yes - I saw your conversations about Joy Christian's paper. I fell behind last week with my business trip to Orlando, and I've been playing catch-up. I have downloaded JC's 23 page paper and plan to read it.

Where do I stand with Hidden Variables?

Garrett Lisi's E8 TOE *might* imply hidden variables, because all particle properties are (supposed to be - Lisi goofed it a little) a result of their position within the 8-D Gosset lattice "charge space".

To correct Lisi's goof, Lawrence Crowell and I have proposed an SO(32)~E8xE8* TOE that could correctly imply hidden fermionic variables within the direct E8 lattice (that could be a "local" hyperspace), and hidden bosonic variables within the reciprocal E8* lattice (the reciprocal scale to a quantum or sub-quantum hyperspace may be a cosmic or super-cosmic multiverse).

However, this SO(32) model seems too small to include all of the Dimensions or Scales or Holography that I expect. And if Holography occurs at a super-Cosmic Scale, then Gravitation cannot be a local hidden variable unless infinitely fast tachyons redefine the concept of "local".

Do tachyons redefine our concept of locality? I'm pretty sure that my 5-fold "pentality" symmetries (similar to my essay's Appendix Figure) predict tachyons.

Does my answer sound too wishy-washy?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ron replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 08:26 GMT
I wonder how complex a hidden-variable theory which is deterministic and local must be to reproduce the "random" outcomes at each measurement-device?

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 21:50 GMT
Ron,

I assume you are discussing the 'entanglement' measurements. There is no 'randomness' when both particles are treated the same way. They are found to be the same (as would be expected) within the detector efficiency.

It is when the particles are treated differently from each other that variations show up. My theory has a local 'pilot wave' induced by the particle's momentum, and this field interacts with mass. It would seem that local interactions with the apparatus could induce enough variation to explain the measurement distributions, although beam splitters, polarizers, and half mirrors are a little too complex for me to say for sure.

Ray,

Your answer doesn't sound 'wishy-washy' but neither do I claim to understand it. After you've had a chance to study Christian's work, I'd like to hear your opinion. As I mentioned above, my theory assumes 'local realism' so I am biased in believing that Christian is correct in his analysis, although I can't prove it. It makes sense to me. Obviously he will have to fight a lot of vested interests, not to mention all of those who were educated after the entanglement "phenomena" became part of the curriculum.

Been havin' more fun since Christian, Joy showed up.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Author Ray B Munroe wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 14:43 GMT
Dear Ron,

Good point! We could probably build an arbitraily complex model to "reproduce the "random" outcomes at each measurement-device", but that might fail Occam's Razor unless that model also explains other poorly understood phenomena.

I am trying to build a TOE that might explain Fermionic generations, the CKM and PMNS matrices, the origin of mass, the differences between left and right handed helicities, Supersymmetry, the Holographic Principle, Quantum Gravity, the origin of Large Numbers such as Dirac's 10^41, etc. If that model also explains the Continuous vs. Discrete paradox and the EPR vs. Bell paradox, then those are added benefits. In order to appeal to a more general audience, I did not present all of my TOE ideas in this paper, but I invite everyone to research my references.

Please contact me if any references are difficult to find. A free preview of the first 60 pages of my book is available at:

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/new-approaches-towa
rds-a-grand-unified-theory/2903242?productTrackingContext=se
arch_results/search_shelf/center/1

(and click on preview). My FQXi papers are at:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/520

and my PSTJ papers are at:

http://www.prespacetime.com/

(and search for "Munroe").

I attached a difficult-to-find CS&F article on this blog site a couple of days ago on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 14:42 GMT.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray




Ray Munroe wrote on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 16:04 GMT
I posted this comment on Jason Mark Wolfe's blog site in response to Edwin Eugene Klingman's questions about my research:

Hi Ed,

You asked:

"By the way, as I understand it "Beginning with O(alpha^2) one finds in the guts of the radiative corrections contributions from all species of charged particles in the physical world." [Abraham Pais, "Inward Bound"], where alpha is the fine structure constant.

Have you given any thought to the implications of this with all of the new particles you propose?"

My response:

You might want to read my latest paper in PSTJ 1,9: "The Interrelationship of Spin and Scales". I've known about radiative corrections for decades, and had applications in my book. Radiative corrections might imply Variable Coupling Theory (in my book), or might imply errors in our model (PSTJ 1,9).

I fully expect these new particles to either 1) be tachyons (How do you observe something faster than the speed of light? Would that be confused with electronic feedback?) or 2) to be much more massive than our known particles (at one of these heirarchal scales that are stable against radiative corrections because of their dependance on the Weak force or the Gravitational force). R parity is expected to cause a stable Weak-scale heirarchy for SUSY particles.

But this is Jason's blog. We should probably discuss my ideas on my blog site.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 03:17 GMT
Ray,

I read "The Interrelationship of Spin and Scales" but had forgotten most of your fine structure constants treatment. You quote the 2008 value of the FSC. But I'm still unsure what you are saying. Are you saying that the current value is actually based upon all of your particles, because they exist and therefore must be represented in the FSC?

But I seem to remember that Kinoshita(?) has evaluated 12,000 Feynman diagrams in his latest calculation of alpha. Surely these are based only on the known particles. So how can such accuracy be claimed if the actual number of particles may be double or more the known particles?

Are you saying that tachyon's won't contribute? I suppose I can see that very heavy particles might have a minimal effect, but I still find it hard to believe that the value alpha=7.297 353 5376(50) x 10^-3 has that much room for twice as many particles.

Where am I going wrong?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 15:26 GMT
Hi Ed,

The answer to your questions probably depends on your model. If you follow Eddington's model, then you would probably expect 137 particles at most. El Naschie's models imply a limit to the number of observable low-energy particles (133 if I recall correctly). Perhaps the number of particles depends on the complexergy of the respective scale, and the quantum scale depends on alpha.

Quite frankly, I am still building my model. I omitted specific details about fundamental particles from this essay for two reasons - 1) it would have made the essay too complicated (as was my 2009 FQXi essay), and 2) I'm still working on these ideas.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 20:28 GMT
Thanks Ray,

Since I expect only 4 particles (neutrino, electron, up and down quarks) and 4 bosons (photon, Z, W+, and W-) then we should have a lot of fun seeing what shows up at LHC.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 03:40 GMT
Ray,

I never responded to an earlier comment about 'monopoles in a magnetic analog of ice'.

I quote several of the statements in this article:

.

"suggested that defects in the spin alignment of certain oxide magnets can create separated effective magnetic monopoles"

"the low-energy excitations in spin ices are reminiscent of Dirac's elementary magnetic monopoles"

"The monopoles in spin ice act like magnetic charges: They obey analogous electric field laws and exhibit an effective Coulomb's law for their interaction strength."

"Such quantum magnets could provide condensed matter physicists with systems that mimic the physics of quantum electrodynamics."

.

So, "suggested", "effective", "reminiscent of", "act like", "obey analogous", "mimic" seem to be key words.

Of course I recognize the great power of analogy in physics, especially for pointing out which approaches will likely be most promising. I even love analogy for it's own sake. For example, a missing negative ion in a lattice can be treated as a positive center about which an electron can be trapped and form an 'atom' whose energy levels can be computed and these 'atomic' energy levels shifted by interaction with lattice phonons [my Master's thesis].

Nevertheless, such analogy, as interesting as it may be, is *not* a magnetic monopole, or indicative that such exist.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 15:36 GMT
Hi Ed,

These ice monopoles are Solid State Physics quasiparicles - an analogy to Dirac's Magnetic Monopole as you correctly observe. Perhaps the magnetic monopole cannot exist in our scale, or perhaps these magnetic monopole degrees of freedom are absorbed into another phenomena.

I like the Coldea et al paper because it reinforces the possible importance of E8 and tetrahedral symmetries.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 18:30 GMT
Hi Ed,

I would like to add more to this comment thread...

In the Coldea paper, the ratio of the second lightest quasiparticle to the lightest approaches the Golden Ratio with stronger magnetic fields. They attribute this result to a (presumed) underlying E8 symmetry. My point is that the Golden Ratio occurs in all groups with a 5-fold "pentality" symmetry (see my Appendix Figure), and could thus occur in icosahedral (the buckyball is a truncated icosahedron), SU(11)~SO(16)~H4, E8, E8xE8*~SO(32), etc. symmetries. One of my complaints against Lisi's E8 is that he overlooked the natural 5-fold symmetry (240 roots = 8x(2x3x5)) within E8. I think that this 5-fold "pentality" symmetry introduces tachyons and the origin of Fermionic masses (the Higgs is related to W and Z Bosonic masses).

Also, the Coldea "quasi-magnetic-monopole" is modeled as a string of tetrahedra. This yields String Theory-like effects. And the tetrahedron is the underlying symmetry of a Face-Centered-Cubic close-packing lattice (Figure 1 of my essay).

We also discussed radiative corrections. In my "The Interrelationship of Spin and Scales" article, I also predicted V_ud (the Cabibbo angle component of the CKM matrix) within 1.4 sigma of the currently accepted experimental value WITHOUT APPLYING ANY RADIATIVE CORRECTIONS! It would be interesting to see if future experiments and radiative corrections bring their value closer to or farther from my value. Perhaps the proper model doesn't need radiative corrections (or perhaps those radiative corrections converge faster say ~Order(alpha^4) rather than ~Order(alpha^2) in the proper model).

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 20:43 GMT
Ray,

I have no objections to "quasi-magnetic-monopoles" or "quasi-anything" since I interpret these as meaning 'somehow analogous to...'. We live in an incredibly rich world, and multiple scales, as you rightly discern, probably account for much of this.

If you were proposing your symmetries as a means of predicting possible solid-state or Bose-Einstein condensate or other many-body complex systems, then I would probably buy the model lock, stock, and barrel. But because I already have a model for particle production that spans all know particles, and seems to apply to anomalies like the muonic-hydrogen proton QED anomaly, and since I see no way to produce other particles from my theory, I'm sticking with it.

As I said, the use of symmetries to produce 'quasi-anything' in complex systems is fine with me. But I don't view the fundamental particles as a complex system. It's actually pretty simple.

As for radiative corrections, I have by now scattered comments all over these threads to the effect that the 1998 realization that QED was off by 120 orders of magnitude has been greeted with all of the perspicacity of an ostrich, burying his head in the sand. So it does not surprise me that you don't need radiative corrections to get close to your goal.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,

I d like have your point of vue about my posts on APS linkedin,I found that yesterday in fact.You are going to understand,I think it's revolutionary also.

1In fact it's a discussion about E=mc²...

I love as all this equation. I think that this equation must be completed.We have indeed the mass,the E,c² this linearity,spherical. We need to insert the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 11:20 GMT
It seems that the photon has its energetic unity with these 3 essentials

max linear spead

max orbital speed

max spinal speed

The photon is analyzed with its pure number, finite linked with volumes of the fractal from the main cnetral sphere.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 22:48 GMT
Dear Steve,

Let me read and think about this more before I give a complete response. I agree that within our scale, and to the best of our current experimental data, the photon seems to have the maximum speed and the photon seems to have the maximum spin of a fundamental particle (although that spin is the same as gluons, W's and Z's).

Theoretically, the graviton should have a spin-2 (which would be maximal spin), but we haven't yet observed a graviton within our scale. Likewise, tachyons are mathematically possible within the framework of our theories. Tachyons should travel faster than the speed of light, but we also haven't yet observed them within our scale.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 14:53 GMT
Hi Ray, thanks it's cool.

It's intriguing and fascinating this maximum E in all things.

About particules which can go faster than light,I think it's in an other logic than with our light perception.In all case if a technology is invented, it's sure that it's the rotations of these spheres the secret.If we take a gauge of perception,and a specific system of rotations, thus...perhaps it's possible to accelerate these stabilities,but the problem is what we can't see them in logic.An extrapolation , topological thus becomes essential, and a center also, here the sphere and its center , cosmological and quantic.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 09:02 GMT
Dear Ray,

Good to see you in the contest. I have actually read your essay and I am congratulating myself for doing so. It is presented in a clear way, including helpful big diagrams and table, but my non mathematical background, in particular, is as ever a handicap. I wish to congratulate you for making, what is to me something very complex, a little more comprehensible than many of the "conversations" we have had on FQXi blogs, and that you have had with other mathematically competent contributors.

It does not seem foundational to me but I understand that you and others such as Lawrence Crowell do think that these kinds of ideas and mathematics really are promising avenues of investigation, potentially leading to more complete predictive models of the universe. I do not feel qualified to argue with that.

