Search FQXi


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

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

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Paul Reed: on 2/27/12 at 8:26am UTC, wrote Wilhemus “I use the image of "Block" universe only for explaining, as...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 2/26/12 at 17:17pm UTC, wrote Paul, I use the image of "Block" universe only for explaining, as all...

Paul Reed: on 2/25/12 at 12:21pm UTC, wrote Wilhemus As said previously. Apart from the fact that I probably cannot...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 2/24/12 at 15:35pm UTC, wrote Paul, about "the conception of consciousness" : see also José Martinez...

Paul Reed: on 2/24/12 at 9:06am UTC, wrote Eckard We are back here to an exchange that we have had at least once...

Paul Reed: on 2/23/12 at 18:43pm UTC, wrote Wilhemus 1 That’s OK, I did try to figure out what the words probably...

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/23/12 at 18:31pm UTC, wrote Paul, "(supposedly) the M&M experiment gave a null result. Which then led...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 2/23/12 at 18:00pm UTC, wrote Paul: 1. Simultaneity "as it appears in our consciousness", is perhaps not...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi BLOGS
May 21, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Proving You Are Where You Say You Are: Position-Based Quantum Cryptography (Part II) [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger George Musser wrote on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 22:21 GMT
This is the second part of a post on garden hoses, quantum cryptography, and schemes to verify position. The first part, which details the first proposed scheme to verify your position--and exactly how you can cheat it with the help of two friends--is here.

Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Having been cheated once (see Figures 1 and 2, in part I of this post), the two verifiers, to try to foil you, might ask you to perform a task that requires information from both of them (Figure 3). For instance, they each send you a number and demand that you calculate the sum, on the principle that you need to be where you say you are in order to receive the two numbers and add them up.

But this system, too, is fool-prone (Figure 4). Each of your comrades can intercept the signal, make a copy, and relay it to the other. That way, both can perform the calculation and send back the result just as if you were really there.

Because this fakery requires your comrades to copy the information, the verifiers figure they can ensnare you by exploiting ideas from quantum cryptography--namely, that a quantum state cannot be reliably copied (Figure 5). The verifier on the left sends you a photon in a certain quantum state and the one on the right sends you a single ordinary bit. To confirm your position, you need to return the photon to the left if the bit is 0 and send it on the right if the bit is 1. Unable to make a copy of the photon, your comrades are at a loss for how to cover for you.

But being good quantum physicists, not to mention good friends, they soon realize a trick. In advance, they prepare entangled pairs of particles (Figure 6 and Figure 7). These pairs can transmit the quantum state – and therefore, in effect, the photon itself -- between them using the process known as quantum teleportation. This allows them to set up a game of photon hot potato. The friend on the left side of your purported position intercepts the photon and teleports it to your friend on the right. If the bit is 1, the friend keeps it and sends it to the right verifier; if it is 0, the friend on the right teleports the photon back to the left.

Last year Buhrman and his colleagues proved that in general, no quantum cryptographic scheme is guaranteed to expose a location cheater (see arXiv:1009.2490v4) and recently they laid out a general recipe for evasion. That’s where the hoses come in (see arXiv:1109.2563v2). Teleporting a particle is like pouring water in a hose--it comes out the other side. Each of your friends connect the hoses in a certain way so that the photon flows back and forth and ends up on the side where it’s supposed to be. Buhrman demonstrated this on stage with hoses he’d bought at a garden supply store. We were all grateful he brought a towel.

The whole thing sounded very reminiscent of the holographic principle. (For more on the holographic principle, see this Scientific American article, “The Illusion of Gravity.) One of the deepest principles in quantum gravity, it holds that the amount of information within a region of space does not scale with the volume but with the area. It is always possible to simulate the goings-on within a region of space perfectly by manipulating its boundary. You really can read a book by its cover.

