Search FQXi

If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Ray Munroe: on 9/12/11 at 12:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Hans, I'm not here to debate the nature of Time. FQXi sponsored an...

Hans van Leunen: on 9/12/11 at 10:05am UTC, wrote Insisting on the restrictions set by the Minkowski signature denies the...

Hans van Leunen: on 9/12/11 at 9:50am UTC, wrote I always wonder about the requirement for a Higgs field and Higgs particle....

Georgina Parry: on 9/7/11 at 19:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Wilhelmuus, I do understand what you are saying and agree that we...

Wilhelmus Wilde: on 9/7/11 at 16:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Georgina, You explained very well the « events » that are in the...

Georgina Parry: on 9/6/11 at 20:37pm UTC, wrote Dear Wilhelmus, I am still not sure that I have adequately communicated...

Wilhelmus Wilde: on 9/6/11 at 15:53pm UTC, wrote Forgot to mention that also the past had different possibilities to arrive...

Wilhelmus Wilde: on 9/6/11 at 15:38pm UTC, wrote Dear Georgina, I fully agree with the “presence” of potentially...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Of course even the best made quantum computers cannot actually transmute a..." in The Quantum Thermodynamic...

Georgina Woodward: "James thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to set that out, I also..." in Q&A with Paul Davies:...

Pentcho Valev: "World Science Festival : Intense Brainwashing Intense brainwashing has..." in Faster than Light

Bala Bafoofkit: "Funny thing is the reportage of the knowledge of the Dogon people is not..." in The Fermi Paradox

James Putnam: "Georgina, Ok. :) Lets see if I can give a productive answer in a single..." in Q&A with Paul Davies:...

James Putnam: "Akinbo, Thank you for reading my essay. I have added a couple of..." in Q&A with David Rideout:...

James Putnam: "In my message above, I stated that Clausius' thermodynamic entropy remains..." in The Quantum Thermodynamic...

Akinbo Ojo: "Steve, The intention is not to waste time in rabbit holes. I think..." in Q&A with David Rideout:...

RECENT ARTICLES

The Quantum Thermodynamic Revolution
Combining theories of quantum information with the science of heat and energy transfer could lead to new technologies.

Face Off: Building a Toy Universe to Pit Quantum Theory Against Gravity
Using superconducting circuits to create a curved-spacetime analog with stronger gravity than our cosmos.

Is Gravity Time's Archer?
A new model argues the forces between particles in the early universe loosed time's arrow, creating temporal order from chaos.

Purifying Physics: The Quest to Explain Why the “Quantum” Exists
A new framework for the laws underlying reality could explain why nature obeys quantum rules, the origin of time’s arrow, and the power of quantum computing.

Searching for the Impossible
A quest to discover which computational tasks can never be resolved.

FQXi BLOGS
May 27, 2015

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Higgs Almighty [refresh]

Blogger William Orem wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 14:10 GMT

A gentle plea: will all science journalists please cease and desist from referring to the Higgs boson as “the God particle”? Nothing that emerges from a particle accelerator is going to be “the God” anything, and using the term loosely only sells copy at the expense of confusing the public as to what awesome places like CERN actually do.

There. Think that will work?

Not a chance, I know . . . especially now that we are closing in on the confirming the existence of said particle, and from independent research teams. Twin groups working at the LHC have found “data spikes” near the expected range (that’s somewhere between 114 and 185 GeV at the outside, for those in the know). Computing error, twice? Maybe; it could be an “error in the model background” itself. But that most hyperbolically named particle is going to be everywhere in the news, if and when these experiments bear mass-producing fruit.

Speaking of which, there’s a funny moment in Steven Weinberg’s “Dreams of a Final Theory” (which I know you appreciate, Tom Ray; thanks, by the way, for your many kind comments on this blog) in which he relates his experience in trying to get Congress to fund the SSC. At one point a Representative from Illinois (sitting on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology) asks of the Supercollider, “ . . . will this make us find God?” . . . because, “If this machine does that, I am going to come around and support it.” Weinberg dryly quips, “I had enough sense to stay out of this exchange.”

Weinberg himself is almost laconic about the Higgs, since—valid enough point, though it takes a theoretical physicist to think this way—it is the easiest solution to the Standard Model, making a “find” more on the order of expected confirmation than actual discovery.

Quote:

“Because the Higgs boson is really required by the simplest version of the theory that unifies the weak and electromagnetic forces, it’s very likely to be discovered.

The theory has other versions which would lead to the discovery of other kinds of particles, the so-called technicolor particles.

“We have a fair degree of certainty that one or the other of those, and very likely the Higgs boson, will be discovered. In fact, it’s so likely that we already anticipate it, so it probably won’t get us anything new. What we really need is something that we don’t anticipate.”

At the same time, there’s no need to *downplay* the Higgs—as I have also seen some do who, like me, cringe at its metaphysically overstated moniker. The Higgs, if it indeed exists, is indeed a big deal. The issue of ruling Asgard aside, this is the particle that confers mass on . . . well, on everything that has mass. Without the Higgs, one assumes, the cosmos would be a haze of radiant energy.

Which raises an interesting hypothetical issue. (A layman’s thoughts follow; QCD or GR folks, feel free to dive in.)

In a hypothetical universe devoid of the Higgs field, all particles would have zero rest mass; the universe would be spacetime and energy. That’s odd enough to picture—14 billion light years with nothing massive in it, from neutrons to neutron stars. But something weirder seems to follow. It strikes me that, without the Higgs, there would be no perspective by which time is moving.

Special Relativity gets us there. One can’t posit an inertial reference frame “seated on a photon,” as no clock or yardstick can meaningfully be constructed, but play along for a moment (as that’s just the point). From a “photon’s frame of reference,” if you will, the entire universe is motionless in time. It’s all moving at speed C in the other direction, dilating the relative progression of its clock to nada.

Thanks to the Lorentz Contraction, from the photon’s perspective the universe also has zero extension in the direction of motion. (Which is the only direction that has meaning to a photon, so to speak; whether it exists in a “2-d universe” or not can be discussed.) Wherever, from our perspective, the photon is headed—from its own perspective, it’s already there, and has “always” been there, because there was no distance to cover. Let’s say the universe is finite but unbounded, but you have to get to 100 billion parsecs to start to make out the grand curvature. Doesn’t make any difference; that photon has “already” completed its journey, all the way around to its starting place. Indeed, in the frozen timeless instant, there was no journey to complete, because the Lorentz pulled that entire unbounded cosmos, no matter its volume, down to a point.

If everything in the universe moves at C, no inertial state exists even in principle that “experiences” either the flow of time or the extension of space. In principle it would still exist, we might say—imagining the universe, perhaps, as a giant empty box through which massless particles are “really” moving at finite speeds. But there is no “really” view on spacetime; only locally inertial frames and spacetime coincidences. Newton’s model of time, “passing equably without relation to anything external,” is incorrect. And if there are no reference frames in which time moves—anywhere—surely it is pedantic to say that time “really” is running.

Zero time factor; zero spatial expansion; the whole universe a point of infinite energy, from every possible frame. That certainly seems equivalent to “singularity.” Without at least one sub-C particle, it isn’t clear (to me, anyway) what meaning can be attached to the notion of spacetime expansion.

Higgs Boson—Author of Time?

Higgs Boson—Particle That Caused the Bang? Maybe we do need a more impressive moniker, after all.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 16:39 GMT
Hi William,

I have been following the comments on Philip Gibbs' viXra log and on Lubos Motl's blog about recent Higgs searches. If I am interpreting Philip's Unofficial LHC Higgs Combo plot properly, it looks like Higgs-like signals may be strongest between 115-120 GeV (~117 GeV), and between 135-150 GeV (~142 GeV). Philip thinks that this data may prefer a non-minimal Higgs sector. If so, then we don't need to talk about THE 'God particle' because more than a single Higgs-like particle may exist.

There are a couple of strange parts of Philip's plot. There is a huge deficit of signal between 370-400 GeV (~385 GeV). It is simple enough to realize that this could be related to the top quark: 2 x 173 GeV = 346 GeV, but the simulations *SHOULD* have taken those effects into account. This seems to imply new physics. Tony Smith has a top-top-bar condensate model yielding Higgs/ Goldstone properties that might yield these effects. And I was wondering if a SUSY Heavy Higgs and SUSY Pseudoscalar Higgs might exist in the same mass range such that negative interference arises from their conflicting parity properties.

And another 'signal' seems to exist above 530 GeV, which is close to the mass of three top quarks (but would have the wrong spin properties for a 'Higgs') AND close to the combined mass of a SUSY Light Higgs @ ~142 GeV plus a SUSY Heavy Higgs @ ~385 GeV. Is it some sort of 'Higgs-ball', or is this the SUSY Charged Higgs?

In some of my own wild models, I have been paying close attention to the modulus-8 arithmatic property of the Normed Divisor Algebras (1-D Real, 2-D Complex, 4-D Quaternion, 8-D Octonion, and start over again), and tentatively speculate that this property may impose a modulus-2 arithmatic property on the intrinsic spin of fundamental particles. If so, then the Higgs (Spin-0) and Graviton (mod-2 of Spin-2 is also Spin-0) may be more closely related than we realize. Of course, this also requires massive gravitons, but I have been speculating on 'WIMP-Gravity' with massive gravitons for years.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 01:11 GMT
Dear William,

The other day, I said "If I am interpreting Philip's Unofficial LHC Higgs Combo plot properly, it looks like Higgs-like signals may be strongest between 115-120 GeV (~117 GeV), and between 135-150 GeV (~142 GeV)."

Now Philip has a new viXra log asking "Has the LHC seen the Higgs Boson at 144 GeV?" Lubos made a funny, and called it a 144 GeV 'Gibbs hogon' rather than a 'Higgs boson'.