Sometimes it seems that this modeling is a puzzle like "Eternity 2". Some pieces fit easily together but it is never so easy to complete.A board full of linked pieces looks good but so does the empty board that is full with potential.I agree that reality is most probably both digital and analogue and that the wave- particle duality is an important consideration.

I hope you you receive lots of interesting and positive feedback. Good luck and Kind regards, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 14:53 GMT
Dear Georgina,

You said "I wish to congratulate you for making, what is to me something very complex, a little more comprehensible than many of the "conversations" we have had on FQXi blogs, and that you have had with other mathematically competent contributors."

Thank you for your comments. I apologize that I have been busy lately and have not read as many essays (including yours)...

view entire post


attachments: Coldea_Golden_Ratio_Mass.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Constantin Leshan wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Ray,

I agree with you that our Observable Universe seems to be finite both in spatial and temporal dimensions. My Hole Theory also is based on Finite Universe. The difference is only that you say: We are limited from seeing beyond the Observable Universe by the Relativistic speed-of-light Scale limit. And my theory says that "We are limited from seeing beyond the Observable Universe by the Edge of the Universe. Perhaps, both propositions have the same sense.

Best Regards

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Constantin,

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. I consider the speed-of-light to be our upper Scale-limit. As a result, our Observable Universe is finite because a finite age (13.7 billion years) times a finite speed limit (c) is a finite number.

Your quantum holes are probably lattice defects in the Dirac Sea (in the context of Solid State Physics, a "hole" is a quasi-particle lattice defect in a crystal), and therefore, a direct extension of my essay's lattice-based ideas.

Good luck in the essay contest!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Walter wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 12:20 GMT
Dear Ray,

Maybe this is just a bad luck. I chose some essays at random. You know, there is probably more than 100. The first one was quite easy to get (with some help from the Internet). The next impossible. Yours is the fourth and it is also too hard to understand and evaluate. Too much equations and professional jargon. For example:

“In covariant notation, the Dirac Equation [4] is:

-ih ¶my + y = 0” (I is not pasted correctly!)

I am not a professional physicist. I am only Scientific American reader. According to FXQi: the essays shall be accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature.

Anyway I wish you good luck!

Walter John

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 15:22 GMT
Dear Walter,

I understand that we have an interesting mixture of backgrounds here - some professional scientists, some "former scientists" (if such a thing actually exists - I can't get science out of my head even though I left the field as a full-time professional 12 years ago), and a lot of science enthusiasts.

This paper was less mathematical than my last FQXi essay, and less mathematical than most of my publications. I appealed to Dirac's Equation as a basis for my modeling, but spared the audience the full mathematical details. Many of the numbers were inserted to show the properties of powers of the Golden Ratio and Lucas numbers.

I have been blogging on FQXi for nearly three years, and we have built-up many friendships on this blog site. A couple of my FQXi friends, Thomas H. Ray @ topic #871 and Georgina Parry @ topic #860 wrote non-mathematical essays (Tom is well-versed in mathematics, but Georgina seems to have an aversion to mathematics). Some of my FQXi friends were at least as mathematical as I was (such as Jason Wolfe @ topic #828 and the Edwin Eugene Klingman essay that you have read). Lawrence Crowell's essay @ topic #810 (and similarly, vixra's Philip Gibbs @ topic #798) is very mathematical, very deep from a philosophical perspective, and very relevant to the primary essay question, but it is the kind of paper that needs to be read several times over (even by professionals) before it can be fully appreciated.

Good Luck in your reading!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 19:49 GMT
p.s. - If anyone has specific questions about my essay, please ask, and I will try to answer them. As a former teacher, I may have alternate analogies to these concepts.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Peter van Gaalen wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 12:04 GMT
Dear Ray,

I try to understand what you wrote, correct me if I am wrong. You say that there is more then one scale. At least four scales in an hierarchical order. Some scales are smaller then the quantum scale (Dirac Sea scale?) and other scales are bigger then the classical scale (Multiverse scale). SUSY unites classical and quantum scales.

Next to the Classical scale we have the Quantum Scale. I think that we can divide Quantum Scale into two different dual descriptions: First a Probability Wave description which has a continuous character. Second a Physical Objects description. This Physical Objects description has both a discrete and a continuous character: Particles have discrete character and spacetime (= relativity) has a continuous character.

Do you think that the difference between the Probability Wave description (= continuous) and the description of particles (= discrete) is only a mathematical problem?

Friendly regards

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 15:43 GMT
Hi Peter,

What we naively refer to as the "Quantum Scale" is actually two self-similar scales: a Quantum and a Sub-Quantum. The implication of "sub-quantum" (which I compare with the Dirac Sea, and I think is the origin of mass) is that some of these "fundamental particles" that we observe at the Quantum Scale may actually be composite particles. I know that Technicolour is out of fashion because it hasn't been supported by experimental data (yet), but my paper in Prespacetime Journal, volume 1, issue 9, implies that gluons may behave like Cooper pairs of something more fundamental.

I know that Edwin Eugene Klingman has serious problems with QCD and its 5% (at best - after radiative corrections) accuracy. Perhaps we are incorrectly treating a Cooper pair quasiparticle like a fundamental particle (gluons). This could have significant implications regarding the use of the Partition Function and radiative corrections.

Your General Metric implies at least 16 dimensions. I am proposing that these dimensions are scattered over different scales, but that these different scaled dimensions twist together (like twistors, and perhaps because of the properties of Lucas numbers?) into effective quasi-dimensions that have this oddball nature of wave-particle duality (and the corresponding continuous-discrete duality) because our "dimensions" are actually composite. This allows a fractal reality (self-similar scales implies fractal) to appear discrete (we observe 3 spatial plus one temporal dimensions - not fractions of dimensions)because of Lucas Numbers: 1.618-0.618=1.000 TIME!, 2.618+0.388=3.000 SPACE!, etc.

Any particular measurement can only obtain - at most - half of the dynamic variables present (say momentum OR position), so pairs of twisted reciprocally-scaled dimensions (sounds a lot like Cooper pairs, but these Lucas numbers can have identical, even or odd symmetries) can behave like single quasi-dimensions.

Your analysis of the Planck units opens more questions than it answers. Suppose that each Scale has its own Planck Constant?

You said "Particles have discrete character and spacetime (= relativity) has a continuous character." I agree, and I am saying that this is caused by interacting Scales and twisted quasi-dimensions.

You asked "Do you think that the difference between the Probability Wave description (= continuous) and the description of particles (= discrete) is only a mathematical problem?" I think it is due to wave-particle duality, which is due to these twistor-like reciprocally-scaled dimensions.

I hope I answered your questions thoroughly enough. I look forward to seeing if your ideas reinspire mine, and/or vice versa.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 17:28 GMT
what do you think about a quark gluon plasma with a partition function....

report post as inappropriate

Peter van Gaalen replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 10:09 GMT
Hi Ray,

Your application of Lucas Numbers is verry interesting. Also what you say about the different dimensions that it is possible to see them as different scaled dimensions.

In my model I treat dimensions like time and length in the same way as the dimensions of mass, momentum and energy. But I don't have any justification for that. Maybe only because I say that the speed of light and the gravitational constant are the same kind of constant. Both expressing relativistic properties. But there are some nagging things with this view.

For example. we can have different velocities below the limit of the speed of light, but are there also different gravicities below (or above) the gravitational constant? (gravicity is the variable quantity of which the gravitational constant is the limit.)

And the problem with the planck values: 'wooden' quantities like Mass, momentum and energy have upperlimits and 'marble' quantities like time, length and gm-flux have lower limits. Why? what is the meaning of this?

Mostly the planck constant is the product of a marble quantity together with a wooden quantity. (but in my model it is also possible to have purely marble or purely woorden 'planck constants', but that is only theoretical.)

Friendly regards

Peter

report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 16:40 GMT
Ray,

I just read Paul N Butler's essay at http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/849. This may be good reading for you, too.

Rafael

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 10:37 GMT
Dear Ray Munroe,

You have written an essay which is not only good but also focuses attention on unifying reality from many angles.However,I was disappointed in the end to know that,according to you,reality is dual and currently there is no way of reconciling digital with its counterpart analog.But,I have other thoughts as well according to which it is possible to reconcile both from a still fundamental concept.So,please,go thro' my essay and your openion is welcomed.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 15:28 GMT
Dear Sreenath B N,

Thank you for your comments.

You said "However,I was disappointed in the end to know that,according to you,reality is dual and currently there is no way of reconciling digital with its counterpart analog."

I did not intend to sound indecisive (in fact, I worried that my last sentence is so blunt that it may sound obnoxious). There were many essays that left the question open - as if we cannot currently determine the true nature of reality. I think that reality is clearly BOTH digital and analog. Ultimately, this goes back to Louis de Broglie's Wave-Particle Duality. "Analog" is simply a near-infinite (where "near-infinite" is ~10^41) number of "digital" samplings - the same idea as a CD disc and player but taken to a scale extreme - way beyond Blu-Ray's blue laser sampling vs. standard CD or DVD red laser sampling...).

I would like to believe that my ideas are "Universalist" ideas in that digital (discrete quantum particles and charges) and analog (continuously differentiable field functions) are complementary concepts that each have their proper scaled place in a TOE.

I have limited time in which to read these essays, but have enjoyed reading them, and even gotten some fresh ideas from these essays. Hopefully, I can get to your essay by next week.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 15:41 GMT
Previously, I said ""Analog" is simply a near-infinite (where "near-infinite" is ~10^41) number of "digital" samplings". This statement might imply that reality is fundamentally digital, and can always be "digitized", so I thought that I should clarify a point. When we have a very large number (~10^41?) of overlapping wave functions, we may have intereference and non-linear effects that cause this analog function to be inherantly different from the "digitized" version of the analog function. Thus reality is BOTH analog and digital, and cannot be reduced to one or the other.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 20:59 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Your paper is an interesting approach towards quantum gravity. Personally, I think that quantum gravity is more complex than your model, but this is a good start. I see some overlapping commonalities in our ideas.

You said "Now if the acceleration (or gravity) varies,let us say exponentially as in the case of EM field (bremsstrahlung) as well as in the QG field, test-masses of classical size still describe continuous path although in QG field they describe logarithmic (or equiangular) spiral path on a plane or conical spiral path in three dimensions as they are subjected to 'Torsion'."

I think that the Golden Ratio helps explain the problem of infinity by introducing self-similar scales. One special logarithmic spiral is the Golden Spiral based on the Golden ratio.

You also proposed Č/C ≈ 10-21, where Č is a lower speed for our scale. This sounds like my expectations for scales - where a finite observable Universe requires all numbers to be truncated at the high and low ends of the spectrum. And your 10^-21 is the inverse-square-root of Dirac's Large Number 10^41.

I think that the Black Hole (near) "singularity" is truncated by a discrete lattice of spacetime itself (call it quantum gravity?). The most likely geometry for the core of a static Black Hole is a Carbon-60 Buckyball. A rotating Black Hole would produce enough torsion that a pair of nested Buckyballs may morph into their homotopic cousin, a lattice-like near-torus. This lattice-like behavior would only exist in the region of quantum gravity, and must (somehow?) transition to the continuous expectations of General Relativity as we move radially outward from the (near) "singularity".

Good Luck in the Essay Contest!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 15:12 GMT
The "Fly-by" mysteries:

There exist half a dozen or more instances, first noted in 1931 and as recent as 2010, where neither Newton's gravity nor Einstein's general relativity account for the observed accelerations, from NASA satellites, to planets, to stars, to galaxies. These are collectively known as the 'Fly-by' mysteries, and are addressed in my essay.

Dear Ray,

I am...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 17:17 GMT
Ray,

Thank you for responding on my thread.

You say: "I attribute this coincidence to the geometry of 3 spatial dimensions, rather than the square of an amplitude."

I interpret this to mean "three degrees of freedom". For example Boltzmann's constant is multiplied by 3 for three degrees of freedom:

1/2 mv^2 = (3/2)kT

This is quite different from assuming that 3 spatial dimensions implies a cube root.

Is this what you're saying?

And Ray, the "drive by shooting" was tongue in cheek. I am not upset that you posted a remark where you considered it appropriate at the time, but I would like to have a 'heads up' so I can respond. I do think this 'Fly-by' physics is important validation as I derived the physics long before I had the measured values to compare to.

Of course either of our interpretations may be wrong.

Having fun!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 18:16 GMT
Hi Ed,

I think that three degrees of freedom gives us a factor of three, not the power of three that coincidentally distinguishes the inverse Cosmolgical Constant from Dirac's Large Number.

In my essay, I said that fine-tuning on the order of ~10^41 (or its inverse) is not mathematically probable or philosophically reasonable. I deduce that 10^41 must, therefore, be a number that is mandated by our scale.