That is precisely what is happening in position evasion. Your two comrades are the boundary in one dimension, and they can connive to pretend that you’re in between them when you’re not. “By being on the surface, you can simulate any behavior on the inside,” Buhrman told me. So there is a very general reason why cheaters can always succeed. And this is in a system with no gravity.

It is mildly disturbing that it is always possible to fake a position. The verifiers do have the last laugh, though. They can place such exorbitant demands on your friendship, requiring them to share an impractically large number of entangled pairs of particles and execute elaborate schemes for tossing the photon back and forth between them, that even your BFF would probably sell you out.

I am grateful to Theiss Research, under whose auspices I received an FQXi mini-grant to help pay my way in Singapore.

Diagrams adapted from slides by Harry Buhrman.

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

report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 07:52 GMT
George

It may well be that given the nature of this particular physical reality, we cannot solve the problem. That, of course, does not imply that there is some form of 'strangeness' in the reality, just that we are unable to invoke a methodology to detect/predict with any degree of meaningfulness. So we should 'get over it, and move on'!

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 22, 2011 @ 17:40 GMT
The paper by Buhrman outlines what is a form of 20-questions, where the state is teleported back and forth. Based on the set of 20 questions, and whether one sends a verifier or the state back one can back out the position. The cheater can emulate this if they can break the key, but that can be made sufficiently NP as to be impossible to crack.

It is interesting this brings holography into the picture. I think the states on the event horizon of a black hole as seen by a stationary observer outside have some duality to quantum states interior to the black hole.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 17:03 GMT
Lawrence,

You wrote, "It is interesting this brings holography into the picture. I think the states on the event horizon of a black hole as seen by a stationary observer outside have some duality to quantum states interior to the black hole."

I think you're right. Were such a duality not true, states interior to the black hole not correlated with every possible position of a stationary observer would amount to information loss -- i.e., Hawking radiation at the event horizon that doesn't in finite time carry away 100% of the information originally input, leaves a naked singularity for infinite time, information lost to our universe.

This is one of the reasons I have confidence in Joy's continuous function model which I have concluded demands a model finite in space and unbounded in time. The naked singularity is avoided, and quantum correlations hold over infinite spacetime separation -- determined by the cosmological initial condition (the topology of S^7).

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Dec. 26, 2011 @ 13:34 GMT
I am not sure what bearing this has on JC’s model. The S^7 sphere is the middle portion of the Hopf fibration S^3 -- > S^7 -- > S^4 which can be interpreted as a Skein system of 3-spheres knotted in 7 dimensions. This has a Chern-Simons relationship. The knots are defined according to a “thickened” space, where this additional dimension might have some bearing on this matter. The distance problem with teleportation might be thought of as this thickening, where the Skeins are on the boundaries. It is something to think about.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Dec. 26, 2011 @ 13:54 GMT
Where you see knots, I see a path everywhere away from infinity via the simply connected structure. I.e., every point a 3-sphere. Topological distance is quite counterintuitive to our ordinary understanding.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 18:07 GMT
Hello from Belgium,

.....simple and evident this teleportation in the whole but difficult for the details of applications. The aim is this one at my humble opinion in a general point of vue. How can we teleport a mass.That is the question.

Like you know the spheres of light and mass, so these fermions and bosons, are not really different. So we must know the spherical topology and the number of the uniqueness(for x0 and x1 and for the systems of technology). That permits to reencode the mass after the travel. Without that it is not possible it seems to me but I can be in the error of course. So we can, in changing the sense of rotations differenciating the bosons and the fermions, to imply a travel at c.

So, in resume, we change mass in light for the travel between x0 and x1. And of course we reencode the fermions at the point x1. For that, two systems are necessary.

The system of uniquenss is essential like the volumes for the codes of fermions implying properties and specificities. The fermions in my line of reasoning turn in the other sense than bosons. The linearity can be utilized for the travel.

The stability in space for fermions can be checked in theory.

The practice seems a long road of simulations and experiments. How can we know all the codes of comportments for fermions.