Philosopher-Physicists with their own theories want to say that the Higgs boson doesn't exist. I think it would be fun if the Higgs multiplet is non-minimal and leads to new physics (like the SUSY Higgs spectrum with Light, Heavy, Pseudoscalar and Charged Higgs bosons).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 17:04 GMT
A Higgs field is that which gives mass. Without it, everything would be luminous; photons of energy flying about with nothing to do. But the Higgs concept is missing something. Positing a field that creates mass is only half the story. You have to think about the space between two masses. They say that everything is interconnected. This is true, but the idea has connotations of New Age hippies and LSD. The idea needs an overhaul suitable for physics.

Let's simplify it to a ball and stick picture. Anything with mass is the ball. Any kind of relationship between two masses is the stick. The stick is the invariance of the speed of light, it holds the kinetic energy between two masses, the stick is the pathway for the photon, from emission to observation; the stick is space-time. Opposite ends of the stick can have different clock rates or rates of time progression, call them t and t'; more simply, that's time dilation.

Using this kind of ball and stick idea, 4D space-time (which ignites superstitious wonder and ongoing episodes of Outer Limits) is simplified to a 3D network of balls and sticks. The speed of light is invariant for all observers because sticks define the speed limit of c, and sticks are willing to induce time dilation between its two ends, where the balls are placed. The balls are inertial/non inertial reference frames with mass in them. The ball can be a particle, planet or any massive object.

Balls and sticks are 3D objects with time dilation built into them. If there is time dilation along the stick, then the photon that travels along the stick will undergo a frequency shift. That frequency shift can be either a gravitational potential difference or a difference in velocity between two masses.

A Higgs field should look more like the ball and stick concept I described. The advantage is that space-time is part of the model.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 17:32 GMT
Hi Jason,

"A Higgs field is that which gives mass. Without it, everything would be luminous; photons of energy flying about with nothing to do. ..."

Or perhaps without it we would have a new theory?

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 18:01 GMT
Hi James,

I know you've been ill at ease with science's understanding of mass for quite a while. I'm not very enthusiastic about finding a Higgs "particle". But the concept of something which allows mass to exist is unavoidable because mass exists. The ball and stick concept is the simplest approach. Relativity, time dilation, invariant c, all of those measurable properties can be attributed to the sticks. The sticks become the transmission medium of light, which is space-time itself.

In case you were wondering, yes, I have a plan to pull a shift photon out of this model as well as gravity field generation.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 18:06 GMT
Jason,

"...In case you were wondering, yes, I have a plan to pull a shift photon out of this model as well as gravity field generation."

Good for you.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 17:50 GMT
Thanks, William! You know that I always look forward to your stimulating blog articles -- I predict another landslide of responses.

Re Weinberg. I suppose that when one has written a multi-volume textbook on quantum field theory, one has a right to be a little jaded. Yet it has to be wearying to try and communicate with people who want you to sum up your life's work while they stand on one foot and recite the ten commandments. (I think Lederman was mostly responsible for the popularization of that "God particle" business -- it was a joke, folks, honest!)

Thanks for the link. I've not been following the story. I do agree with Weinberg that it's our capacity to be surprised (objects fall at the same rate in a gravity field -- really?) that motivates the best science.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 18:09 GMT
Trying to understand why particles have mass in terms of still smaller massive particles doesn't look like a useful approach. Do physicists hope to find the anti-Higgs particle so that they can neutralize the Higgs field around massive objects? Is that going to free massive objects from their inertial field? Or annihilate them entirely?

I think the Higgs concept needs a redesign. Please disagree with me.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 19:45 GMT
Jason,

The Higgs is a boson, i.e., an energy exchange particle. It exists in the Higgs field in the way that photons, e.g., exist in the electromagnetic field. There's nothing particularly novel about the theoretical approach, which is quantum field theory; it's the energy required to create the exchange (to "see" the particle in order to provide evidence of the theory's prediction) that is challenging.

It's been a long time since I read it, but I think Lederman's book might answer your questions.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 19:50 GMT
Garsh Tom,

If the true basis for effects keeps getting shoved off to 'fields', then the true basis for effects is unknown.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 20:30 GMT
Tom,

A massive fundamental particle, like an electron, has some interconnection to everything else through this Higgs field. The actual interconnection is done with what physicists think is the Higgs particle. Here is my problem. I'm ok with a Higgs field that pervades all space; I'm ok with fields in general. But things like virtual photon particles that implement E&M and virtual Higgs boson particles that implement mass seem awkward to me. A vacuum of 3D space is not expected to behave relativistically. But the physics model has point particles in a 3D space, and the 3D is scratched out and replaced by a 4D called space-time. That seems awkward. What is wrong with replacing that with point particles that are interconnected by "action-at-a-distance" sticks? The sticks would be the Higgs field. The sticks could also be interpreted as space-time.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 20:51 GMT
The problem may be our idea of the vacuum. We tend to “pack” the vacuum with lots of stuff. We have virtual modes which go from 0 to ∞ and we calculate this enormous ZPE (ħ/2)∫[a^†(k), a(k)]dω(k) = (ħ/2)∫dω and so forth. Yet we know that the cosmological constant, which is due to this vacuum energy, is very small and so these contribution are nearly zero. We have some sort of conflict there. The Casimir effect is measured for quantum electrodynamics. The virtual modes of the photon vacuum are restricted to half integer values between two metal plates, whilst outside the modes are a continuum. This means there is a difference in the energy density of the vacuum between the plates, or this is how we interpret this. The Lamb shift is another vacuum energy effect. The quantum field theory (QFT) of this works pretty darn well. Yet on some level we may be faced with a crisis here.

Things begins to hit trouble with the vacuum energy density expected with the standard model. At this stage standard QFT theories go bad with respect to renormalization of amplitudes. The “salvation” in part is the Higgs mechanism, which replaces all of this high energy stuff in the vacuum with a Higgs condensate. At lower energy components of the Higgs doublets are absorbed into the Z and W^{+/-} particles and standard QFT rules hole. However, the vacuum energy density should be quite large, on the order of 174GeV^4, which is tied to the Higgs field. This resulted in problems with the cosmological constant early on, where QFT predicted a universe with a much larger vacuum energy density than what our observed universe could be derived from. The accelerated expansion of the universe and so called dark energy put further problems on this idea of the vacuum. Now the LHC is placing exclusions on the Higgs particle, which means we are likely faced with a crisis in our understanding of the vacuum structure of the universe.

It may be premature to state that the Higgs particle does not exist. Clearly something does have to change at the TeV scale of energy. The problem as I see it is that we have been packing all sorts of degrees of freedom into the vacuum. This is analogous to the aether problem of the 19th century, where to understand how an EM wave propagated in space there was imposed some continuous fluid-like field. If this was composed of particles of some sort, partons on atomicules, the number of degrees of freedom was enormous, and was infinite in the continuous limit. Einstein replaced all of this nonsense with a system of symmetries, 3 rotations and 3 boosts. I increasingly think that something like this is waiting in the wings.

LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 21:05 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"The problem may be our idea of the vacuum. We tend to “pack” the vacuum with lots of stuff."

I think this is true. For any other readers, there is no way that I know anywhere near as much theory as does Dr. Crowell, but, everytime I see a catch-basin for theory I see evidence of error.

Corrections to this are welcome.

James

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 23:24 GMT
Higgs are a pure joke, then not necessary to loose time with that, neither to loose monney also.

The real problem, and it's even axiomatic, respecting the gravitation,is that the cause of mass is external...that has no sense if we link with the pure evolution. The higgs and their external cause of mass are a pure joke,indeed the cause is intrinsic to mass.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Michael Jeub wrote on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 05:41 GMT
The largest massive scalar should be called ordinary mass covariance, a one form that builds out the larger universe of dark matter and dark energy. Higgs represents the one form, dark matter a vector, and dark energy a vector field. Covariance is a geometrical object for which there is no landscape, other than what we can imagine. The higgs we discover will be a measuring stick fo dark matter, will it not?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 12:01 GMT
Never the higgs shall be find, then of course all investors , rational , understand this simple evidence.

A matter vector and a fields vector ahahahah it is that of course. And after what ???? JUST A BIG JOKE

The LHC is there to help humanity, the rest is vain, then of course the pseudo businessmen, we know and the lobbyists also. Taste for monney or taste for truths and truth.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 06:21 GMT
At the risk of throwing cold water on this party, I'm still predicting no Higgs. And no SUSY.

LC is likely correct when he says: "we are likely faced with a crisis in our understanding of the vacuum structure of the universe."

And a few other things.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 12:35 GMT
Of course we have to be careful, for the LHC has collected only about .1% of the data it is expected to gather over the next decade. Further, something must take place at the TeV scale of energy. There must be some sort of phase transition in the vacuum and particle spectrum at around this energy. The minimally supersymmetric model (MSSM) predicts a Higgs spectrum, which are degrees of freedom which are assigned to the vacuum, where three sets of these (sets due to a sum over transverse momenta) go into particle states W^{+/-} and Z. In effect something like this must happen, but it may be that there is a deeper aspect to this, where rather than a vacuum “aether-like” structure, this is a manifestation of some underlying symmetry or principle.

LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 00:21 GMT
That picture of a posterboard says that: The Higgs particle...is predicted by the Standard Model. I understood it to be an added-on patchwork type necessity for a theory that could not otherwise explain or predict the existence of mass and gravity. What gives? Is my understanding wrong?

James

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 01:31 GMT
James,

In my opinion you are correct that "The Higgs particle...predicted by the Standard Model [is] an added-on patchwork type necessity for a theory that could not otherwise explain or predict the existence of mass and gravity."

There are severe problems besides the Higgs, for example the existence of left-handed neutrinos, but no right-handed ones. And the existence of neutrino...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 02:01 GMT
William Orem,

You included that poster, what is your opinion? For other readers: Any physicists who agree or disagree with the poster, could you please give some input here? With all the expense involved in looking for the Higg's particle, I assume that there are physicists who would describe the existence of the Higg's particle as being predicted at a high enough probability to justify that cost. Your responses are invited to be over my head. I just think that they should be put forward for discussion to see if professionals agree and give some basis for why or why not? Thank you.