What about 10^123 (and its inverse)? Is it the ultimate scale number for our scale, and 10^41 is its cube root? Or is 10^-123 "leakage" from a scale of greater complexergy than ours? [By the way, I did enjoy your reference to Nottale's scales.] If this number was different, say 10^-100, then I would be more willing to accept it as leakage from another scale.

If it has a bill, webbed feet, and quacks, then it might be a duck. The similarity between 10^-123 vs. (10^41)^-3 is too striking to ignore.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 20:14 GMT
Ray,

I must admit that I don't understand the relevance of what might be entirely accidental numerical relations.

For example, in attempting to calculate the strength of the C-field, I found it 10^31 stronger than Maxwell assumed (he did so for no good reason, just simple symmetry) and recently Tajmar has measured the C-field and found the same factor of 10^31 greater than expected.

Now these numbers are not "exact" but they are very close being the EXACT FOURTH ROOT of 10^123 , that is, (10^31)^4 = 10^124 [close enough for government work].

Is that too striking to ignore?

So it may or may not be legitimate to play the numbers game where there is not real physics to back it up, only theories of scale.

By the way, I owe the use of Nottale in my essay to you. Thanks.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 16:10 GMT
Dear Ray Munroe,

Thanks for your openion on my article.Since the path described in the QG field is logarithmic (or equiangular)spiral path as it is an exponentially varying accelerated (or gravity) field.So your openion that it is related to Golden ratio is justified.Iam also surprised to learn that the ratio of Č/C ˜ 10-21 is related to Dirac's Large Number 10^41.

In the limited space available in the essay contest,I couldn't,present my complete views on QG field and Black-Holes (BH).So for this,please,go to my web-site which I have mentioned in my essay (http://www.sreenath.webs.com).

Regarding BH,a BH can never be a static object for it is a pure state of vacuum surrounded by densest matter whose mass is related to the radius of BH.That is why matter cannot be crushed to singularity as to be expected from GR,because it is the force of QG which dominates inside the BH and GR just stops when matter attains its gravitational radius.The metric of GR breaksdown and gravitation is takenover by the brute force of QG.The force of QG is 'diabolically' active and never allows the BH to remain static but fluctuate periodically.There is still more to it but for now it is enough.

Since QG force is an exponentially varying accelerated (or gravity) field which implies torsion and when torsion vanishes the field becomes uniformly accelerated field (i.e.,gravitation as described by GR), away from the BH.

Wishing you too good luck in the essay contest .

cheers

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 19:09 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I like your torsion quantum gravity idea. It reminds me of Edwin Eugene Klingman's "C" GEM-like field taken to the extreme example of a Black Hole singularity.

A fullere-like near-torus (the homotopic cousin to a pair of nested buckyballs - I still need to cut up a couple of soccer balls so that I can envision this near-toroidal lattice) of spacetime lattice might behave as the gravitational equivalent of a superconductor and repeal Gravitational fields. After all, Carbon Buckyballs have electrical superconductor properties and can repel Electric fields.

In addition, stars usually have a rotational spin. As they collapse into Black Holes, conservation of Angular Momentum should cause the Black Hole to spin faster as its effective radius decreases.

Perhaps the combination of spin/ torsion, quantum gravity, and/or gravitational-superconductor effects prevent the Black Hole from fully collapsing into the singularity point.

Earlier, I was worrying about the transition from a quantum lattice of spacetime to a continuously differentiable spacetime. The answer could be as simple as qubits of strings (Philip Gibbs and Lawrence Crowell's essays are recommended reading) - where the near-singularity end of the string behaves like a quantum lattice point, and the strings extend outwards (a logarithmic spiral is an effective way to overcome these scale differences) through the Event Horizon, and into our relatively flat realm of spacetime.

I have enjoyed bouncing ideas off of other contestants. Perhaps we can collectively build ideas that may help solve old problems. As an individual, I run out of ideas in my own little world.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 23:21 GMT
Ray,

I have a new post at my thread. I'd appreciate your comments very much...

I'd like to know how you fit the idea of self-similarity at the level of the galaxies. I'd like to know what components you see at that scale and what you don't see and where they should be located 'physically'.

Rafael

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 15:19 GMT
Dear Rafael,

Laurent Nottale predicts at least one scale of greater complexergy than ours. My analysis of fundamental particle spins (including spin-3/2 gravitinos and spin-2 gravitons) leads me to think that there may be at least two sclaes of greater complexergy than ours.

Within our Observable Universe, there is some interesting structure, such as Superclusters. Are Superclusters part of our Classical Scale, or are they part of a larger scale that we can observe (just like the Quantum scale is a smaller scale that we can observe)? I haven't given this possible scale-level as much thought as it probably deserves, but my friend Len Malinowski has. Max Tegmark is working along similar lines.

At the top scale, we have the Multiverse. It is (near?) infinite in space and time, always has existed, always will exist, and each Observable Universe is a fragment of fractal dust within its composition. Perhaps this fits into Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation, but the "many-worlds" have always existed - we don't need new Big Bangs to provide those alternate worlds/ realities/ possibilities.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 22:57 GMT
Ray,

As you know my GEM theory has for five years predicted no Higgs and no SUSY (Super-Symmetry) and no other new particles.

Your response, if I understood it correctly, is "There has to be SUSY!"

You might want to check out this week's Nature (3 Mar 2011): over a year of searching at LHC has failed to find any evidence of super-particles (or the Higgs), and if SUSY is not found by the end of the year, the theory is in serious trouble (some already say that 'SUSY is dead'.)

Nature says "SUSY's utility and mathematical grace have instilled a "religious devotion" among its followers" some of whom have been working on the theory for thirty years.

The key statement in the article is this:

"This is a big political issue in our field. For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track."

That surely makes clear why the resistance is so strong. But I don't believe that you expect the Nobel, nor have you spent your life on this, so what is your response to no SUSY? Can you adjust your theory to live with this?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 01:59 GMT
Hi Ed,

Most people talk about SUSY within the framework of a Weak-Scale MSSM. My ideas are more general than that. In my opinion, the Standard and/or MSSM Higgs only explains the origin of the W and Z masses well - it really doesn't explain the origin of 3 generations of fermion masses well, but I have ideas that involve Pentachorons and the Golden Ratio - similar to Coldea et al's magnetic quasiparticles...

I think that SUSY, String Theory and TOE may all be related. I know that SUSY and String Theory aren't popular, and a TOE doesn't have to exist (but for the sake of "symmetry" and "beauty", I am pursuing the idea).

Can the LHC exclude my ideas? Perhaps, but not in its second year of operation. The LHC has already discovered some unusual stuff - and they have tentatively identified it as a gluon-quark plasma. But what if they have discovered a fractal nature to spacetime, or an unexpected stop squark pair production signal? If SUSY eists, it will have many free parameters - we can only guess some...

I think that your ideas are part of a TOE, but not the complete TOE. Four particles are not enough particles to produce the 5-fold symmetry that I think is the origin of mass (and only one of several symmetries). Lisi's E8 had 8 basis vectors (the 8-D Gosset lattice), and you could probably represent those basis vectors with 4 particles and 4 fields, but E8 is not large enough - by itself - for a TOE. Lawrence and I have been talking about an E8xE8*~SO(32) minimum TOE (and I am looking at larger models).

Am I committed to String Theory, SUSY and TOES? I have been playing with TOE ideas since 1979 (my original Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory), my 1996 Doctoral Thesis modeled the possible discovery of SUSY, and I have been playing with String Theoretical ideas for about 5 years.

If the LHC could exclude all of my ideas in the next couple of years, I would quit my independent research, and go back to teaching Astronomy at nights at the local Community College (I did that from 2000-2003 and I made ~10K$ extra income per year - unlike my rocket design, book, publications, and FQXi participation over the past three years that haven't netted any income). I'm not as old as you, but like you there would be no point in starting over...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 05:14 GMT
Ray,

Thanks for a serious answer to that question. As you remark, if LHC finds something that disproves my theory, I would just pack it in and enjoy my grandkids more.

I did predict the 'perfect fluid' that they're calling the 'quark gluon plasma' so I feel good about that, because QCD was predicting a 'quark gas'.

Since in my model mass/energy is basic, I don't need any symmetry to realize it. The need for such derives from QED and QCD wherein the fields are effectively 'charge-based' and mass is an 'add-on' or an 'after-thought'.

And the four fermions (times three generations) and four bosons are all there is!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 14:31 GMT
Hi Ed,

One final point:

I think that Supersymmetry (SUSY) gives us the mathematical umbrella to unify your 4 particles and 4 fields (that sounds similar to an E8~H4xH4*). I am concerned about balancing degrees-of-freedom, perhaps your 4 particles (times 3 generations) is balanced by 4 fields (times 3 spatial dimensions)?

I am still convinced that your idea does not contain enough degrees of freedom, but I think you may have part of the TOE, I respect you enough that I listed you as one of my essay's reviewers, and I am not here to discourage you...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 12:31 GMT
Ray

Really appreciate you reading my essay. Your hurdler was unfortunately an incorrect analogy. Don't worry, most struggle to grasp the 3D visualisation at first, but then it becomes simple, as you see from the posts with yours.

I posted a reply, but reproduce it with a thought experiment here;

"Thanks for your post, and having an initial go, but you're not quite there with your hurdler. That's not what I'm saying. Did you read the 'bus' analogy in Lawrence's string? (repeated by Edwin in mine above).

If one hurdler jumps on a passing bus he's IN a different inertial frame (via acceleration). He may well run along the bus at the same speed as the others, but unfortunately is DISQUALIFIED from being observed in the same terms as the others without a mathematical adjustment. i.e. The camera at the finish is perfectly allowed to see him at an APPARENT C plus V, but there is only one VALID inertial frame, that of the running track.

There may be dozens of hurdlers around, on bikes, in cars, planes on infinitely many vectors, but only those in the SAME INERTIAL FRAME of the observer comply with the rules that the maximum possible speed is 'c'.

This means light on the bus will do 'c' with respect to 'wrt' the bus. (Let's imaging a pulse going through a gas on the bus.). The gas molecules scatter light sequentially, at 'c'. It goes through the window (n=1.5) and air at c/n, and everyone else will recive it at 'c'. The fact that to all them it may APPEAR to be doing C plus V DOES NOT MATTER, because in reality it isn't!!

(This is precisely what Georgina is saying, also consistent with Edwins, Constantinos Regazas and many other good essays here, as the posts above).

Yes it IS different, Yes it IS reasonable huge, and yes it does meet and explain both the SR postulates, and identifies how Equivalence works.! The boundary (between the bus and the track) in space is the quantum mechanism of diffraction of plasma, ionised particles, which form all shocks and may well prove to be the core constituent of dark matter. (Eddington was wrong). GR then slots in neatly as the ions condensed with speed ARE mass, with inertia.

The emipirical evidence is unbelievably consistent once we look. I't the discrete field model,(DFM), and you heard it here first, can you see it too? Have fun exploring it!

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 15:10 GMT
Hi Peter,

No, Your thread is long enough that I had overlooked the bus analogy.

You said "The fact that to all them it may APPEAR to be doing C plus V DOES NOT MATTER, because in reality it isn't!!"

SR also gives this result. What's new? the interpretation of a discrete vs. continuous reality? If reality is fully discrete, then I want you to explain the "vacuum", the permitivity of free space, and the permeability of free space (all of these terms are important in defining the speed of light in a vacuum) in terms of discrete phenomena. I think that the discrete answer to this question should tie into my FCC lattice of the Dirac Sea, and Constantin Leshan's quantum spacetime holes. We are closer to the same bus route than you may realize...

I did not enter this contest to challenge SR and GR - I think that they stand fairly well in their realms of applicability. Certainly, we observe some apparently super-luminal jets. Is this an optical illusion due to gravitational lensing effects, or would the unknown Theory of Quantum Gravity explain it all?

Rather than overthrow SR and GR in their present form, I prefer to try to understand how Quantum Gravity should behave (based on anticipated symmetries), and use it to "modify" our understanding of SR and GR.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 15:46 GMT
Dear Friends,

I thought that this exchange with Alan Lowey was worth reposting on this thread:

Hi Ray,

I'd like to applaud you on such an excellent endeavour as your grandiose book. It's just the kind of thing I've wanted to do myself. I have a non-mathematical approach to begin with though, so I would be lost quite quickly if I tried to read it perhaps. I'm sure you can gain something from the Archimedes screw idea, it can explain the galaxy rotation curve mystery as well as dark energy. See the new thread below,

You have fun too Ray,

Best wishes, Alan

Hi Alan,

Thank You! I think that Physics is a necessarily bilingual thought process involving both language and mathematics. Some people fall too heavily on the language side, and some fall too heavily on the mathematics side. Ultimately, a succesful theory will usually involve mathematics applied to an idea.