James

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 10:03 GMT
"Up until 2006 QCD theorists were predicting a 'weak quark gas' at high temps [such as RHIC gold-on-gold collisions]. When they reached these temps, they found a 'perfect fluid' [as predicted by my theory.]"

It seems from the time of the ancient Greeks, we've been asking; What's the smallest possible unit and the answer keeps coming back; Whatever it is, they are all connected. The network is primary.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 01:25 GMT
Hi Ray,

It's good to hear from you. Of course you're Ray! Who else would you be?

From my perspective, looking for a Higgs "particle" really means that the whole Higgs field concept is broken. I just don't see a 4D crystal lattice as being that which implements the physical universe. If it were, then time travel would be possible. Since it's not, then that which implements the laws of physics should look more like a network. I suggested the use of balls and sticks. Balls represent mass & reference frames. The sticks provide a way to fix the velocity of light to c (vac) for all emitters and observers. The way this differs from a Higgs particle/field is that the ball/stick model interconnects all matter and all energy (light).

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 15:38 GMT
I fully agree with William that scientists should stop with using the word GOD as a preposition to ideals they are chasing after, sorry for George Smoot who said on 23 april 1992 about CBR : "If you are religious it is like looking at GOD". The God view is also used in a in my opinion non positive way to be able to observe our Universe(s) in a non causal way.

In principle it was the intention to simplify our system by stopping the intellectual creation of more builing stones of the known Universe, now however SUSY (supersymetry) was invented (good idea but it does not make the world more easy , the amount of particles doubled !!!) and all kind of other predictions were made that would explain our not knowing and change it to knowing, also particles were invented in a mathematical way, string theory added 10 dimensions and 10^100 paralel worlds (or more, doesn't matter in this kind of figures, a great cahnce that it is not true and that there are more as 10^500 paralel worlds).

where are we going to ?

Occams razor is needed, back to the principals, and you have to admit that there are things we cannot explain.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 16:27 GMT
"God" is the excuse to remain ignorant and a baby. Indeed, it is the ultimate denial of truth, responsiblity, nature, growth, inevitability, and reality.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 01:45 GMT
Wilhelmus,

I don't know how many times something inspired me, I researched it, had a brilliant idea, and then had to gut the idea because it didn't fit. For whatever reason, I have to be inspired to make progress towards a goal. Whether that inspiration is God, aliens or something equally titilating, it gets me to ask the hard questions. When I ask the hard questions, e.g., (does it satisfy Occam's razor?), then often times the idea itself is gutted and I have to start over. I have piles of thousands of gutted ideas that came to me from whatever "powers that be".

My answer to your comment is that the inspiration, whatever it may be, is only a means to create a revolutionary idea. But then the idea has to be tested against other physics to reveal its weaknesses.

As for the "God particle", it might have inspired lots of people to look at it, but you're right. Physicists shouldn't include God as part of the physics model. God wouldn't want to be reduced to an equation anyway.

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 15:21 GMT
Hi Jason,

I appreciated very much your post from the heart.

It is true that our “inspiration” is a wonderful event each time that we are dealing wit it. In my opinion it is part of our consciousness , which is something that we cannot describe in formula’s (sorry for Tommy Gibertson) just like we are having problems with gravity, but if you see gravity as emerging from some higher level of “reality” (Verlinde) then it becomes more understandable (FQXi articles/display/132).

It is in the contact that is established between our consciousness and TOTAL SIMULTANEITY (see my essay)

that we are aware of infinities, religion and the God idea, because like these Total Simultaneity is non causal, non deterministic, there all probabilities become possibilities, all the parallel worlds we think of are present but not in the space/time way , a probability does not need space nor time, in this what I call fifth dimension one cannot count from one to ten.

Scientists should not use the God name to ask attention for their ideas, it is not a good idea neither that they think their inspiration is the ultimate one and therefore use the word GOD , everything in science is always changing and evolving , in our 4D causal Universe the ultimate truth is not existing, if it is existing it is in eternity and that is the same as unreachable, like the God understanding of our consciousness.

Scientists can however also think about this ideas and try to understand not only the HOW but also the WHY, nothing wrong with that, for that you could see the SCIENTIFIC GOD JOURNAL, from dr. Huping Hu, he also published my essay , because of the parallels with the understanding of Total Simultaneity and the idea of a God , however Total Simultaneity is not a creator, it is consciousness itself that creates its own universe.

This is all perhaps not in line with the blog, we can continue on the thread that comes along with my essay.

Keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 16:32 GMT
If you want to truly and fundamentally extend physical understanding in and with time, be prepared, as I have done, to spend the enormous amount of TIME

that necessarily goes hand-in-hand in doing so. It's not nearly as easy as you all generally think it is.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 16:39 GMT
Inertial and gravitational equivalency depends upon space being both, and equally, visible and invisible. Indeed, ultimately, vision and gravity are not otherwise possible.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 16:43 GMT
See the black/inertial space of the eye/vision? See the visible ground at the feet (involving gravity)? Does this mean nothing to you all?

I have fundamentally unified physics in/as dream experience? See why/how I have shown FUNDAMENTAL inertial and gravitational equivalency/balancing in dreams?

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 12:21 GMT
Hello all,

It's an interesting thread which harps back to the very fundamentals of our pre-conceptions. It should be remembered that 'field theory' isn't a work of the imagination, it's the result of Newton's acceptance of an equation for planetary motion without a mechanism. This lack of a mechanism is paramount in understanding the problems that modern science has in defining the concepts of matter and gravity. If the known forces are to be united, then it's philosophically only possible if the gravity force is anisotropic, due to the others being clearly anisotropic. Newton left his theory hanging without a mechanism which implies isotropic gravitational effects from a known body. Put in a mechanism which makes intuitive sense and you should come up with a common sense solution which just *looks* isotropic for everyday matter.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 12:40 GMT
I just came across this 3D simulation model showing the vast scale of the universe, see here: A breathtaking view highlighting the vast scope of our universe and the number of stars within it. A similar simulation model of the quantum world is needed imo. Nothing else will surfice.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 15:36 GMT
Instantaneity demonstrates that larger and smaller space are ultimately entwined in a balanced fashion. This indicates fundamental/balanced force/energy, including a balance between visible and invisible. I have demonstrated the full significance of this in dreams.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 15:41 GMT
Gravity enjoins and balances visible and invisible space -- this is a most fundamental definition of gravity.

Fundamentally, instantaneity ultimately demonstrates that Einstein's theory of gravity is fundamentally limited and incomplete. I have proven it. Again, we originate at/from the center of the human body.

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 22:33 GMT
Dear All,

Singularity or I gives mass to everything. We will always find what we seek eventually as I or singularity creates it for us.

There is absolutely nothing but singularity or I and this is the absolute truth.

Any where we go in the universe or multiverse we will definitely find I or singularity becuase I is in the heart of everything.

Love,

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 00:47 GMT
See the black/inertial space of the eye/vision? See the visible ground at the feet (involving gravity)? Gravity enjoins and balances visible and invisible space. Gravity, visible and invisible, is key to distance in/of space.

Now, see why/how I have shown FUNDAMENTAL inertial and gravitational equivalency/balancing in dreams? Space is then equally (and it is both) invisible and visible.

I have fundamentally unified physics in/as dream experience. Keep an eye on the next issue of Physics Today for the full story. I am betting that this all, and more, is going to get published there.

Instantaneity demonstrates that larger and smaller space are ultimately entwined in a balanced fashion. This indicates fundamental/balanced force/energy, including a balance between visible and invisible. I have demonstrated the full significance of this in dreams as well.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 03:50 GMT
The Higg's idea has to do with saving the standard theory by introducing mass and gravity into it adhoc. I think that:

Newton did not know that the speed of light had a limit that would affect bodies with mass even within our solar system. I think that if he had known that that he would have quickly adjusted his theory of gravity, and, that it would not have included concepts such as space and time are curved. I think that the way he would have approached the problem would be to rely heavily on empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence is about patterns in changes of velocity. Neither space nor time have been experimented on and observed to undergo changes of velocity.

I think he might have been motivated to re-examine his own equation f=ma. I say this because knowing mass is the key to understanding gravity. I think he might have felt that since he began with f=ma (f=dP/dt wasn't intended for relativistic purpose) that he would return to the equation for re-evaluation.

I think Newton was the best. He has been surpassed theoretically, but I do not think he has been surpassed in reality. He is not here to prove that he could have led us in a far better direction for explaining gravity. But, my own approach to theoretical physics is influenced greatly by him. The Einstein model, for me, is not empirically based.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 04:03 GMT
My message above should have begun with the words "I think!" I respect true theoretical physicists for their high level of educational achievement and in many cases originality beyond that. I am not a physicist, but, I do mean what I said in that message. Any coreections by physicists are welcome.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 13:38 GMT
The physical modelling of the three quarks in relation to one another has yet to be achieved in order to understand the concepts of matter and gravity. Crystal-like arrangements of quarks leads to the additional effects of the magnetic and electric force imo. The only really useful thing I remember from my classical education was that these are right angles to one another. This implies that the quarks are in a configuration which are at right angles to one another. Why does no-one try to model the physical configuration of the proton and neutron? Why do modern particle physicists only talk about GeV's? Their language has become a babble of their own making.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 13:43 GMT
A dark alien world, blacker than coal, has been spotted by astronomers

My guess is that it's metastable metallic hydrogen i.e. dark matter

attachments: dark_exoplanet.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 14:13 GMT
Can Neutron Stars Crush Neutrons into Cubes? (Aug 16 2011). Just the kind of thing I was talking about earlier.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 01:51 GMT
Alan,

You ask, "Why does no-one try to model the physical configuration of the proton and neutron?"

Physicists do attempt this using Lattice-QCD as I remarked above. Their models are almost ridiculously simple in concept, but their idea of QCD nevertheless leads to incredibly complex calculations that typically achieve only one or two place agreement with experiment.

I have a much different model in my book "The Chromodynamics War", but it is far outside of the current theory and has very few people who take it seriously. I am hoping that when the Higgs fails to show my model may attract more interest, but based on experiences at FQXi I am not optimistic. One must be inside the tent to be taken seriously.