Perhaps I am too mathematical (I have a PhD in Physics, but only a BS Minor in Mathematics - so I'm not the most extreme mathematician) to appeal to a general audience. Some of my FQXi friends "beat me up" over falsifiability. Chapter 6 of my book did address some falsifiable ideas (I explained Dark Energy with Variable Coupling Theory), but the truth is that I'm always trying to push further beyond the horizon.

It was easy and inexpensive to publish my book as a print-on-demand book on Lulu.com, and pay for Amazon distribution.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 18:03 GMT
Dear Ray

Thanks for putting your above post to me on my thread. Modify and improve understanding is indeed the result, but you're not quite on target yet. I post my response below.

"Ray. Hmmm, you need to slow down a bit (to below C?). I make it clear I'm not trying to overthrow anything!! And yes, the jets are also explained without needing optical illusions.

Firstly; Of course SR gives the same result ('c') this IS SR. But, - as we understand it it has paradoxes, unfalsifiable contraction & circular logic, is non compliant with QM, and can't have the fields of GR and now the CMBR! Lets' get real Ray, it's not perfect it's a mess, so all I say is; - Hey! if we think carefully there's a way SR may work without ANY of the messy bits, and unified with QM!

So.. are you saying; "Don't be silly, it's all fine as it is, the theory can't possibly be right so I'm not even going to bother checking it out."??

For those who HAVE made the effort and SEEN it Ray, someone who says that... ..well I'm sure you can imagine how they'd be perceived. I rate your perception higher than that, but do understand how unlikely you may feel this is.

Unless of course you're using the standard model of new physics!; - (ignore, criticise, deny, then claim it's self apparent). I that case It's way further on than I'd hoped!

Frankly I already wrote long ago it's able to be consistent with the Dirac Sea, as with lattices, as it ALLOWS (though not necessarily demands) a background frame, (not one giant bus but 'infinitely many') and provides a quantum matrix (ions & scattering) to implement change to em energy propagation (rate/f/lambda).

The superluminal jets are simply 'Incentric' streams, - small buses within bigger buses within bigger buses, on planets in solar systems in galaxies etc. Light changes speed at plasma shocks around matter to do 'c' in the local 'bus.' THAT'S what's new! and suddenly all else slots neatly into place at last. I really do hope you get this as it seems we could be heading for an astonishing ridiculous situation where it's only (some) physicists who can't understand how physics might really work!!! It needs bright physicists to help falsify it, fine tune it and work on the quite vast consequences.

there are some other papers to read in the string and in the references (stacks of empirical evidence) which may also help. With the 1st paper already in Peer Review this is no joke Ray, and I hope you can maybe give it a just a little respect.

And I really hope you give understanding it a decent shot."

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 18:45 GMT
Hi Peter,

Did I disrespect you? I read your essay, and felt that it underemphasized the importance of the vacuum, and the permitivity and permeability of free space. I did not say that I disagree with your results - in fact, we may not be as different as you think. By the way, I haven't rated your essay yet either - I like to think about ideas for a few days before I vote on them.

Of course, I learned the Standard Model in graduate school, but if you have read any of my FQXi essays, recently published articles, or book, then you would know that I consider the Standard Model an insufficient guess at reality. You are trying to clarify the understanding of SR and GR. I am not fine-tuning our understanding of SR and GR because I'm working towards a Theory of Quantum Gravity and a TOE. What good is a "TOE" that doesn't explain Quantum Gravity? Read some of the earlier posts on my thread that explain the possible stability of the gravitational near-singularity, and confirm your expectations of the importance of tori. I don't quite equate changing buses with quantum gravity.

Please read Sections 5.5 and 7.5 of my book.(You may need to click on the "Preview" button under the picture of the front cover for a free partial preview). It will give you an idea of just how "non-Standard" my ideas are.

My ideas also include tachyons that travel faster than the speed of light. If you recall, I am a "Cosmic Ray" whose newest vehicle has 150K miles on it, is 11 years old, and would probably blow up if I pushed it over 80 mph (130 kmph). So I'm not very familiar with traveling faster than c, my analogies are just different from everyone elses!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 04:17 GMT
Dear Ray Munroe,

Thanks for your views and I stress you to, please,go thro' my web-site that I have mentioned in my essay and there you find complete answer for your problems on QG.In it I have given the basic field equation of the QG field in tensor form.In it I have also said how Immirzi-parameter is related to QG field.

Your idea of collective collaboration is inspiring.

cheers

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I like your ideas, but the reality is that I might not have time to read your web-site before the end of this contest. There are many essays that I have not yet read (and many that I need to read again), and I have gotten some good ideas and insights from most of the essays that I have read.

I am a bit surprized that your blog has not attracted much attention. Perhaps I can make some comments and try to stir up some interest.

Good Luck & Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 11:36 GMT
Ray, Thanks. My money was always on you to get it first.

I agree, P&P and the condensate were among a dozen important aspects squeezed. But I do like falsifiability. See first line of my abstract (..'unknowable'). I also had to judge prejudice (if presented as an 'ether' theory) when it must first stand on pure, but initially complex, logic. The same's true of the LT which (you asked "what's new") is relegated to a local minor league, which I can see the fans objecting to!

I have a good plan for your car - aim it the right way on a spinning planet orbiting a sun flying through your galaxy, and you should get a few extra mph out of it! Same with your book, which I did indeed look at. Very nice, but of course you now need a new one. I could agree with some bits, but winced at others. I'm not a fan of canonball bosons. It's logical there's something (dark energy potential) with P&P at 2.7 degrees in the CMBR rest frame, but a condensate (yes, a 'scale') below 'matter'. We now need to stop denying it's there (allowed by the DFM) and zero in on all it's properties. We only know ANYTHING by it's properties - and we know stacks about the (dis)continuum, or 'C' field of Edwin. If you're on board with the new paradigm and are the first physicist to get the book out...!

And I haven't rated yours yet either. It does now seems to be creeping up in my estimation! I think you have the required ability to take a few steps back for new overview.

Speaking of that, did you find the hidden toroid black hole evidence in the essay? (photographic evidence). And, a few scales further up, see the scale model of a universe (possibly ours 12m years ago) in my short logical conclusions paper (fig 1). It also gives you the answer to the above, plus another black hole photo (or call it the light scattered off the 'dust cloud' around the event horizon if we prefer). http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

For QG I agree, the DFM only provides the mass and mechanism for curved space time and equivalence with Inertial mass. There is a local property change of the (sub matter) condensate caused by condensation. I don't see that as using 'boson' particles, but could be wrong, which is why it's currently peripheral. However, we should realise it's not just Relativity that needs a bit of action from Occams razer to tidy it up! I have however never been able to reconcile Tachyons with the logical picture either. Sure I can see relative superluminal phase velocity, superconductivity, tunneling, incentric jet motion etc, but would need to find a description more consistent with those to stop feeling they're incongruous to intuitive science. Do help me on that if you can.

Best wishes

Peter

PS. If anyone told me they'd derived life after death scientifically? Yes I'd have first assumed they were a nutter!

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 16:09 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for the comments on my blog site!

I also like falsifiability. Chapters 4 and 6 of my book tie into experimental data, and are falsifiable. The obvious problem is that most everything that I have done since is so speculative that it isn't yet obvious to me if it is or isn't falsifiable (although the lattices that I use are fundamental to Solid State Physics). I like...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 11:46 GMT
You make me crazzy really dear Maverick

Regards

ps Cantor has made a big error when he has inserted an explaination for the unknown via the physicality. The reals are determinsitics. Cantor was false Dr Cosmic Ray.

Steve.

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 13:01 GMT
Nice, Ray! You're getting ever better at lassoing highly rareified technical concepts and wrestling them into the range of ordinary discourse. Applause.

With you as with Lawrence, I don't find it practical at the moment to engage in an intense technical exchange (we tend to do that continuously on the blog forums anyway), but there are a couple of outstanding issues on which I want to extend my compliments:

One is a clear explanation of why supersymmetry plays such an important role in modern physical theory. One grows weary of having it compared to medieval scholasticism or recreational mathematics, neither of which is even close to the actual case. The other is your penultimate statement about the divide between string/membrane and kissing sphere/cdt models -- right on. As you're aware, unification of those models is the point of my own research.

Thanks for a great read, and good luck in the contest.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 14:23 GMT
Thanks, Tom!

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 20:04 GMT
Tom and/or Ray,

Tom speaks of "a clear explanation of why supersymmetry plays such an important role in modern physical theory."

Just why does supersymmetry play such an important role in modern physics? Since superpartners have not been observed at the same masses as the Standard Model particles, super symmetry cannot be an exact symmetry.

When I first tried to understand why SUSY was deemed so important, it seemed that it simply made it easier to cancel undesirable artifacts. And then I found Schwarz and Seiberg in the 1999 Review of Modern Physics state: "Boson-fermion cancellation is at the heart of the applications of supersymmetry."

But even this is threatened by the fact that LHC has found no evidence of SUSY. And the important thing is that, even if they do find it in the future, it will imply masses so large that SUSY "will no longer perfectly cancel out the troublesome quantum fluctuations that SUSY was meant to correct." [3 Mar 2011 Nature Vol 471]

At what point does one admit that SUSY was a 'patch' or 'fix' to a problem (or problems) and that the 'fix' isn't there? And that it is a sign of much deeper problems with current theory.

Thanks for playing,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 21:28 GMT
Hi Ed,

Within your own model, you have 4 fundamental particles (times 3 generations) and 4 fundamental fields (times 3 spatial dimensions?). How can you unify these distinctly different kinds of phenomena (particles behave discretely, fields are continuously differentiable) within the same framework?

I have suggested that particles and fields may be reciprocally-related lattices and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 19:50 GMT
Ray

That looks absolutely spot on to me, I think it's a done deal. Some may accuse you of foolishly missing Buriden's ass, but as two fall out of the equation anyway you end up with SUSY.

The only issue is it's now precisely equivalent to the theory in Tommy Gilbertson's essay! How fast are your publishers?

Having fun

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 20:19 GMT
Hi Peter,

I guess I need to read Tommy Gilbertson's essay so that I can figure out how to improve on it!

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 07:27 GMT
Ray,

Interesting presentation.

Does the "unnaturalness of infinity" apply to the many recycling universe theories? Do you consider such a concept infinity? My idea of an analogue universe suggests such a universe.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 22:43 GMT
Dear Jim,

You and I seem to agree on many controversial points.

I agree with a Multiverse that is so large (possibly infinite?) that we can't observe it all because of our speed of light scale limit, and a finite age for our Observable Universe "locality".

I agree with Supersymmetry - Fermions and Bosons are fundamentally different enough that we need SUSY to combine these concepts into a single TOE (if such exists!).

I like to play with models. If one seems to work, then I keep building on it. If one obviously fails, then I put it aside (for another application later?).

You mentioned that String theory is analog, and this certainly agrees with classical wave theory (a traveling wave on a string), but I think that these strings may also have discrete modes of vibration (like the frequencies of a piano string) that may behave quantum-like (I think that Philip Gibbs and Lawrence Crowell have been having such a discussion on Lawrence's blog site). This ties into a wierd quantum-classical behavior of strings and Philip Gibbs Qubits of Strings. In my models, the end of the string may behave like a site in a discrete lattice.

The BB and BH's seem to be two different sides (bringing forth new life vs. melting down death and decay) of the same coin (singularity). I don't think that a singularity can exist in a finite Universe, therefore the BB must be part of the Multiverse, and BH's must not be "infinite vacuum cleaners". In my blog thread, I have proposed ideas and geometries that may prevent the BH from becoming a true singularity.

You suggested that large BH's may swallow smaller BH's until - ultimately - our observable Universe consists of a single Super BH. I don't know... It is true that gravitational fields effectively stretch out towards an infinite range (falling off as inverse-distance-squared), but it would be difficult (if not impossible once spacetime has collapsed to a point?) for a large BH to move a smaller BH.

Your essay was very readable.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 04:35 GMT
Ray,

Thanks for taking the time to read mine.

Jim

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 15:28 GMT
Hi Ray,

I arrived at reading your super essay, I just take one essay a day and wish that I had read it before, you on your side are a professional scientist with a great mathimatical background , when I see a lot of formula's it makes me like an alergic, that is why my essay is pure text (it is the first time that I took part in a contest, next time there will be more order))

The ideas that I wrote down I carry them with me already a long time and it was already an honour to be published, like you mention above, FQXi is en environment where you can meet friends and talk about the essence.

Now for your essay :

ou intoduce 5 scales of which the top scale is the MULTIVERSE and the lowest the SUB QUANTUM SCALE, my idea is that these two become the same at the limits of our universe (for me at one end the Planck Scale and at the other end C) I place these sub quantum scale units in what you name the Multiverse, in my opinion this Multiverse is not an addition of universes but a infinite (Cantor set ?) of space/time possibillities , I am still searching for a good expression, and here Ray I think I miss mathematics, but as I am retreated I will start to pick it up.

We both agree that gravitation is en "effect" of this for me fifth dimension 5your multiverse)

I hope that you can still find a spare moment to read my essay (topic 913) and perhaps give some for me useful additions and perhaps have some fun with it.

The best of luck possible in our classic scale

Wilhelmus.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 17:28 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Thank You for your comments!

I imagine that the Multiverse is an infinite (or at least near infinite) Cantor set (or Mandelbrot set or something related to self-similar fractal scales). It would be very interesting if the top scale (Multiverse) and the bottom scale (sub-quantum or Dirac Sea) are related. In my assumptions, the Multiverse is responsible for gravity, and the Dirac Sea is responsible for the origin of mass. Which came first - the chicken or the egg? the gravity or the mass? the Multiverse or the Dirac Sea? They are intimately realted... As such, we are hybrid creatures who have simultaneously risen from the base scale(s), and fallen from the superior scale(s).

I apologise. All of my papers have a certain amount of math. I held back (a little bit) on the amount of math in this paper, but felt that a certain amount of equations and numbers were necessary to explain my theoretical inspiration and mathematical ideas. I also enjoy the papers based on language and logic, such as Julian Barbour's and Tom Ray's, that don't include as much math.

I will try to get to your paper (and the prior request by Jim Hoover) as soon as possible. Some of these essays deserve a couple of read-throughs and contemplation, so I understand your one essay a day limit, but the deadline is quickly approaching!

Good Luck & Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 23:13 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I liked your comparison of the quintessence to hyperspace. I have been talking about 5-fold (pentality) symmetries for a couple of years. I think it is the origin of mass, and you correctly emphasize that we only know about the 5% baryonic matter - not dark mass, dark energy, etc.

Our ideas have more similarities than differences, perhaps because the Sun was travelling through the same patterns of stars for our births (your birthday is July 26, mine is July 25, although I'm younger...).

I agree that the Black Hole "singularity" is not a singularity. Your point was that an extra dimension of size 10^-31 cm is sufficient to prevent a true infinity. I like your ideas on Consciousness, although this borders on Philosophy (that's OK - I like Philosophy).

I disagree on the Big Bang and Inflation. I think that the Big Bang was a singularity that must exist in the seemingly infinite Multiverse. In this sense, the Multiverse may seem to have always existed, but a broken TOE symmetry could have produced the phase transition necessary for an event such as Inflation to produce many self-similar scales. Our Universe is a small fractal fragment of dust within an infinite Cantor set.

You made a small error - I think on page 7. You quoted the temperature of the Cosmic Background Radiation with a comma rather a decimal point - To me that implies a number a thousand times larger.

Good Luck in the essay contest & Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 12:56 GMT
Hi Ray,

Thanks for reading my essay and your kind answers.

You write :

"Our Universe is a small fractal fragment of dust within an infinite Cantor set"

This is pure poetry ray, you can make a song of it, it indicates very much our position of human beings, its is evidently of the same charge as my vision, only you accept the singularity, that I need not because of my infinity which is not part of our 4-d causal deterministic universe, but as a symbol the singularity is useable, the further we go away from a world, the smaller it becomes from our local point of view, till it disappears and then we look for technical attributs to refind it , can we do so in infinity ?

sorry for the comma that had to be decimal point, in the long row of digital units it will cause a blurr in our Universe, in the quintessence it just another "singularity" , but be attentive any point in the quintessence can become tthe cause of a whole new universe, this one with a cosmic background radiation that is number thousand greater.

We are having fun lets continue all together isn't it ?

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 05:04 GMT
Dear Ray,

In a footnote in your essay you say

"If we were able to fully explore the Dirac Sea scale, then we would better understand the origin of mass."

My essay (topic 838) offers some ideas as to the origin of mass (plus some new problems).

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate


Ray ASCHHEIM wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 17:57 GMT
Dear Ray,

I really appreciate your approach of viewing universe as a crystal. As you know I have the same approach with my hyperdiamond model, except that my crystal lattice has the nature of a trivalent graph, not leaving in any space background of any dimension. Topologically encoded bits define both hyperdiamond geometry, bosonic/fermionic content and the tetrad gravitational field. All spacetime coordinates are on a D4 lattice, sublattice of 4D integer lattice where all coordinates have same parity. At first view there is no golden ratio here. But if we go to semiregular polytopes derived from the 24-cell, we get the snub 24-cell (or 144-cell) and Golden ratio appears in the coordinates !

So our theories may have some common truth behind both of them...

All the best

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 22:02 GMT
Hi Ray,

I remenber first meeting you through the "Lisi E8 TOE" Facebook page (Garrett defriended me after we disagreed over certain points for a couple of years - its too bad we never got a chance to seriously talk through the details), and I know that we both have an interest in seeing something like Lisi's model reach full maturity.

The D4 and 24-cell sound a lot like some of Lawrence Crowell's latest ideas. Lawrence and I have been trying to develop an E8xE8* ~ SO(32) where one E8 is strictly real, the other E8* is strictly imaginary, the SO(32) contains the complex representation that we need to mathematically describe CP symmetry violation AND the fact that any observer can measure - at most - only half of the dynamic varibles present in a given experiment.

In my opinion, the five-fold "pentality" symmetry is necessary to convert this D4/ SU(5) 24-plet into an H4/ ~SU(11) 120-plet or an E8 240-plet. If you read my FQXi essay from last year, you will see that my pentality includes left-handed up quark, right-handed up quark, left-handed electron, right-handed electron, and scalar (tachyonic) up-electron. Similar "pentalities" exist between down quarks and electron neutrinos, and other generations. This five-fold symmetry is the origin of the Golden Ratio, our need for scales, and the origin of mass (along the lines of Coldea et al's magnetic quasiparticle mass ratios). It may originate as the Petrie diagram for a 4-D Pentachoron.

I like your ideas - they are a unique way of interpreting Lisi's particle groupings. I had a different way of obtaining these particle groupings using Buckyball symmetries in my Prespacetime Journal article with Lawrence Crowell - "The Nature of Dimensions".

Good Luck in the Essay Contest & Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 10:55 GMT
Ray

To talk your language for just a sec (ever conscientious objectors can be medics!)you may be interested in my post to Phil below. I've also noticed I haven't rated yours yet. I can see 'where you are', but think you have far more vision and potential than many. Have you scored mine yet? I understand why I never really did get your frank view as I struggled with yours as well. But I really do think the concept needs airing in SA. So try mine in these terms;

To Phil; "Thanks for your note. Glad you read mine. I didn't want to mix the conceptual with this at this stage, but, considering yours, is it possible you could look at mine in terms of a Q-net (as a fibre optic) and quantum registers QUBITS 'lumped' together - "wanderland", or right down to individiual bits ('balls S^3')

I believe SR and LT link to this picture via QC=SR, "2+2=1+3" (Hermitean picture or Klein correspondence).

If you're impressed with that don't credit me, you should read Lucian Ionescue's essay, that's been a bit overlooked and should be way up the list. I only saw it yesterday!

Let me know if that computes. You should spot that it is actually paradigm shifting! Great to see you on a late charge.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 14:49 GMT
Hi Peter,

I commented more on your essay at your blog site. I think that your idea is a wandering of photons within S^3 that are statistically guided by the Principle of Least Action. My ideas incorporate qubits of strings perfectly well.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 16:46 GMT
Ray,

I posted a followup to your post in my forum that you might find interestiing.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 17:19 GMT
Thanks, Tom!

I posted a response in your forum.

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 19:44 GMT
Ray,

Good news on the C-field front!

The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to light passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.

The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.

From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsible for observable effects.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 20:36 GMT
Hi Ed,

I'm glad that these ideas may reinforce your GEM-like concepts. Please don't misunderstand me - I think that "Gene-man" theory may explain a triality of generations and - when properly scaled (via S-Duality?) - may also explain a triality of color, but I think there is more to a TOE than the E, B, G and C fields and four particles. "Gene-man" theory may still be a good place to start...

I finally put together a paper model of my lattice-like torus with Buckyball symmetries, and this could possibly explain spinning Black Hole phenomena. Regarding the "fly-by" mysteries, Rafael Castel had a simple suggestion that only involves General Relativity.

Short of an unexpected ambush, it looks like our essays should make the top 35.

Good Luck & Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 21:47 GMT
Ray,

I've enjoyed all of our exchanges, and, as I've said, you are a true gentleman and a good man. You may have missed a statement in one of my last comments to the effect that I retract my rejection of multiple scales, as I have identified another aspect of my theory that is probably best conceptualized in terms of scale. I look forward in the future to discussing this with you.

Congratulations on your placement. Now we'll see what the judges make of us.

Your friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 23:03 GMT
Hi Ed,

You said "You may have missed a statement in one of my last comments to the effect that I retract my rejection of multiple scales, as I have identified another aspect of my theory that is probably best conceptualized in terms of scales".

I agree, which is why I said "I think that "Gene-man" theory may explain a triality of generations and - when properly scaled (via S-Duality?) - may also explain a triality of color"

I'm glad to see that you received a lot more exposure in this contest than you did in the last one.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 02:04 GMT
Congratulations Ray!

I am pleased that your 'resolution of the continuous/discrete dilemma through scales' made it into 'manifestation' for the panel to 'measure'. Funny! How even in 'real life' (compared to the life of a theoretical physicist) we have “continuous accumulation of energy before discrete (say about 35!) manifestation”. We are closer than we think! And that's why the conversation must continue!

Ready for the next round? I do mean for you to measure the true meaning of what I mean. Let's start with Planck's Law is a mathematical identity! Your favorite misunderstanding!

Wish you well with the judgment!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 16:12 GMT
Hi Constantinos,

I think I understand your ideas better than most. IMHO, there is a question about the "fundamentality" of Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law.

In his essay, Sreenath declared that effect is more fundamental than cause (suggesting that a bottom-up reality is most real) because we measure data (effect) and deduce theory (cause). If this is your perspective, then Planck (and you) are 100% correct - end of story.

BUT, I am also a fan of top-down reality - that IF our theories are correctly modeled and interpreted that we will be able to predict all experimental data. We don't have a single theory (a TOE) that can accomplish all of this, so the theories are currently "fragmented" in the sense that Quantum and Relativity seem so fundamentally different that we can never unite them, Bosons and Fermions seem so fundamentally different that we can never unite them, etc.

Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law CAN NEVER explain fermions. However, if we reframe the "fundamentals" of our theories such that the Partition Functions for Bose, Fermi, and Maxwell spin statistics are considered "fundamental", then these Partition Functions naturally lead to these 3 major spin statistics, and build a framework capable of describing bosons (and Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law to any desired accuracy), fermions, or identical particles. By the way, your Properties of Exponential Functions assumes the Bose Partition Function.

I hope that you see my point - I really can't explain it any better without sitting together with you over some beers.

Congratulations on making the top 35 and Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 13:32 GMT
Masterfully done, Mr. Munroe. A quantum orthodox for some tastes, nevertheless...

The 'witchdoctor'.

lmao

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 16:15 GMT
Dear Tommy,

Thank You! I think we have similar ideas on Consciousness - perhaps we should bounce them around some.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 17:50 GMT
Dear Ray,

Congrats for entering in to the last 35 and in sight of an honourable prize.Your essay really deserved that because I saw thro' your essay your indepth knowledge and wisdom.

sincerely

Sreenath.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 18:19 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank You! I tried to stir up interest in your essay - I know that you did not make the latest cut, but hopefully you established some good friendships and contacts in this contest.

Sincerely, Ray

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 03:12 GMT
Congratulations Ray,

Good to see you got into the finals again. Happy to be in the same shoes myself. But seeing how we were both near the top of the list of finalists last year, and failed to be awarded prizes, I can see being near the bottom of the cut this time making it more likely the judges will elevate our relative standing.

Good Luck!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 14:30 GMT
Thank You, Jonathan!

And Congratulations to you as well.

When we finished #3 and #5 in the last contest, I was certain that we would have both been in the final 18 (but we weren't). Now my perspective is that we each have about a 50% chance - 18 or 20 winners out of 35 or 37 finalists.