As I pointed out in an earlier remark on this thread, there are a number of significant anomalies having to do with these simplest nucleons (proton and neutron) that are completely unexplained in QCD. These failures are simply attributed to 'complexity' of QCD and ignored, for the most part.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 15:51 GMT
Unity in variety is fundamental to beauty and unification in physics, and this includes:

Balance and completeness.

Combine and include opposites.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 16:01 GMT
Instantaneity depends upon combining, balancing, and including larger and smaller space, and this involves fundamental force/energy. This means equivalent and balanced inertia and gravity, and balanced attraction and repulsion.

Newton and Einstein never explained variety in unity, and they never explained instantaneity, and they never truly and fundamentally explained inertial and gravitational equivalency.

F=ma (at bottom) is constant force/energy in keeping with everything in this post, and it fundamentally demonstrates equivalent inertia/resistance to acceleration and gravity/acceleration. (F=ma ultimately demonstrates balanced attraction and repulsion with gravity and inertia both at half strength/force in dreams.)

I showed that dreams have everything in this post, AND that they are a linked center of body experience. Get it? I have truly unified physics.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 16:13 GMT
By generally and fundamentally averaging (and controlling) for motion/mobility like this, we have instantaneity and fundamental inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing -- (see my last post).

I have fundamentally unified physics -- gravity, inertia, electromagnetism, observer/observed, F=ma.

I have shown space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic/inertial energy. Note the colors in dreams too.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 16:27 GMT
Note the semi-immobility in dreams and that the BALANCED force/energy of gravity and inertia therein is HALF of the feeling on your feet while standing. FACT.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 16:35 GMT
Half gravity is consistent with semi-immobilized. Full gravity is full mobility. Are you seeing how this all comes together so brilliantly?

Like it or not, that doesn't matter. What matters -- and it matters alot -- is that it is WAY too much to ignore. Read my prior posts please.

FQXi.org -- Yopu need to do something. Seriously, are you alive?

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 17:11 GMT
FQXi.org -- why do you refuse to acknowledge my unification? Respond.

Your credibility is seriously in question here. That is clear.

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear All,

For every action there is equal and opposite reaction, - Sir Isaac Newton

there is also inaction at the point of their interaction.

Universal I or singularity "is" that point of inaction.

Love,

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 20, 2011 @ 16:34 GMT
Wow, finally, some excellent wisdom. Exactly what I have proven. Combine, balance, and include opposites. Inertial and gravitational equivalency is at the heart of this. Life is at the heart of this. Unity in variety. Growth is at the heart of this. Dreams, ultimately, are at the heart of this. The center of the body is at the heart of this. I am at the heart of this.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 20, 2011 @ 02:05 GMT
The discoveries of experimental physicsts have nothing to do with describing the nature of God. No particle is 'Thee' God particle. Either all particles are God particles or none are. I do not know about the nature of the original cause of this universe, but, neither do physicists, especially theoretical physicists. Theory is a guessing game. It relies heavily upon inventing causes and putting those invented causes into equations.

Those equations should and do begin by reflecting patterns empirical evidence; however, theorists insist on adding inventions of the mind into explanations about reality. Those inventions are forced into equations through the medium of units. If the 'causes' are artificial, as they always are in theories, they take theory further and further away from reality. So, now we end up with the opportunity to discover the Higg's particle. The Higg's particle is not predicted by theory. It is needed to save theory.

If the Higg's particle proves to be a part of empirical evidence, not theoretical interpretation, then we have something concrete. However, the physicists who conduct the experiments are so steeped in theory, I don't know yet how to react should they say that the Higg's particle has been found. My own, non-professional, opinion is that it will be nothing other than a photon. Anyone, especially those with PHDs are invited to offer corrections to this message.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 20, 2011 @ 23:37 GMT
Quoting from the article:

"... Newton's model of time, "passing equably without relation to anything external," is incorrect. ..."

This is written by William Orem; however, since I am looking for responses, I direct it to any interested parties. Why does the above description demonstrate that Newton's model is incorrect? Is this a statement merely about the belief of the author in the correctness of Relativity Theory?

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 20:40 GMT
Well looks like there is no interest. So before closing down this question, I will give my own opinion: Newton was correct about time and Einstein was not. There is nothing in empirical evidence to support the notion of time dilation.

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 18:53 GMT
Einstein's theory of gravity fails to fundamentally balance gravity and inertia. Truly balanced/equivalent inertia and gravity fundamentally balances attraction and repulsion in keeping with instantaneity and space that is equally (and both) invisible and visible. Instantaneity involves combining, balancing, and including larger and smaller space as the same space in accordance with fundamental force/energy. I showed all of this in/as dream experience. Inertia and gravity are both at half strength/force in dreams.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 19:01 GMT
Space that is equally (and both) invisible and visible is consistent with instantaneity and the combining, balancing, and including of larger and smaller space as the same space in accordance with fundamental force/energy. Accordingly, inertia and gravity are both at half strength/force in dreams.

Dreams meet the actual and theoretical requirements of unifying life, thought, and physics.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 19:18 GMT
Is the goal of modern physics the conversion of natural sensory experience into pure energy and into what is more inanimate? Someone tell me what the legitimate goal of modern physics is. Changing/reducing experience and people in order to gain profits and money? Technology (television, atomic bombs) is a destructive/reducing power. We are becoming like the babies in the inanimate matrix.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 19:22 GMT
Did you know that the world of experience (in many/various forms) as an unnatural creation of thought is an inanimate nightmare that is literally consuming us and making us more inanimate? Many of you physicists are blind.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Aug. 22, 2011 @ 15:17 GMT
Well, those data spikes seem to be fading into the background.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 22, 2011 @ 17:00 GMT
On another blog, in response to the Lepton-Photon conference beginning today Robert L. Oldershaw posted the following: 22 Aug 2011

For those who have been predicting all along that the LHC would find:

No string/brane exotica,

No sparticles,

No SUSY,

No WIMPS,

No extra-dimensions,

No mini-black holes,

No Randall-Sundrum gravitons,

No greased pig Higgsy,

Nothing beyond the pre-LHC standard model,

it certainly could be quite a day, indeed, robustly, landscapeably so.

Note that we will not be booking spots on the Colbert Report, or going to fancy conferences to share fantasies. No, we will be studying nature and doing our best to ignore the hyped pseudo-science that dominated particle physics for decades.

RLO - Discrete Fractal Cosmology

It may or may not be premature, but I certainly share the feeling.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 01:37 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Could this mean that a Higgs particle is not be found? If so, do you think the physics community will abandon a "particle-centric" strategy and try another approach?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 02:15 GMT
If the microcosm is this misunderstood, how sure are the theories of the macrocosm?

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 05:13 GMT
Dear Jason and John,

Again, quoting Robert L Oldershaw:

"One or more fundamental assumptions at the heart of particle physics must be egregiously wrong. This is why we have the vacuum energy density crisis, and the incompatibility between GR and QM. Time for new ideas?"

...

But my bet is that those wedded to their theories will simply retain their ideas and look for some Higgs 'alternative' mechanism instead of realizing that a theory with 28 parameters to be fitted to data and no explanation for mass and no predictive power and many unexplained anomalies is simply nonsense and should be replaced by a theory based on new concepts that do not suffer these faults. It's simply human nature. There's the tremendous investment that's been made. They can't throw it away!

Nevertheless, with no Higgs and no SUSY, no WIMPs and none of the other nonsense it will become harder and harder to justify doing things "the way we've always done them". What is the establishment about if not the established way of doing things?

Taking advantage of the 'audit trail' nature of FQXi, I predict, based on my theory, that no new physics will show up at the LHC.

When no new physics shows up at the LHC, then the claim will be that it occurs only at higher energies (our theories demand it!) and the clamor will begin for a new bigger collider. Lot's of luck with that.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 09:34 GMT
Here's a relevant article I've just read Hints fade of elusive physics 'God particle'

I'm also holding out for the "'audit trail' nature of FQXi" and believe that the metastable metallic hydrogen (MSMH) as dark matter comet cores will prevail and overshadow your own contribitions Edwin. Let battle commence

Alan

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 09:52 GMT
Edwin, Alan,

" the clamor will begin for a new bigger collider."

Would epicycles have lasted for 1500+ years, if western civilization not gone dark for 1000 of them? I'm being pessimistic, but the coming economic implosion might serve to lock the current model in place, or it might serve as catalyst for change in many fields. Time will tell.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 10:01 GMT
I predict that the physics community will cling to the idea of a Higgs boson until there last gasps. It will take half a century of aimless wandering amidst the wreckage of broken theories. Many decades after we are all gone, a spark of new physics will burn. It will lead to gravity field generators, non conserved energy transactions with the quantum vacuum, and new technologies that will break free of the shackles of entropy and quantum randomness. Future generations will discover what lies beneath the Uncertainty Principle.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 13:04 GMT
I would not compose a requiem for the Higgs particle yet. The LHC has recorded only about .1% of the data it is slated to record, beam luminosity is still not near the expected maximum and it is running at half power. However, within the MSSM we are at energy sufficient to observe the Higgs. The 8 components of the Higgs field have 3 of those field degrees of freedom absorbed into Z and...

view entire post

attachments: Poincare_half_plane.JPG

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 13:40 GMT
Eloquent and compact, Lawrence. I remember we discussed the Bekenstein-Mayo "Black holes are 1-dimensional" result back in the first essay on time competition. (My essay leads off with it.) I agree there's a lot of physics to be mined from that extreme boundary.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 16:16 GMT
Lawrence,

Not to be presumptuous, but how far are you willing to deconstruct what you have spent a lifetime immersed in, in order to examine all possible solutions? You have spent your life in a good faith effort to understand the nature of reality and to do that have been joined in a group effort, extending over many generations. What if those conceptual errors creating the dilemma facing physics today are buried so far down that not only the last few decades might be off track, but the fissures are going down into conceptual bedrock? It's like a dissident Catholic priest might question the current direction of the church, while the notion of questioning the top down spirituality of monotheism is intellectually impossible, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that the excesses of the church might not ultimately be predicated in that very top down paternalism on which that theology is based.

I tend to question the possibility of a Higgs because it would seem a particle that conferred mass would not be very elusive. Isn't mass really just an effect of inertia and inertia a manifestation of equilibrium? Wouldn't that imply some field effect of the vacuum? In that case, are we not bumping up against the limits of what can be isolated and measured and can only be inferred? Does that big old void exist, or is it really only just things that bump into one another?

What really is the nature of space? Is it created by everything bursting from the singularity, or is that singularity our attempt to declare a centerpoint to our universal coordinate system?

It seems likely the possible failure to find a basic, standard model Higgs is only going to lead to ever more convoluted math, because those with the most at stake are certainly not going to question foundational premises, any more than Central Banks would question the efficacy of relaxing credit in the face of economic uncertainty. In both cases, that doesn't preclude the possibility of deeper problems, only defines the limits of the tools we have to deal with them.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 23:06 GMT
The manifestation that links center of body experience is the true and fundamental equivalency of inertia and gravity, as I have shown. We all do originate and grow at/from the center of the human body, correct? Dreams fundamentally and truly unify gravity and inertia. I showed this definitively.

Many of you are like idiots who repeatedly slam their heads against a wall that is not going to give way. Stop the rampant lies in physics please.

My new book is coming out soon, and it is going to expose many of the rampant lies, idiotic ideas, and distortions/misrepresentations in modern physics

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 19:44 GMT
This thread generated a number of replies. I am going to try to cover them here

I suggested the problem involves the nature of time. I suggested something about AdS_2 ~ CFT_1 on the 1-dim boundary times Z_2. This may be thought of as time, where time is a sort of transmission line --- a one dimensional “wire,” or sequence of diode junctions which “process.” Space being...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 19:48 GMT
I forgot to attach the image file

attachments: zitterbewegung.JPG

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 23:29 GMT
Hello Dr. Crowell,

Please forgive me; in my universe, I only get 15 minute breaks.

I liked the first several paragraphs of what you've said. I'll read the rest at lunch time. If objects like computers, dogs and planets can consist of Avagadros of atoms and molecules (which are point-like), then why can't space-time consist of Avagadros of transmission line "wires" in such a way that the wires themselves account for relativity, action-at-a-distance, and the separation dependence that shows up in Newtonian gravity, Coulomb's law, etc.? If you have enough of these "wires", and they tend to interconnect with massive objects (massive particles), then one should really be describing a Higgs field. Right?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 00:05 GMT
The quantum channel is one dimensional. Space is a sort of fiber bundle in a C* construction with this transmission line.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 19:54 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"By just sitting in my chair with everything around me largely at rest relative to my position I am in fact traveling at the speed of light. So is everything else. In fact one reason nothing can travel faster than light is because nothing can travel slower than light. The only thing is that there are two different ways of traveling at the speed of light. We and everything with mass does it in one way. Light and massless particle do it another way."

When you use the word 'fact' I assume there is empirical evidence to support it. What is the empirical evidence that says we are moving at the speed of light?

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 00:04 GMT
Maybe the word fact is a bit strong. However, the supporting evidence for this is the huge amount of empirical support for relativity.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 00:05 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

Thank you for your informative response.

James

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 00:24 GMT
Lawrence,

After suggesting that "something about AdS_2 ~ CFT_1 on the 1-dim boundary times Z_2. [...] may be thought of as time, where time is a sort of transmission line --- a one dimensional "wire," or sequence of diode junctions which "process"..., you then suggest that dtdx = h and remark upon the "wavefunction of the universe".

You then claim "Time is involved with mass" in a way that supports your statement that "by just sitting in one spot you are moving at the speed of light...".

I actually do follow your exposition and find it fascinating. For months now you have been openly willing to admit the problems facing physics. You have said, in essence, that "the deeper we probe quantum mechanics, the weirder it gets." You also seem willing to question the nature of the vacuum, in light of 120 orders of magnitude less energy than QED calculated. And with the recent INTEGRAL dispersion results you now say:

"So spatial quantum fluctuations do not manifest themselves in ways that many physicists think they do, or they may be absent altogether."

If I interpret this correctly, you seem to be questioning even the existence of 'virtual particles', which is the bedrock of QED. I am encouraged by your statement that "some data of late, the no Lorentz violations from spacetime fluctuations, low bounds on dipole structure of electric charge of electron, and now the paucity of a signal for the Higgs particle does suggest that nature is telling us something very different from what we have been thinking."

And yet, it is difficult to be fully consistent with these new discoveries. For example, when you write dt dx = h, are you assuming that dx now has a lower limit 10^-48 meters, or are you allowing for the possibility that there is no minimum length?

Also, you seem to have factored 'mass' out of the relation, dtdx = h, which is suitable to a transmission line, or mathematical formulation, but not a physical formulation.

You seem open to the possibility that there is no Higgs, but it almost seems as if you conclude from this that there is no mass. Hence you can equate massive or massless particles as "moving at the speed of light". You admit that there is no continuous transformation between these, but seem to act as if both are equally valid, although in a universe with inertial mass only massless particles move at the speed of light.

Granted, I may be entirely mistaken in my interpretation of what you have written, but sometimes I wonder whether math or physics is more 'real' for you.

Nevertheless, you are impressive in command of your own ideas, and I thank you for presenting them to us.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 20:58 GMT
Where things get really strange is with the quantum fluctuations of spacetime itself. The vacuum with other particle fields is also problematic for there is a huge sum over momentum values which packs a huge amount of “data” into the vacuum. I think that a particle, such as an electron, is such that it has amplitudes which cover the entire universe. In effect there is just one electron in the entire universe. We however observe the various amplitudes with different configuration variables, where these different configurations are an entanglement. So the electrons flowing through your computer are the same electrons and the same as electrons in a dwarf star exerting degenerate pressure against collapse, and the same as an electron quantum emitted by a black hole.. The same holds for photons, quarks, neutrinos and so forth. This holds for the vacuum state as well.

Fundamentally there is only one vacuum occupation level for a photon. When we do a Casimir experiment we measure the photon vacuum under different sets of configuration variables. This results in the energy difference of the vacuum inside and outside the plate setup. What we measure is not really a vacuum energy difference, but rather the E = kT difference in the entanglement entropy of the photon vacuum with this configuration.

I have to leave it at this level. The guts of this do involve some deep mathematics, such as elliptic curve theory and modular forms, which necessitates some understanding of A. Weiles’ proof of the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture that forms the backbone of the Fermat theorem proved in 1994.

As for mathematics, I think it is clear that the foundations of physics require deeper levels of mathematics for its description. Physics has generally followed this trend from its beginning, and I think it holds today.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 22:32 GMT
Thanks Lawrence,

What I admire most about you is your willingness to let it all hang out. It is sometimes difficult to get straight answers to simple questions around here, but you profess your beliefs without any wishy-washiness.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 02:18 GMT
Lawrence,

I do have a general sense of the geometry of relativity and understand its usefulness, but it still seems time is a measure of motion and would make more physical sense as a scalar, rather than a vector.

For instance, there is no internal motion to the photon, so it has no time dimension. On the other hand, as that particle slows down, its level of internal activity, the "zitterbewegung," increases, so its clock runs faster. This level of activity is a scalar.

That is how there can be two clocks running at different speeds, yet remain in the same present.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 21:01 GMT
Space is spanned by a set of three coordinate vectors. Relativity is a transformation between space and time. Time must then be a vector, for it makes no sense to transform a vector into a scalar.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 21:10 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"Relativity is a transformation between space and time. Time must then be a vector, for it makes no sense to transform a vector into a scalar."

No time must be what it is. Time is not affected by force. Time does not move acrossed a distance. Time is not energy. If there is empirical evidence that shows that time responds to force, what is it.

James

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 01:41 GMT
Lawrence,

Space is no more spanned by three coordinate vectors than the earth is girded by longitude and latitude lines and the atmosphere marked off by altitude lines. They are all modeling tools.

Time as a vector is also a modeling tool. Specifically the narrative function, i.e. the history of a particular point of reference. In this case, that of the center point of the xyz axis', as the field being modeled evolves. While the effect of this evolution can be modeled as a vector, the cause, the cumulative processes involved, are scalar, in the sense that the level of activity strongly affects the rate of change from one configuration to the next.

Consider the twins paradox, where the one traveling in space ages faster because there is no gravity to slow the rate of atomic activity and all the molecular and cellular processes arising from it. Basically it causes the twin in space to have a higher metabolic rate and age faster.

In the other hand, if time were really a vector, this would mean that the twin in space would move along this vector from past to future faster and they would no longer exist in the same present.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 03:29 GMT
This is the picture I get. There are an infinite number of fibers. These fibers are 1D space-time; they set the speed of light to c between emitter and observer. These fibers intertwine to form massive particles. Anti-particles are intertwined in the opposite direction such that they cause each other to unwind (annihilate). There are probably some differences between the fibers that implement mass/gravity versus those that implement charge; but the same idea works for both. Everything is interconnected with these fibers. Large accumulations of these fibers average out to produce flat space-time. Light can traverse from one end of these fibers to the other, but there is a restriction. Light can only frequency shift between radio waves and gamma rays. If these fibers permit light to frequency shift, then they should also account for time dilation t'/t, between their two ends. If time dilation can occur between the two ends, then a change in frequency for a photon can occur. A change in frequency should relate to a change in gravitational potential.

These fibers should account for GR and SR. These fibers should be describable with wave functions because they are the physical manifestation of wave functions. Wave functions are just empty space. Since they permit light to traverse them, they are 1D fibers of space-time.

These fibers, somehow, have to (conduct?) the passage of time.

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 16:02 GMT
Jason,

Why making these fibers only one-dimensional ?