It's been a fun run!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT
Dear Ray,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 16:47 GMT
Hi Alan,

I think this question ultimately reverts back to the question "Is Nature fundamentally Discrete or Continuous?"

I said that Reality is an effectively an intertwined "twistor-like" hybrid of both. This permits wave-particle duality, and permits us to observe "continuous realities" such as fields that are modeled as if they are continuous "ad infinitum" (as Cristi Stoica claimed), as well as "discrete realities" such as electric charges that are modeled as if they are non-divisible quanta. I liked Cristi's presentation, but I asked him to define "continuous ad infinitum" if infinity cannot exist in a finite Observable Universe (13.7 billion light years is a very large size, but it isn't infinite). The reality is that these "continuous fields" probably break down somewhere around the 10^-31 cm scale, and this is where the spacetime lattice model is required for a proper understanding of the Black Hole "singularity" (it may also be related to the Dirac Sea and Constantin Leshan's Quantum Vacuum Hole).

Ed and I traded books, and have been discussing each other's ideas since the last essay contest. I like his GEM-like ideas and agree that this could represent part of the continuous nature of reality. As a particle physicist myself, I think he is "off-base" with regard to his claim of 4 fundamental particles, but I'm also tired of arguing a point that I consider obvious. I think that Ed's model has a single triality, and therefore requires scales and S-duality to explain the two required trialities in his model: Color (he doesn't have a QCD field), and Generations (similar to Garrett Lisi's triality of generations).

I like your helical screw idea. Perhaps there is a mixing of transverse and longitudinal waves (that implies an effective mass) that includes the properties of scales. Recall that electromagnetism is ~10^40 times stronger than gravity - and this requires a scale. Ed Klingman's 10^60 also requires a scale, and I think that he has improperly modeled 10^120~(10^60)^2 rather than 10^120~(10^40)^3. Effectively, this requires your screw threads to be logarithmic - finer threads for weaker forces such as gravity and courser threads for stronger forces such as electromagnetism. In this sense, the threads for gravity may be so fine (outside of a Black Hole) that they seem to be stripped out.

I think that the unification of forces requires scales - which is why I dedicated this essay to scales and how they explain the continuous and discrete natures of relaity.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 20:55 GMT
Hi Alan,

Thanks for the Congratulations.

I see that you left this message in several forums. My previous answer involved scales moreso than screws, but I thought that I should explore more details about your Archimedes screw.

I think that there are details that have been largely overlooked here. First, there is the "pitch" of a screw thread. In the US, most of our screws are pitched such that we turn "right to tighten, or left to loosen", but screws with the opposite pitch can also be manufactured. About 20 years ago, many propane gas cylinder tanks had opposite threads - I guess that the assumption was that you would try to "turn left to loosen", but always tighten instead - until you read all of the safety directions and realized that you didn't know what you were doing. They have since changed propane gas cyclinder threads back to the standard pitch - I guess that you don't want people to accidently loosen a tank while they thought they were tightening it.

Conclusion - By changing the pitch of an Archimedes' screw, you can make it attractive or repulsive.

Another detail is the rotation of the screw. It should be obvious that if we change the rotation of a screw - say from Clockwise to Counter-clockwise, then the direction of the force induced by the Archimedes' screw changes.

Conclusion - By changing the rotation of an Archimedes' screw, you can make it attractive or repulsive.

I think that all of these ideas may tie into CPT symmetry. Perhaps handedness (parity) and antimatter (charge) (4 different permutations) are related to these concepts of pitch and rotation (also 4 different permutations).

Personally, I have no problem modeling a Field line or a String with an Archimedes' screw (with variable thread spacing), but realize that the resultant force could be attractive or repulsive - as is electrostatics.

Now we need to explain why gravity is strictly attractive. Is there more to gravity (say within a Black Hole or in a scale of greater complexergy) such as Quantum Gravity, Holographic Gravity, my WIMP-Gravity (see my book), or Edwin Klingman's GEM Gravity? And we only observe the attractive side? Or is this tied into CPT symmetry such that attractive gravity moves forward in time, and repulsive gravity moves backwards in time (which would look attractive and forward)? I don't know...

I think there is enough that we truly don't understand about the origins of mass and gravity that we shouldn't get too overconfident in our models.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 14:19 GMT
Dear Alan,

One more thought that may be significant:

Earlier, I mentioned that the Archimedes' screw needs an effective mass and longitudinal degrees-of-freedom similar to a Z boson in order to physically represent the concept of screw threads.

Photons are expected to have zero rest mass so that they can have a pure inverse-distance-squared dependance - so where is the effective mass? This may require mass-energy correspondance such that photons have an effective mass given by E = mc^2 = hf.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 11:03 GMT
Dear Dr. Ray,

Thanks for your kind cooperation.Now,if you have time,I would be glad if you visit my web-site 'http://www.sreenath.webs.com' and read it throughly with all your patience.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Sreenath.

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 14:12 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for the invitation and reminder. My wife and daughter are going to the beach for spring break (but I'm in town working!} so I should have some time over the next couple of days.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 22:56 GMT
Hello Ray,

Pleased to continue our discussion re: Planck's Law. Hope we can at least come to some clear understanding of our differences, even if we do not reach agreement. To that end, I will try to keep to single simple points and ask for your confirmation/denial as you understand this.

The basic difference between our position is that your think of Planck's Law as some Law of Physics (dependent on how nature behaves) while in my essay I show that Planck's Law is really a mathematical identity (much like the Pythagorean Theorem).

My side of this argument:

Planck's Law is a mathematical identity between the value of the quantity E0, the change ΔE of that quantity over the interval [0,t] and the average value Eav of that quantity over the same interval [0,t]. If we were to apply this mathematical identity to blackbody radiation where E0 is the 'intensity of energy' and ΔE = hν is the 'energy manifested' ('absorbed' by the 'sensor') at Eav = kT, we will get Planck's Law as is known in Physics.

I provide several different ways of getting to this result. Including using a simple mathematical identity, an 'exponential of energy' (which I can now derive independently – see my post “What is the Matter with de Broglie Waves?” ) and well accepted results in Physics that Eav = kT and h is the minimal 'accumulation of energy' that can be manifested (these I can also argue for independently – in fact I show that Planck's constant h is the 'accumulation of energy' that is associated with Kelvin temperature! That explains its 'existence'!)

I'll stop here and let you respond to JUST this point. More to follow …

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 00:28 GMT
Hi Constantinos,

My concern is that Planck's Law cannot explain Fermions, and therefore, you have made an assumption at some point in the game (I think it is your Properties of Exponentials) that was not general enough to be considered "Universal".

My wife and daughter are at the beach for spring break, and I'm at work (and home alone - except for 3 dogs and 3 birds). As such, I was catching up on cutting up some soccer balls (I already cut up two - I might need to add four more...). It takes time to sort through mathematics looking for a flawed assumption, so it may take a few days to give you a proper answer.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 01:51 GMT
Ray,

Cutting up soccer balls is easy! What you will not be able to cut up are my mathematical derivations! Not because they are mine! But because they are just too simple!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 07:19 GMT
Hi Constantinos,

Lucky for you! I'm awake at 3am! I read this latest version of De Broglie waves, and saw a couple of potential problems:

Page 1 - I am concerned about your definition of Temperature - eta/tau makes a strange average - you might rather need the integral average over tau of d(eta).

Page 3 - The Exponential of Energy E(t) = E_0 e^nu*t

I don't think that this is the most general possible solution. This solution accidentally assumes the Bose Partition function - which is perfect for photons, but doesn't apply to fermions. If the exponential had an imaginary phase, then we know that we would need a more general solution, such as E(t) = E_0 cos(nu*t) + F_0 sin(nu*t). I think that you also need an exponential decaying function, something of the form:

E(t) = E_0 e^nu*t + F_0 e^(-nu*t)

I'm not overthrowing everything in your paper. There are some interesting ideas here. I'm not sure that someone else hasn't come up with something similar before. As I said previously, your Exponential of Energy treatment bears significant similarities with Bose's assumptions from the 1920's.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 12:39 GMT
Ray

Thanks for the posts. To make life easy, - edited response repeated here;

Before you go too far, I've done it on the drawing board and it's very interesting, but rather more Krispy Kreme 3-spheres that geodesic Architecture. I'd recommend that before you destroy the local stock of soccer balls you look closely into Hopf fibration. And are you familiar with Clifford Tori?

The Wiki Hopf page seems to be a good intro and has a nice dynamic slice clip showing the geometrical relationship, or Google it for some good piccies.

Lucian Ionescu has just reported back from a conference that Hopf seems to be becoming the next paradigm of guage theory! so it may be good to 'catch' that wave. (though I have to tell you, you'll end up with DFM local reality!).

You ask where do the 32 dimensions live? I may have mentioned I did the 'up & down' thing back at uni, though many universes, I recently got to 33 and realised (via logic and empiricism) that it was actually the 4th where they live Ray. Time. It's all about that other recent paradigm - recycling. If you really want to have fun and explore some logical conclusions check this out;

http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 ..and let me know where you think they are!

Best regards, Peter

PS. Did you know, with respect to ways of thinking, as well as Buckminster Fuller and Christopher Wren (Royal Society founder), Boscovitch was also an Architect. The left / right brain thing is about massively more than just language and maths!

PPS. My guess is that according to the Law of Averages you should end up in the top 8 this year. (But of course laws are made to be broken!).

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 13:05 GMT
Hi Ray, (i've copied this over from my own thread)

Apologies for not responding sooner but I'm currently doing physical work from 9.30am to 4.30pm, which has been a bit of a shock to the system(!). Incidentally, I only have access to the internet from my local library, during the day, Tue to Sat morning. I'm cutting rhododendron trees back which carry the sudden oak death disease. It's a four week mandatory voluntary scheme which I'm currently enjoying.

I read your post with increased enthusiasm. We are starting to get to a common ground on many issues. A couple of points that need mentioning is the flux density of gravitons which can be an alternative to your "thread pitch" visualisation. The number of gravitons which interact per time scale will also influence the overall gravity force in a field. It's wrong to think that gravity is a weak force and always attractive though imo. It's only the resultant field from protons and neutrons in matter configurations which have a weak field. The gravitons could be emitted in a combination of repulsive configuration and attraction configuration for example, it's just that more attractive gravitons are emitted overall into the surrounding field. This ties in with magnetism and the electric field which have forces of repulsion as well as attraction. Both can be modelled via gravitons imo.

I hope this enough to be getting on with. Thanks for the correspondence.

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 09:59 GMT
Ray,

I've been thinking some more. I thought of a three braided helix 'rope' as the configuration of the proton and neutron toroids. The central thread at the start of the creation of the structure could have a repulsive nature and emit anti-gravitons. The other two would be the familiar Archimedes screw gravitons in attractive configuration. It's a novel thought that needs expanding on I think. Anyhow, bye for now,

Alan

attachments: Three_Braided_Helices.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
Hi Alan,

The 3-braided rope sounds a lot like the 3 colors of QCD, but we have color-confinement, so the gluon rope does not extend past the proton's radius.

"Z" and "S" twisted ropes may spiral like a screw, and may represent the left- and right-handedness of Fermions (back to CPT symmetry). A rope is usually more flexible than a screw, and that is how I envision strings.

The mathematics of mixing longitudinal (from Mass-Energy Equivalence) and transverse modes on a string to create the equivalent of a logarithmically twisted rope (or screw) sounds challenging.

An anti-graviton thread? Huh?

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 16:51 GMT
p.s. - You might also bounce some ideas off of Lawrence Crowell and Philip Gibbs - they are working with 3- and 4-qubits of strings. At the discrete extreme of reality, a 3-qubit might be 3 neighboring lattice points. But at the continuous extreme of reality, a 3-qubit might be a 3-braided rope. Perhaps a 4-qubit has analogies with a 4-braided rope.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 17:54 GMT
Hi Ray,

Yes, the 'threeness' of the quark model is something that influences me a great deal. It might be sending me down the wrong path though. Funny you should talk about 4-braided ropes, that's exactly what I had deduced and was going to post. It's more symmetrical, with the two pairs moving in opposite directions as well. The so called 'weak gravity field of matter' is the residual effect of symmetry breaking in the internal geometric dynamics of protns and neutron configurations. This still leaves the gravity force as a relative strong force.

Thanks for the tips. I need to get to grips with the current language you are all using.

Cheers,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 19:02 GMT
Hi Alan,

In my primary TOE models, "color" is a 4-plet that includes (red up quark, green up, blue up, white electron). Pati-Salam Theory (and Lisi's E8) uses similar ideas but calls the electron color violet. I think "white" is more appropriate because red + green + blue = neutral white in color theory, and electrons are color-neutral.

The discrete end of the 3-qubit might be a triangular lattice "unit cell", whereas the 4-qubit might match up with a tetrahedral "unit cell" (like a Face-Centered Cubic Close-Packing lattice).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 12:50 GMT
Okay Ray, thanks for the info. I'll do my own thing and see if we get a match. They should be similarities for sure.

I will!

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 23:35 GMT
Hi Alan,

There is a smooth homotopy between a pair of nested soccer balls and a lattice-like torus. Such a torus would have 120 vertices. If each vertex is one of Vladimir Tamari's spinning tetrahedra AND a 4-Qubit (along the lines of Philip Gibbs' and Lawrence Crowell's essays - I expect the discrete end of a 4-qubit to look like a tetrahedron), then these spinning tetrahedra may be twisting a 4-braided rope (a screw-like string).

Four times 120 yields 480 degrees-of-freedom, which looks a lot like a 16-dimensional SO(32) ~ E8 x E8* TOE.

I'm also playing with the idea of four soccer balls being deformed into a trefoil knot. This might represent a 31-dimensional Spin(32) or SU(32) TOE.

The bizarre aspect of the trefoil/ tetrahedra model is that we can define two different kinds of "chirality" - left- or right-handed trefoil knots, as well as left- or right-handed (S or Z) twisted rope. Perhaps this is "over-kill", and I only need the (two different chiralities of trefoil knots) times (four soccer balls per knot) times (sixty vertices per soccer ball) ~ 480 degrees-of-freedom ~ SO(32) TOE.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 12:16 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,

I congratulate you for the final.It's cool for you. In a thread with Edwin, you say"Occam's Razor is a balance between Simplicity (I often equate Simplicity and Beauty) and Necessity (a theory needs to explain as many details as possible "

It's not really the meaning of the Occham Razor, in fact you know it's a sorting between rationalities and the irrationalities. Simplicity possesses its details. That doesn't mean that this simplicity needs irrational extrapolations. In fact it's a bad utilization simply of complexs and reals numbers and thus the symmetries.A theory of course needs details but good details sorted by a pure rational Occham Razor ....simply.You know Ray one day we shall see the truth and we shall say all...Oh my God.

....you know these words Ray I suppose.

Your friend

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 14:11 GMT
Hi Steve,

Most people focus on the "Simplicity" aspect of Occam's Razor. These so-called "irrationals" arise from the "Necessity" side of Occam's Razor. There are certain "structures" that any TOE must explain. Any TOE needs at least a 4-D Quaternion algebra to explain Electromagnetism (Maxwell's four equations can be rewritten as a single Quaternion equation). Furthermore, CP symmetry violation implies an additional level of complex mathematics (this is the level of mathematics (this involves the color force, not electromagnetism) that Lisi's E8 TOE did not include - unfortunately a single E8 has strictly real representations and cannot represent CP symmetry violation) which effectively doubles the size of our 4-D Quaternion into the equivalent of at least an 8-D Octonion. Then there is the question of how to unite Bosons and Fermions under the same mathematical umbrella. IMHO, this requires SUSY and another effective doubling of degrees-of-freedom into at least 16-D? The question of "Where are these extra dimensions hiding?" introduces the need for Scales and perhaps more dimensions for a fully consistent model. The radiative stability of the Weak Scale vs. the TOE Scale also requires SUSY and/or Scales. Each problem introduces more complexity.

I realize that my model gets so far away from "Simplicity" that it appears "irrational", but can you explain the KNOWN experimental facts of CP symmetry violation, different Spin Statistics for Fermions and Bosons, and the stability of the Weak Scale in a more compact, more simple, more beautiful structure? If so, I will proclaim your genius throughout this blog site!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 18:10 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,

I feel obliged to use the automatic translator. I then rectified by my poor English, literal. I'm tired of repeating, but it is a clear need! You know Ray, the goal is not to superimpose irrationalities, or recite a mathematical or scientific swarm of ironies, not the main thing is to understand the Newtonian proportions. The road is deterministic and purely real. How...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 18:36 GMT
(c²o²s²)m=E.........have you thought ...if the time evolution is inserted wawwww after all mass is light+time...to meditate. this equation is logic for the 3 main motions of hv.if now we insert the sortings with volumes and these vel. of rot......now the cosmological number can be appraoched and thus inserted for the specific finite number.The thermodynamical cooling of evolution becomes so relevant where the volumes and their rotations more the sense of rotation....all can be explained and quantized.....now of course we know c but what about o and s .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 06:55 GMT
Dear Dr. Ray,

Thanks for your response.If you need any (you definitely need) clarification,please, inform me.Iam obliged to respond.The paper is surely long, for it has got to be, as in it I have tried to bridge the gap between GR and QM on entirely new concepts and this takes a little bit of time to assimilate them.Merging GR and QM, which leads to the theory of QG, also means formulating a TOE. The theme of the paper is,' by distorting GR how it is made to comply with all the forces of the quantum world'. QM, in the paper, is understood on entirely different grounds as it is to comply with the dictates of QG but is in complete agreement with its current interpretation.So this is an additional 'angle' from which you view QM.

Looking forward to hear more discussion on this.

Regards

Sreenath.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 09:35 GMT
Ray!

Look what I just found! I just discovered that Descartes had been toying with the very same ideas about Archimedes screws in 1644, and was one of the very first to draw the field lines of a magnet using this methodology.

It implies that the atomic nucleus dipole emits both gravitons and anti-gravitons and that all modern physics based on Newton's equation are simple incorrect, despite Einstein's attempt to rectify the situation (he just made it worse in fact, oh dear(!)).

attachments: 1_Descartes_magnetic_field.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 09:54 GMT
I've done a quick doodle which shows how the gravitons/anti-gravitons should have been travelling in straight lines and that it's the combination of the forces which gives the resultant field lines seen in iron filings.

attachments: 2_Simple_Dipole.jpg, 2_Simple_Dipole_Magnet.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 14:30 GMT
Hi Alan,

You are in good Philosophical company with Archimedes and Descartes. I also have ideas as to how an Archimedes screw (or twisted rope) may be modeled. I see at least a couple of interesting questions:

1) At first, I worried about the idea of "anti-gravitons", but the Weak force has W+ bosons and their anti-particles the W-. Perhaps we have photons (the attractive nature of Electrostatics?) and anti-photons (the repulsive nature of Electrostatics?) that perfectly cancel each other out - perhaps due to conservation of electric charges and currents.

We cannot separate these natures out in magnetic applications because magnetism requires movement of both photons and anti-photons, therefore a magnetic monople is a twistor-like hybrid of a photon and anti-photon.

Somehow anti-gravitons (the repulsive naure of gravity?) do NOT perfectly cancel out gravitons (the attractive nature of gravity?), and thus gravity is weakly attractive. It is odd that any "non-conservation of gravitational charges and/or currents" may be of order 10^(-40). IMHO, this requires a Scale for stability because it is mathmatically improbable and philosophically illogical to have fine-tuning on the order of 10^(-40).

2) Your screw threads need to vary in fineness based on the strength of a field. A simple example is the inverse-distance-squared dependance of simple gravitational and electrostatic fields. This variation in thread fineness requires these photons, anti-photons, gravitons, and anti-gravitons to have effective masses (so that longitudinal modes exist that may mix with transverse modes to produce the field equivalent of mechanical "screw threads"), and yet inverse-distance-squared field dependances imply zero rest-mass bosons. Perhaps the answer is Einstein's Mass-Energy Equivalence Principle, whereby a graviton (or anti-graviton or photon or anti-photon) of zero rest mass carries an effective mass due to its energy content (E=h*f for a photon).

I think that these questions are much bigger problems to tackle than how we might model an Archimedes' screw.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 2, 2011 @ 09:54 GMT
Hi Ray,

Yes, I'm pleased to be aligning myself with Archimedes and Descartes, it's a wonderful feeling.

I had the idea that photons/anti-photons are manifestations of graviton/anti-graviton configurations. I don't have an exact picture just yet though. I came to the conclusion that a magnetic monopole wasn't necessary incidentally. I deduced previously that the fine-tuning or 'non-symmetrical' emission of gravitons and anti-gravitons is due to the Mobius twist of a proton (and neutron?) toroid structure. If the toroid is composed of opposite pairs of 'fractal helical threads', then they can we woven in different configurations. This difference will have an effect on the interaction of particle radiation around the junction area. Edwin seemed to like this idea and mentioned that his C-field could be similarly imagined (I think).

I still don't quite understand your use of the phrase "fineness of thread" when talking about gravitons/anti-gravitons. I imagine that gravitons are all pretty much identical with their characteristics being due to their inherent speeds of spin which will all decay at the same rate over time. Photons on the otherhand, being larger structures -would- be able to have a different 'thread fineness', which is just another way of talking about their wavelength.

The inverse-square law needs to be treated carefully imo. The emission of photons from a straight tungsten filament coil is -not- the same in all directions. There's slightly less emission at the two ends in relation to along the length of the coil. This is very relavant to quantum particles where this difference is greatly exaggerated compared to the macroscopic world.

We're almost on the same page I think Ray, which is encouraging. Thanks so much for your input and help. This competition is so much more than I first imagined.

Kind regards,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 3, 2011 @ 00:55 GMT
Dear Alan,

When I started grad school. I thought I wanted to be an experimentalist (I later had a change of heart/ mind/ direction). My Thesis Supervisor wanted to stretch his equipment budget as far as he could, so I built some of my own equipment parts in the machine shop. I built nearly everything out of SAE type 304 stainless steel, and tapped my own screw threads.

If you play with machine screws enough, you quickly learn the standards. Note that some of these screw sizes have coarse, fine, or extra fine threads. A courser screw thread transfers longitudinal "change in velocity" faster than a finer thread does. But varying field strength requires varying screw threads.

OK - the fundamental electrostatic force falls off as inverse-distance-squared, but we can have dipole, quadrapole, etc. types of radiation that have non-isotropic distributions.

You still need varying screw threads to represent these varying field strengths.

Regarding photons, gravitons, "anti-photons" and "anti-gravitons", they are different - photons have an intrinsic spin of 1 h-bar whereas gravitons should theoretically have an intrinsic spin of 2 h-bar.

Edwin Klingman claims that there are only four fundamental particles and four fundamental fields. I like Ed, and we traded books, but the Particle Physicist in me doesn't see how four fundamental particles can work. It's clean and simple, but it's incomplete. Similarly, Jason Wolfe thinks that everything is made of photons. Once again, I like Jason, but he (and Constantinos Ragazas) cannot model fermionic matter with bosonic photons. Don't let "simplicity" lead you down an incomplete path.

Recall that my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory says that photons and gravitons are different states of the Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) Boson. This allows them to be similar but different. You still have to explain the observational fact that gravity is weakly attractive, whereas electrostatics can be attractive or repulsive.

I've had a rough week. I had to put my 13-year-old dog "to sleep" this morning (she had liver cancer), and a drunk driver drove though my landscape and totaled my wife's 1986 Ford truck a couple of nights ago. I hope next week is better!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2011 @ 09:32 GMT
Ray Ray Ray well well well ....study the simplicity and after you shall understand the real details.....business VS rationalism.....winner of course ther realism fortunally......the simplicity and the complexity are the same.Sometimee people try to say details of complexity but it's not details of complexity simply.

Don't let lead the system and this sad earth take your mind Ray!!!

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 20:18 GMT
Ray,

My friend, I'm sorry about the bad week you've had. It's really hard to put down an animal that been part of the family for 13 years. Easier to replace a truck.

Yes we traded books. But that's not enough. One must open and read the book. There you will find out it's done with 4 particles and 4 fields.

BTW, I'm working on removing the 'drama' chapters, and adding a few chapters at the end of the book to show how the 4 percent discrepancy that QED produces for the muonic-hydrogen atom falls out of my model. Tentative name of the new work:

"Physics of the Chromodynamics War"

Hang in there friend.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 3, 2011 @ 10:28 GMT
Hi Ray,

Sorry to hear about your unfortunate predicaments last week. Hope the next are better for you.

You say "A courser screw thread transfers longitudinal "change in velocity" faster than a finer thread does." which is interesting point which I had yet to consider. Then you say "But varying field strength requires varying screw threads", but I also see that the flux density of screw threads is more important and could potentially explain all of the variation in field strength perhaps.

I have just modelled the 'threeness' and the toroid helical shape of the protn and neutron. It's a totally mechanical model with the three helical ring donuts interlocked in a dynamic cog configuration. It works extremely well and I'm keen to scan and attach my scribbles showing the structures, but I have to wait until Tuesday when the library opens again.