The "fibers of space time" can be regarded upon as our universe but also as the possible paralel universal "life lines", imagine all these "fibers" (not visible as material fibers but they are experienced by US as a whole Universe) intertwined together, (just another visual trick) becomes an even better idea as the bubbles we are used to imagine. Everybody follows his own fiber (life-line) where the past is a point of the fiber, the now is not existing and the future the next point....

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 21:19 GMT
It has to do with spacetime and transformations. A 1-dim line or curve with an M^3 fibration will give different information on the 1-dim line by Lorentz transformations. There is no need for a vast number of lines.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 03:30 GMT
Mathematics is a method of modeling the physical laws of nature. I just don't see how physics can be implemented with a mathematical model. In contrast, if we say that every particle of mass is interconnected with every other particle of mass using 1D space-time fibers, the overlaps goes unnoticed. What I'm describing is the physical implementation of physics. These interconnecting fibers insure that the speed of light is c (vac) for all observers; they implement relativity. These fibers are space and time.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 15:20 GMT
year.html]Large Hadron Collider to stay running for another year (31 Jan 2011)[/url].

I'm still no wiser as to what the refit is actually for though.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 15:24 GMT
"Scientists have discovered that copper connectors are unlikely to handle its maximum output and so will close the machine to fix them at the end of 2011."

I heard on the news a few weeks ago that Prof Cox said that the LHC was having problems. Presumably something different to the copper wire issue

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 19:21 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"Time is involved with mass in the following way, which requires going back to the most basic notions of relativity."

Time is involved with mass. It must be. The existences of both mass and force are inferred from acceleration. Acceleration involves time. The answer to the question as to what is mass, does include considerations of time but not through relativity theory. The invention of Realtivity theory cames after the definition of mass. If mass is an afterthought then theory is in real trouble. The fundamentals do not tell the whole story, adjustments are likely needed. However, the arbitrary choice to make mass an indefinable property long before Relativity theory existed is where the problem with understanding mass began.

I do not think that Relativity theory is correct or proven. However, even if I am wrong, mass must be correctly defined beginning with f=ma. That definition includes getting the units of mass correct right from the start. The units cannot be made up. Each time that units are invented it takes theory further away from confirmation by empirical evidence. The units of all properties that are inferred from empirical evidence must be expressible in the units of that evidence. The units of that evidence consist of combinations of meters and seconds.

I am posting this message for the record. If you find it to be incompetent there is no need to derail this thread. I think that others should pay attention to what you say. My opinion is different.

James

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear william,

I think that the temporal spread of the observed universe due to transmission delay of em data, giving a time dimension is being confused with the passage of time due to change in spatial position of mass and particles within the space of the universe that exists unobserved. Just because for the photon the time dimension is irrelevant does not mean that there is not still passage of time, IE continual changes of spatial position of the matter and particles of the universe. What an observer observes and what -is- unobserved are not the same thing.

No it is not pedantic to say time is running when no one can see it running. Because passage of time is not created by the observer but exists without observation, unlike the time dimension of space-time which is created by the observer using delayed data input. Your comment seems to have this kind of flawed logic; those fan blades are moving so fast they can't be seen by anyone, therefore it is pedantic to say there are fan blades. Does seeing -make- them real, seeing is believing? OK William try putting your hand in there and say whether what you saw is really real -Being invisible to an observer does not make them incapable of slicing through flesh and bone.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 21:59 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

In several posts above (to Jason and to me) you commented on or asked about Verlinde's idea that gravity is an emergent effect of entropy. I told you that I have analyzed Verlinde's theory elsewhere, and do not accept his ideas. Partly because it is a ridiculously complicated idea with over a dozen assumptions, some questionable, and also because my theory, which is based on gravity being real and basic, is making predictions and matching new experimental results.

I would call your attention to http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161 21 Aug 2011, "gravity is not an entropic force."

In Verlinde's theory gravity is essentially a statistical force, and this calls into question just how gravity can influence quantum particles. The fact is that experiments for a decade or more have shown the effect of gravity on neutrons, effectively disproving Verlinde's idea.

I have difficulty understanding how anyone could take Verlinde seriously, but it appears that there is almost a hunger in some to believe that "information" is a physically real entity, and this must lead to grasping at straws.

On a more general note, 2011 is shaping up to be a "miracle year" in physics due to an extraordinary number of significant experiments being reported. The INTEGRAL experiment demolished Planck length, the LHC will (I believe) wipe out Higgs and SUSY, and Aharonov-type 'weak measurements' support the de Broglie "particle plus wave" interpretation of quantum mechanics (that follows from my theory). Also Gravity Probe B's confirmation of the reality of the C-field. All this follows on 2010's discovery of the 4 percent proton radius anomaly that threatens QED (and also follows from my theory). I believe that many of the mathematical inventions that have cluttered physics for a few decades are going to be pruned 'real soon now' and we can get on with ideas of reality that at least match experiment.

I think this is a good thing.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 23:49 GMT
Hi Edwin,

As a Particle Physicist who tries to understand reality via properties of particle quanta and fractals, I am not willing to give up on the idea that quantum gravity exists at another scale. I don't have a problem with that information being relayed from a higher-dimensional space to our (3+1)-D Spacetime via a holographic boundary (effectively supplying the 'zoom' transformation required to 'quantum leap' from one self-similar reality to another), but I do have a problem with gravity being interpreted as an entropic force.

I skimmed Erik Verlinde's paper, did not see how it fit into my own schemes, and thus put it aside. But I think that Verlinde is saying that the holographic boundary itself changes such that it has entropic properties (similar to the information/ entropy content of a Black Hole event horizon) - NOT that gravity is literally an entropic force. This difference may seem subtle, but it is a critical difference, IMO.

In my FQXi essay, I declared that reality is fundamentally *BOTH* continuous and discrete (and thus explains wave-particle duality). If your theory has four fundamental continuous fields and four fundamental discrete particle quanta, then you may be saying the same thing (in a different way - of course). The only way that I see to unify those two extremes of continuous vs. discrete is via fractals.

I think of reality as a Koch Snowflake - it might appear to be finite, but a closer examination proves it to be infinite. Likewise, our Spacetime framework appears to be (3+1)-dimensional, but closer examination might reveal more dimensions - and perhaps even an infinite number of dimensions. Before we dismiss such an idea, we should recall that Hilbert Space *IS* infinite-dimensional.

I'm also not willing to give up the idea that fundamental scalars (Higgs or Goldstone bosons) and tensors (Gravitons) exist, but my models are *NOT* the minimal ideas from the Standard Model. Effectively, a scalar quanta (such as the Higgs boson) propagates the quantum field (the vacuum ~ the aether) required to induce mass into 'particles' that are 'massless' to first order in the basic Standard Model. It seems that something interesting is happening around 140 GeV. It might be too heavy to be the Standard Higgs, but it could be the Light Higgs of SUSY. Early LHC data implied that something else interesting might be happening around 370 GeV, but that significant void seemed to disappear with the inclusion of Tevatron data. The 'signal' at 370 GeV seems to be a *NEGATIVE* result rather than a *POSITIVE* result, but it should indicate new physics. I wonder if a SUSY Heavy Higgs and Pseudoscalar Higgs exist in the same mass range, and their conflicting parity properties lead to negative interference. I'm not sure - I can only speculate.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 00:42 GMT
Ray,

It's my impression that Verlinde *is* saying that gravity is an entropic force. I have just downloaded six papers discussing his theory and plan to reread his paper plus my original notes, and will check this point.

As for as Holographic models I have three observations. First, I can derive Susskind's results concerning entropy and area using nothing but concepts of energy. There is no need to consider information to obtain the 'area' relation. Second, the ideas of information used by Susskind are totally confused--he treats information as if it were a particle. Third, I believe the recent INTEGRAL results that demolish the Planck length have negative implications for such 'area' relations [I may be wrong.]

You say "In my FQXi essay, I declared that reality is fundamentally *BOTH* continuous and discrete (and thus explains wave-particle duality). If your theory has four fundamental continuous fields and four fundamental discrete particle quanta, then you may be saying the same thing (in a different way - of course). The only way that I see to unify those two extremes of continuous vs. discrete is via fractals."

I agree that reality is fundamentally *both* continuous and discrete, but I do not see fractals as necessary to support this. My FQXi essay takes a different approach to arrive at the same result, and I have recently realized that my approach can be improved upon.

Of course I do not follow all of your reasoning about Higgs and expected particle masses from your framework, because I reject the idea of these extra dimensions. All we can do is wait for LHC results. As I have remarked in a number of places, the results so far match my theory-based predictions. Obviously that can change. I am not a particle physicist. I was an atomic and molecular quantum mechaniker when I worked in physics, and QCD was just being finalized. Now, 30-plus years later, I find QCD has not gone much further than 1974, and the Standard Model is finally being tested. Thank goodness - I don't think I can wait another 30-plus years.

As I remark above, 2011 is a banner year for fundamental physics experiments, and I truly believe that a number of theories that have been floating around for many years are going to be pruned. Since there is such an incredible amount of non-physics-based mathematical invention clogging up the journals and confusing everyone, I can only see this as extremely positive. I also find it extremely positive that these results so far tend to support my theory and none of them in any way contradict my theory. Having predicted no Higgs and no SUSY since 2006, when it was not so popular, I'm not disappointed that LHC has found nothing yet.

Still having fun,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 01:43 GMT
Ray,

I remarked above that I was reviewing papers on Verlinde's "theory" on 'emergent' gravity. I pointed out that I don't buy holographic universe models as I can derive Susskind's holographic results based on energy, without using the concept of information. I've made this claim several times and no one has responded pro or con. So I was very happy to come across Sabine Hossenfelder's comments on Verlinde, arXiv:1003.1015v1, particularly where she states:

"The number N of 'bits' on the screen made no appearance here [in her derivation]. In particular, making the "identification for the temperature and the information density on the holographic screens might be "natural" but is unnecessary."

This is the first support for my position on "holography and information". I think 2011 is shaping up nicely!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 23:30 GMT
Georgina,

You really need to buy a safer fan.