It will fill in the gaps of my verbal model with much more authority hopefully.

P.S I had the idea of re-scoring the competition with all the low scores upgraded to a respectable 6. This means the top 35 are selected only on their 7 to 10 scores. Sounds fairer to me. What do you think. The 35 already selected can stay eligible for the judging but the new scoring would give a few more for the judges to choose from.

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 3, 2011 @ 16:34 GMT
Hi Alan,

So you would vary the screw density rather than the screw thread...

I think that either approach could yield a reasonable mathematical model, but varying screw density might lead to discontinuous field lines. This is OK where spacetime behaves discretely, but not really appropriate for the regions where spacetime behaves continuously.

On the other hand, continuously varying screw thread could represent a field line (or a string) and a continuous spacetime. The discrete spacetime representation would be the "bolt head" end of the screw - like Lawrence Crowell's and Philip Gibbs' Qubits, and this discrete end of the screw might be spinning (and "twisting" rope) like one of Vladimir Tamari's tetrahedra.

I think I get your 3-twisted rope torus - it sounds similar to some of Peter Jackson's comments on his thread.

So you were "Lord Whats-his-name". Sorry, but I don't read that thread anymore - it is so long that it bogs down my browser. There are a lot of ways to tweak the system so that it might work better (but perhaps a popularity contest can never work perfectly). I liked Philip Gibbs' suggestion of treating it like an "American Idol" or "Survivor" type show whereby people are voted off on a regular basis (say 25 essays every week?), and the votes from those who were voted off are discounted (say they only count as half of a vote) relative to the votes from the "surviving" contestants. This might peak interest in the contest a little longer, and might be a fairer cut in that it is several smaller "finer" cuts rather than one giant "coarse" cut. The Judges seem to have full control over the results now, so it might not much matter how many contestants make the final vote - we could have 35 or 50 essays - it is a greater burden on the Judges and will take longer to get results.

I am still dumb-founded by the fact that someone can fly off the road in a 30 mph (50 kmph) speed zone and hit a truck that was parked in its own driveway and minding its own business...

I still have two other dogs (my 65 pound/ 30 kg mixed pit-bull-lab year-old "puppy" sleeps with my wife and I), and knew that my older dog had been getting weaker for the past few months.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 10:31 GMT
Hi Ray,

I like the idea of a 'head and tail' configuration to the proposed screw-like emissions. It's very similar to advanced programming techniques I seem to remember. It could be more of a 'slinky' like imagery to start with, rather than singular Archimedes screws. Only after the inevitable interactions after emission is the structural helix broken down into smaller discrete units perhaps.

I don't think you have the image of the 'cogs' I mentioned just yet. This is the interconnection of three donut helix rings, mechanically locked together in one respect. The three rings come together in a circle which will lock-up the spins, so to speak, like putting a spanner in the gears of a piece of machinery. This the neutron configuration. The proton is almost the same, but the shape is a 'U' with the two uprights being the same spinning donut rings which have a common direction of graviton emission. Have a quick think and I'll post the pictures tomorrow morning to see whether you were on the same track.

Yes, the blog thread is tiresome to say the least, hence the bit of sillyness on my part. It takes sooo long to be able to post anything..The arguments just continue and continue... like science in all of history I suppose. It's down to the judges now, like you say.

The car accident reminded me of the pick-up truck driver who ploughed into Stephen King (the author) as he walked along the side of the road. Thank heavens it wasn't something as bad as the incident with that drunk driver. Best wishes to your family and dogs,

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 09:49 GMT
Hi Ray,

Here's the doodles of a mechanical protn and neutron I was talking about.

attachments: 1_Mechanical_Proton.jpg, 1_Mechanical_Nucleus.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 13:44 GMT
Hi Alan,

I have to think on it some, but these ideas look wrong to me. With 3 tori, you need 3 different charges (such as red + green + blue = white) to make these configurations stable - two charges of graviton and anti-graviton won't be sufficient. I was thinking more along the line of a 3-twisted rope that connects with itself on the ends to form a twisted torus.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 11:43 GMT
Hi Ray,

Okay, it's good that you have a problem with this basic layout. I don't have an indepth knowledge of quark charges or colors and so my models are very abstract still. I have decided to explore the non-twisted torus shapes for a while.

BTW I had the brainwave that an electron -isn't- a particle which circles the nucleus. This is yet another hangover from Newton's equation imo. It makes more sense to me to imagine that the electron orbit is an effect due to the lensing of a base quark, see attached. Why not imagine a proton creating the electron due to it's lens effect, which forms a focus some 35,000 times further away than it's diameter?

Alan

attachments: 2_Quark_Lens_Creates_Electron.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 13:28 GMT
Hi Alan,

My experience with physics modeling is that it is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Over the years, I have also had a lot of "interesting" ideas, but I think it is safe to say that most didn't work out exactly the way I expected.

I'm also having second thoughts about the twisted torus - it would have chirality. Of course we need chirality, but if a model already has chirality through spinning tetrahedra and/or rope, then it doesn't need a second chirality for the torus. On the other hand, I could see a 3-twisted rope torus yielding 3 colors (and an SU(3) Strong force), and its scaled reciprocal yielding 3 generations (and the CKM and PMNS matrices) - similar to some of Edwin Klingman's ideas and my interpretations of his ideas.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 10:30 GMT
Here's an animation of the dipole fluctuating between direction to the other, which is a part of the dynamics of the proton and will hopefully help with the overall picture of reality.

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on May. 3, 2011 @ 20:23 GMT
Dear Rafael,

On Lubos' blog site, you said:

BEGINNING OF QUOTE

I've been working on my idea regarding the origin of gravity. If you remember, I mentioned in my FQXi paper the idea of the revolutions of the cosmic systems in a hierarchical cosmos as the origin of gravity. Basically my idea is that the revolutions are the components of the gravitational tensor - which allows me...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 18:42 GMT
Dear Rafael,

On your essay's blog thread, you said:

BEGINNING OF QUOTE

Ray, I am interested in your lattices because I realized that the various points of a lattice may be indicative of the kinds of particles stabilized (quantized) in various regions of the "outer layer or secondary kinematic field" generated around a "black hole singularity".

In the above, the "outer...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 6, 2011 @ 17:48 GMT
Dear Rafael,

On your essay's blog thread (#835),

YOU SAID:

Ray, you missed a lot of points again.

You should reconsider the fundamentals of kinematics (have a pythagorean dream and go vectorial) and then read my explanations regarding the origin of gravity at this link - http://www.kinematicrelativity.com/article_033.php.

I don't worry about the idea of an expanding universe. I love the idea especially in the proper perspective where continuous creation occurs that allows me the view that the concertedly increasing momenta of the cosmic masses is the cause of the spiral expansion generally along their orbits.

An expanding, inflationary and attenuating universe going towards ultimate entropy is a decrepit perspective especially considering that gravity occurs.

END OF QUOTE

MY ANSWER:

Your Figure 4 is basically a tokamak geometry - similar to some of the stuff that Peter Jackson and I discussed a couple of months ago, and it would also agree with Edwin Klingman's ideas. My lattice-like torus model at the Black Hole "singularity" (and Alan Lowey's proton model) might be self-similar to your cosmic model.

Relativity prevents us from being able to directly detect the "center" of the Universe or any overall rotation about said "center". Xiang He and I recently discussed Ernest Sternglass' ideas on a rotating Universe in the "Clothes for the Standard Model" blog thread. My thoughts are that we need a "true inertial frame" with which to compare our Universe. The only "true inertial frame" that I could imagine that is greater than our Universe would be the Multiverse. If our Universe is rotating, then we might observe Coriolis effects. Sternglass and Xiang propose that a Universal rotation would cause a repulsive effect such as the cosmological constant, and may explain the reason why so many Galaxies are rotating spirals.

I used a "Hurricane" model (or would you prefer Typhoon?) whereby convective air currents and the Coriolis effect combined can explain the rotation and drift of Hurricanes. Similarly, IF frame-dragging and the Coriolis effect work together to produce rotating galaxies and an ever-expanding Universe, then we should be able to model that in such a manner as to predict the relative amounts of rotation and frame-dragging for various galaxies.

I am doubtful about "continuous creation". If the Big Bang is an ongoing process, then we should be able to detect some clear signals - such as electron-positron annihilation - that are not observed.

Regarding Occam's Razor, I have always considered it to be a balance between Simplicity and Necessity, but many people overemphasize the "simplicity" side of the balancing scales IMHO.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 7, 2011 @ 13:22 GMT
Dear Rafael,

On your blog thread,

YOU SAID:

The Big Bang idea has been dead a long time ago. Perhaps, even dead before its inception.

The Continuous Creation idea is ascendant and has always been superior to the Big Bang idea for the thousands of years that man has been on the planet.

But asking me for text references on that will mean I go scriptural.

The oldest secular text I could give you is the Hymnn of Creation from the Rig-Veda, and that is considered the oldest text in the secular world (and actually not even secular at that).

END OF QUOTE

MY RESPONSE:

I think that many of us have core belief systems that somewhat bias our philosophy and expectations. Personally, I am a Christian (Southern Baptist). And although many Southern Baptists follow a literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, I usually interpret parts of the Book of Genesis metaphorically, rather than literally - it is how I deal with certain perceived conflicts.

Regarding "continuous creation", you should go back and review the "Steady State" Universe, and the works of Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Sir Hermann Bondi. Big Bang seems to fit the experimental observations better than Steady State.

My problem with the Big Bang is that General Relativity implies that the Big Bang was a "singularity". I argue that infinity cannot exist within a finite Universe (13.7 billion light-years is huge but finite). Therefore, I conclude that the Big Bang (and the immediately following phase transition, Inflation) created an infinite Multiverse.

Another reasonable conclusion is that any sort of discrete behavior of spacetime limited the observable effects of the Big Bang such that we cannot witness the true "singularity" within our Observable Universe. This discreteness would occur at a very small scale such as ~10^(-33) m, and thus classically-scaled objects (humans of height ~2 m) would contain such a large number of "discrete" states that they would appear to be "continuous".

My comparisons with Solid State physics implies that if spacetime is discrete, then its reciprocal lattice, energy-momentum must also be discrete. Or vice versa, if energy-momentum is discrete, then its reciprocal lattice, spacetime must also be discrete. Within the mathematics of Solid State Physics and Fourier lattice transforms, it really doesn't matter which lattice you name "direct", and which lattice you name "reciprocal", they are equally fundamental - this is the answer to my chicken-egg question from earlier.

Phase transitions (such as Inflation) are often the origin of self-similar structures (such as the Mandelbrot set or the Cantor set). I therefore conclude that our Observable Universe is but a finite fractal fragment of the infinite Cantor set that is the Multiverse.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 5, 2011 @ 21:15 GMT
New evidence of "particle AND wave' versus 'particle OR wave':

Ray,

A significant new two-slit experiment announced! On several threads I posted Seven Step Logic claiming that QM is based on 'particles AND waves' instead of the standard interpretation 'particles OR waves'.

It appears that a new two-slit experiment based on Aharonov's 'weak measurements' suggest that I am right on this:

From the article:

Explains Steinberg. "Our measured trajectories are consistent, as Wiseman had predicted, with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie,"

"The double slit experiment heavily influenced the principle of complementarity devised by Niels Bohr. Complementarity states that observing complementary variables, such as the particle-like trajectories and the wave-like interference in the double-slit experiment, depends on the type of measurement made -- the system cannot behave as both a particle and wave simultaneously."

"Steinberg's recent experiment suggests this doesn't have to be the case -- the system can behave as both."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Andy M wrote on Mar. 14, 2012 @ 16:26 GMT
There was sad news concerning Ray Munroe reported here:

http://blog.vixra.org/2012/03/13/ray-munroe-1958-2012/

O
ne can read more about his life here:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/tallahassee/obituary.a
spx?n=ray-b-munroe&pid=156453394&fhid=4646

report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on Apr. 2, 2012 @ 06:40 GMT
Dr Ray,

I think you now have the clearer answers than any of us here... This much I can do in saying that it has been nice to have met you...

Rafael

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 4, 2012 @ 15:58 GMT
Dr Cosmic Ray,

Your ideas will keep us inspired, your message "HAVE FUN" has taught me that science is not only serious thinking and searching but that these activities must be the origin of your mental well being.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Apr. 5, 2012 @ 20:04 GMT
Dear Dr Ray,

I hope you have experienced the blissful singularity with in on this passage called death and I welcome you to where ever you are and what ever you want to be in this duality again, if you so choose.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.