Time evolves because, in my very simple concept, the inifinite number of 1D fibers of space-time which interconnect all mass, are transmitters of photons. Since photons have frequency, time is built into these fibers. So is gravity; gravity is emergent from these 1D fibers.

Edwin,

These 1D fibers of space-time are also, not the mathematical description of wave-functions, but are that which implements all physics (and are describable as wave-functions). You can't see them any more than you can see "space" or "space-time". You can only see their effects.

If you reject a 1D fiber of space-time, then you are left without a clue as to what causes relativity or what causes geometry. At least with a fiber, someone clever can try to say that it's really a superstring.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 00:53 GMT
Jason,

As usual, I find your unfettered imagination admirable, and pay attention to what you say. I am not much for 1-D reality, although 1-D models often lead to insight. Neither am I much for 'more than 3-D plus time' reality. My theory supports 3-D wavefunctions as particle-plus-wave and addresses some of the key questions that have been argued about on these FQXi blogs. I hope to have the complete C-field theory of quantum mechanics written by the end of this year. [I've worked out the equations, but the words need to be 'smooth'] Recent 'weak measurement'-based experiments are supporting the de Broglie-type trajectories associated with particle-plus-wave, whereas only months ago I was being told this was crazy. I'm enjoying 2011 immensely!

You are probably correct that someone will turn your 1-D fiber into a 'string'.

Glad to see you back online these days.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 01:21 GMT
Jason,

Yes I like those blade-less fans. The ironic thing I have found is that when you come across a blade-less fan and say "Hey this fan has no blades, thats cool" the people around test it by putting their hands through it!!

Still think there can't be a fibre of space-time. There can be some kind of super fluid medium of transmission in unobserved -space- but that which is in space-time, (constructed from received data), is constructed within a void. As the medium for em transmission gives no data about itself. It only carries potential sensory data with which a representation of external reality can be constructed by the recipient. As it, the medium, can't be detected it isn't represented.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 01:44 GMT
Hi Edwin,

E:"I am not much for 1-D reality, although 1-D models often lead to insight. "

When I told my fish that the water in their tank was made of point like particles called H2O, they looked at each other, looked at me and then laughed. As far as their concerned, the universe looks like water.

I think your "3-D wavefunctions as particle-plus-wave " makes perfect sense in the following way. A 3-D wave function is ... space. Wave functions are just space. Eigenvalues and quantum states are just places to put things, places to put particles. What happens if you overlap space A with space B? You get the Venn diagram union of A and B. What do wave-functions (space) and chewing gum having in common? They can both be stretched into long fibers. That allows me to account for action at a distance, the R in Newtonian gravity, and relativity. When rocket A passes satellite B going 0.5c, why is there time dilation between them? Because there is a wave-function between them; there is space-time between them. What happens if I place a particle into a region of space? I get back your 3-D wavefunctions as particle-plus-wave. Why? Because the quantum wave is space. Upon closer inspection, the quantum wave is space-time.

Why are black holes black? Because gravitational time dilation redshifts the photon until all of its energy is gone as it enters flat space-time. A 1-D thread of space-time should permit a frequency shift, for a photon, from f = gamma ray to f = radio waves. If I think of E = hf as a kind of kinetic energy, then I should be able to add it to a gravitational potential energy: hf_i + U_i = hf_f + U_f.

I think I can have a change in gravitational potential energy that is greater than the frequency shift from gamma rays to radio waves. After all, black holes are black. I think I can use this to cheat the speed of light restriction by requiring a mininum of 2 or more 1D space-time fibers between two reference frames.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 00:48 GMT
The mathematics I invoke is modern, but it is not largely my own invention or proofs that I worked up. Moduli spaces of elliptic curves, or equivalent classes of modular forms, are the stuff which involves Weiles’s proof of the Taniyama-Shimira conjecture. This moduli space is something which I have found involves a cohomology for a gauge-like system. Now in a sense I took this abstract mathematics and did work out something rather new. In fact I worked this out just a few weeks ago. So I did a bit of new math, or really used known mathematical techniques to extend this system.

This does involve the categorical equivalency of general relativity and quantum mechanics, which can be thought of as a duality, though it is different from standard dualities. The 3-partite entanglements involves an elliptic curve

det^3(G) = G_{abcd}ψ^aψ^bψ^c

which is an elliptic curve, or a modular discriminant. The hyperdeterminant det(G) is a Jacobi volume that is the entanglement entropy. When this mapped from SL(2, C) type groups to SL(2,R) types is the entropy of a BPS black hole. The 4-partite entanglements are

det^4(G) = G_{abcd}ψ^aψ^bψ^cψ^d = 0

which is a Jacobi quartic curve. The real form of this corresponds to the moduli space of extremal black holes. The intersection between two quadric spaces of these functions is an elliptic curve. This gets into the cohomology.

The “duality” between general relativity and quantum mechanics emerges from coset constructions. These lead to parabolic and Borel groups that are projective varieties and the Heisenberg group. The projective varieties are light cones and the Heisenberg group gives QM of course. The work of Borsten, Dahanayake, Duff, Rubens etc employs the Kostant-Sekiguchi correspondence to arrive at the complex < ---- > real algebraic correspondence between entanglements and STU black hole moduli spaces. I wrote over 20 years ago a Galois field based result which gave an equivalency between QM and GR.

Physically this is different than standard quantization approaches to quantum gravity. This means that two spacetime configurations can interchange between each other through an entanglement. Spacetime may then exist in a superposition of states according to entanglement configurations. Further, quantum fluctuations in spacetime must involve event horizons. A spacetime without an event horizon simply does not quantum fluctuate; quantum fluctuations of gravity are entirely with respect to event horizons.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 10:58 GMT
Lawrence,

"Physically this is different than standard quantization approaches to quantum gravity. This means that two spacetime configurations can interchange between each other through an entanglement. Spacetime may then exist in a superposition of states according to entanglement configurations. Further, quantum fluctuations in spacetime must involve event horizons. A spacetime without an event horizon simply does not quantum fluctuate; quantum fluctuations of gravity are entirely with respect to event horizons."

This is exactly why I think Joy Christian's application of continuous functions to noncommuting, and then to noncommuting/nonassociating complex algebra results in a complete description of physical reality. The framework describes orientation entanglement, which you describe equivalently as the entanglement of spacetime configurations. In fact, seeing the way you have described the landscape, I may even be tempted to speculate that the Christian framework describes (and maybe predicts!) quantum vacuum fluctuations.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 02:20 GMT
Hi Peter van Gaalen,

You said "The quaternion algebra can generate a 4 dimensional manifold. The real part of the quaternion is seen as the scalar part and the imaginairy parts are seen as the vector part."

I basically agree, but if you study the Minkowski metric (-1,+1,+1,+1), you see that time (the scalar component) needs an imaginary phase (that 'ict' term that bothers most people) whereas space (the vector components) needs a real phase.

Thus, if we want to use a quaternion-like 3-sphere S^3 to represent Spacetime, we realize that the overall phase of this specific quaternion is 'imaginary' in order to yield a 3-sphere whose hyper-surface represents 3-D space and whose radius represents time, in such a manner as to yield the standard Minkowski metric.

When studying metrics, there is this overall ambiguity that allows us to represent quaternions as 1 time plus 3 space OR as 3 time plus 1 space. Similarly, an octonion-like 7-sphere S^7 may represent 1 time plus 7 space OR 1 space plus 7 time.

I think that the ambiguity of this overall 'imaginary' phase is part of the math-physics that doubles our 'dimensionality' (and coincidentally looks a lot like our expectations for Supersymmetry) - such that your octonion model becomes a 16-D dual octonion model.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Rick Lockyer replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 04:44 GMT
Ray,

You should consider time in an Octonion framework as being a C sub-algebra of the Octonions. Then take the non-scalar set from a Quaternion sub-algebra made out of the remaining six basis elements as a representation of closed set vector multiplication, such as what is found for classical "axial" vector types, were the vector product of two axial vectors is again an axial vector. The Quaternion sub-algebra non-scalar basis elements of course map to physical xyz as either a right handed or left handed system. The remaining three basis elements also map to physical xyz defined by the choice of non-scalar basis element in the time representation. These three define an open multiplication rule such as the classical "polar" vectors have, where the vector product of two polar vectors is an axial vector, and the product of polar and axial is polar. This is precisely what is found in the permutation triplet multiplication rules involving any two of the last three basis elements.

Be careful extending Minkowski considerations and other trappings of a 4D representation into an Octonion framework. It is a different game.

Rick

report post as inappropriate

Peter van Gaalen replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 08:50 GMT
Hi Ray,

I don't understand what you say about phase. in relativity, phase is not relevant. Phase is important in quantum mechanics.

1). It is just a matter of taste how to write the minkowski metric.

(-1 +1 +1 +1), but also possible: (+1 -1 -1 -1). depends on how to formulate the spacetime constant.

(+1 +1 +1 +1) is the regular quaternion, this is not spacetime....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 12:56 GMT
Ray,

The inclusion of a phase gives the complex octonions. The octonions also have split representations E_{8(-24)} and E_{8(8)}.

The octonions have sets of quaterions, which in the S^7 or the subgroup E_7, are dual to the a triad of elements. This element plus the unit form dual quaterions. The quaterions with four elements construct 4-partite entangled states, while the dual defines 3-partite entangled states which are entangled with a state corresponding to the unit element.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:05 GMT
Instantaneity requires true and fundamental gravitational and inertial equivalency/balancing.

report post as inappropriate

DiMeglio replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:49 GMT
Quantum mechanics is fundamentally incomplete/fragmented/reduced due to/consistent with the above statement. I proved this. TIME IS LACKING AT BOTTOM.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:43 GMT
Everything is force/energy consistent with distance ultimately. Instantaneity is a requirement of this, admit it.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:51 GMT
Instantaneity is actually a fundamental feature/aspect of both space and time.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:56 GMT
Any true and fundamental understanding of time in physics requires and includes instantaneity. You do not understand this, but I proved it.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 19:20 GMT
If you distort, unnatually, visual experience, do you not distort/reduce the understanding/intelligibility? Mathematics is relatively narrow/reduced thinking. Can we find truth in a TV? Better start thinking boys.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 19:32 GMT
James and Georgina,

James asked a wonderful question, "What is the reason that arriving photons indicate to us anything different than what reality is? ... Why do we not see reality as it is...? ... What is fooling us?"

With all due respect, Georgina, I don't believe that you answered the question he is asking, and I would like to briefly try to do so based upon my theory of reality, in a way that I believe is compatible with your explanation. Recall from both my essays that I assume the universe began as one primordial field and *nothing else* and therefore the evolution of the universe can proceed only through self-interaction, which implies some basic level of 'self-awareness'. [To say that the earth is gravitationally attracted to the sun is to say that in some sense the earth is 'aware of' the sun.] This field, through mechanisms I discuss in my essays and detail elsewhere, effectively 'condense' to particles and these constitute the material bodies in the universe.

Although the prevailing Copenhagen religious creed holds that such material is not 'locally real' but a superposition of particle OR wave states, my theory of particle AND wave has [last month] been confirmed by TWO different experiments based on Aharonov's 'weak quantum measurements'. The significance of this is that while Bohr was correct in saying that the human mind cannot grasp the reality of particle OR wave, this is *not* the case for particle AND wave. I grasp it and hope to have a complete explanation available 'real soon now'. If, as I do, one also rejects extra dimensions, and extra universes, then we end up with a unitary universe of one field and its self-evolved manifestations in 3D with locally real entities, some of which are biologically evolved into logical networks that interact with the field(s) in a self-aware manner. It is therefore possible [and I believe likely] that we *do* perceive reality truthfully, and the answer to what is fooling us is...nothing.

The mathematical inventions of physicists-turned-mathematician happen to mislead a lot of people, but this is incidental, not inherent in reality. In other words, the photons James asked about convey reality to our brains which have evolved to understand reality. The brains create maps of the minutely small and of the vastly large realms but these are accurate maps and comprehensible. All attempts to mystify reality with extra-dimensions and with dualistic (particle OR wave) conceptions are misguided and mistaken--our perceptions of the world are valid. Some current theories are not.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 19:44 GMT
Edwin, particle and wave can be seen as invisible and visible -- and this is key to unification in physics -- but you have to consider both dreams and waking as they are ultimately related.

Don't dance around everything. Particle and wave can be seen as involving instantaneity and larger and smaller space, ultimately, that is.

Consider instantaneity as I have described this in its fullness here.

THE ULTIMATE UNDERSTANDING IN PHYSICS COMBINES AND INCLUDES OPPOSITES EDWIN.

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Your view of reality is really razed by OCCAM, as amatter of fact it is what I call the first instant reality and everything that we phantasize about after this is pure theory and can never be tested (hmm untill now...), the clarity of this view however is both overwhelming and HARD , no space for extra dimensions, no space for heaven or hell, the only thing Edwin is that you indicate : THE SELF AWARENESS OF THE UNIVERSE, this my friend is the weak side of your very comprehensible and ultimate logic, WYSIWYG universe, this indicates an eternal self awareness, so I think by then : here we go again this must be a myth. Really in principle the most simple conclusion is in fact yours when you also solve this (last) one ...

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 17:53 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

Thanks for your comments. You are correct that the weakest link in my argument is that I assume a fundamental 'self-awareness' of the primordial field that evolves to our known current reality. All that is necessary to disprove my hypothesis is for someone to unequivocally show how awareness can emerge from building blocks. Having spent many decades on the problem of awareness I am not worried about anyone demolishing my theory, now or in the future. The parts do not become aware when they are arranged in any particular order. They easily calculate and compute, but generate no awareness, absolutely none. As you may recall, rather than formulate a theory based upon concepts and ideas that are idealizations, I base my theory on two aspects of reality that I *directly* experience, gravity and consciousness. All of today's known physics follows from this, including the particles of the Standard Model but minus the Higgs and SUSY. This year, thanks to many stimulations from FQXi members, I have extended the theory to explain quantum mechanics, and the recent 'weak measurements' of quantum phenomena confirm my approach based on 'particle AND wave' as opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation of 'particle OR wave'. So I feel that my hypothesis of fundamental awareness is serving me well.

If one assumes that all living things from cells to insects to snails, to snakes, to fish, birds, and mammals have **some** degree of self-awareness, then the number of different ways that 'brains' can be constructed must number in the millions, therefore the common principle that produces awareness in all of these different structures must be very simple to apply to all of them. Yet no-one can explain such a simple principle, nor do I believe they ever will. Its easier and make more sense to assume universal awareness based on the primordial field, with the logic and hence 'intelligence' dependent on the logical network in each species, and coupling to the field through local mass motion.

I sleep well at night without worrying that anyone will explain awareness as structural and hence discredit my theory.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 03:48 GMT
There is still significant skepticism that a Higgs field is really the effect on 1D fibers of space-time interconnecting every particle of mass. But let me make this argument.

Albert Einstein talked about trains going by the observer at v = 0.5c or some other fraction of the speed of light. Perhaps the observer can see inside of the train where there is a laser that emits a beam upwards from the floor. The beam hits a mirror on the ceiling and reflects downward to the floor. It's probably a dusty train, so many of the photons are scattered out the window so that the observer on the ground can see what looks like,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Time-dilation-002.svg

But the observer on the train only sees,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Time-dilation-001.svg

They both agree that the speed of light must be the same for both, which results in time dilation,

\Delta t' = \frac{\Delta t}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}

Time dilation does not rely upon photons from a laser being scattered out the window. In fact, the train could be dark; the train could be held at 0 degrees kelvin so that it doesn't emit any light. Time dilation does not depend upon photons. Relativistic time dilation only depends upon relative motion. How does anything on the ground know that the train is moving relativistically to the earth's surface? If there happens to be a wall or a mountain in the way of the train, I guarantee you that the train and the obstruction will know about each other, and that the train will strike the obstruction with a very large amount of energy.

How does nature know how much energy the train should strike the wall or mountain with?

Why does the earth remain in orbit when the earth and the sun cannot see each other without waiting 8 minutes each way? Someone is going to say, "curvature of space-time".

The void of space doesn't just give you space-time because it seems logical to do so. Space-time is made out of something. That something really should be 1D fibers of space-time.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 16:12 GMT
Fundamentally, time and space do not make sense quantum mechanically and on a purely electromagnetic basis IN the absence of gravity (and gravitational relations/effects). Intelligibility, perception, and rationality come into play, as touch is linked with gravity and with the visual consequences of touch in (and with) time.

Distance in/of space is key in physics. gravity, electromagnetism, and inertia are all key to distance in/of space. How does Einsteing address this? He can't, and he doesn't.

Einstein's theory of gravity ultimately fails on the basis of instantaneity alone.

The real understanding of physics demonstrates more unity (or more order) from or relative to order. Complexity/variability and order/sameness ultimately balance.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 2, 2011 @ 09:45 GMT
The latest LHC news report: Higgs particle could be found by Christmas, (Sep 1 2011)

attachments: LHC_collision.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 10:40 GMT
Hi Eckard,

You inquired about the image caption on this thread."Icanhascheeseburger.com" shows cute animal pictures, mostly cats and kittens, that visitors can add funny captions to.

I think for the image on this thread I might add "Oh no, I think its eaten the Higgs particles, can anyone find them?"

Does look remarkably like a giant octopus, that just might bite.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 12:05 GMT
On that site, by the way, there is a picture of a very annoyed cat and the caption "Tha onli thing I kno bout tha speed of light is it gits here way too early in tha morning."

"it moovz wif much 2 much kwikness." (Which I find funny.)

The "phonetic" spelling is a characteristic of the site. Cats can't spell either, and thats funny too.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 12:23 GMT
Dear Georgina, Dear John,

I would like to thank you for trying to explain to me what "HAZ" meant. Maybe I did it still not yet get quite correctly. Anyway, it seems to express that presently a majority has been at least not very confident that the LHC will find Higgs and SUSY.

I did not comment on that while I may reiterate: I see some reasons why they will perhaps never be found. Admittedly, such guess of mine is irrelevant. I prefer focusing on work by Shtyrkov, by Van Flandern, by many others mainly those who are related to NPA, and on the petition concerning 100 years of twin paradox.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 19:48 GMT
Dear Wilhelmuus,

I do understand what you are saying and agree that we can think of events as light cones and the observer can move in space and experience different events than he might standing still.

However you still seem to have only taken on board half of what I am saying and not the significant implication of passage of time being completely independent of the observer while perceived passage of events is dependent upon observer reference frame. Both occurring together. So the future is not entirely written because events are occurring entirely independently of what the observer will observe from data formed from events that have already occurred.

report post as inappropriate

Hans van Leunen wrote on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 09:50 GMT
I always wonder about the requirement for a Higgs field and Higgs particle. Particle lenses exist now for a century and they prove that the fields raised by electrodes can curve the paths of particles and cause that the shapes of point images (the so called point spread functions) are not spatially invariant. This occurs without the intervention of masses. These phenomena are exactly the habits that are usually imputed to the gravitation field,and thus indirectly to the presence of masses. However, this is incorrect. Fields are perfectly capable of creating curvature and the gravitation field appears no more and no less than the administrator of the local metric that describes the local curvature. It enables the location of actual or virtual ceneters of mass and the attacment of mass values to these anchor points. In this way a virtual mass can be attatched to the curvature that is caused by the horizon of a black hole without the need that there is any sign of matter inside that hole. No one can prove whether there is matter inside the black hole, because light cannot pass this horizon. One can as well assume that the geometry causes the virtual mass. (Reverse the cause for the gravitation)

So, who needs a Higgs boson? Fields other than the gravitation field and the Higgs field are capable of creating the observed curvature. Scientists must invent a better solution. It is enough to find a way to describe how ordinary EM fields (and may be other fields) cause curvature and thus virtual mass.

report post as inappropriate

And select the letter between 'E' and 'G':

Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.