The volumes of the entanglement of uniqueness seem having some answers. an entanglerment of light is the same than an entanglement of mass if and only if the number of uniqueness is respected. imagine that in the gauge of pure thermodynamics ,between a BEC and the maximum energy, the uniqueness is the same.So between we can add parameters for the codes !The fractalizations are numerous and complexs in 3D. volumes and rotations of entangled spheres of the uniqueness are the road ...

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Karl Coryat wrote on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 03:05 GMT
I want to thank George Musser for a fantastic little piece of science writing! This connection between cryptography and the holographic principle is fascinating but very subtle, and it is explained here with superb clarity. The concept is a compelling argument in the direction of quantum gravity and its associated ideas -- so, thanks to Harry Buhrman as well.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 08:24 GMT
"By being on the surface, you can simulate any behavior on the inside". Well, BEM instead of FEM has been widely exploited in engineering. However, there is no denial, consideration of nature as a closed system with in principle known boundaries is elusive. The future does simply not yet exist in advance. According to all experience, any prediction has a more or less restricted horizon of probability.

Let me return to Einstein synchronization . I cannot confirm that Poincaré actually showed in 1898 "that the definition of simultaneity of events at different places is only a convention". Unfortunately, the DEsynchronization by Poincaré is meanwhile called standard synchronization. Poincaré merely popularized a method that was already used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century and a teacher of Poincaré. This method is undoubtedly correct if A and B do not move relative to each other while invalid for not equally moving bodies.

A lot of paradoxical theory goes back to the unresolved problem to correctly interpret the unexpected outcome of the erroneously designed experiment by Michelson and Morley. No matter whether we consider light as photons or as electromagnetic wave, we need not the picture of a carrier that fills the empty space like something tangible we are familiar with.

I meanwhile agree with Peter in that Shtyrkov did choose a misleading terminology when he nonetheless compellingly demonstrated by means of aberration how the earth is moving in a Newtonian space. Aberration is a one-way phenomenon. Round trip experiments are more questionable.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 22:29 GMT
Can anybody tell me who coined the word de-synchronization for Einstein synchronization? I learned it from Tom Van Flandern, and I see it a twist fabricated in order to "explain" the unexpected result of M&M.

Let me explain why I do not accept local time: Any object certainly has a history. No matter how far it can be traced back, it ends at the very moment. I consider myself an idealized point-like object too. In principle, I cannot only influence with some delay what will happen to any other object in the common to me and to it future. Likewise influences from other objects can only have influenced my history with a delay. The very moment is our natural common point of reference. Due to the delayed propagation of action, my perception cannot at all see, hear, or feel what at this very moment happens elsewhere. Mostly however, I can measure distances and correct my inputs and outputs in case of known velocity of propagation accordingly. The same is equally valid for any point-like idealized object anywhere even we are moving relative to each other.

So far I did not get aware of any factual physical argument against this idea of absolute simultaneity.

Admittedly, those who are denying than past and future are different are ignoring the natural common reference in between. And those who are mislead by the untenable misinterpretation of M&M are doomed to deal with paradoxes, remedying patches for them that create new paradoxes, and mathematical castles in the air that grow and grow more bizarre into virtual worlds.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 13:29 GMT
Eckard

As you say, there is no such phenomenon as local time. This was a methodology introduced to assist with timing, which is different from time, but unfortunately the latter label now applies to two different concepts.

This is not concerned with “an object having history”, as such. Ontologically, we should not refer to ‘objects’, because each state of existence is different (but the alternative expression is just too convoluted, so as long as one understands that…). The sequence of existence is the history. The frequency with which change occurs in the ‘object’ is actually time. Simultaneity (synchronisation) is about timing, ie at any given point in time…In other words, ‘now’. The trick here being to ensure differentiation between now in actuality, and now in receipt of information thereof, ie not confuse the time-lines of the two.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 14:24 GMT
Eckard, Paul

Can someone explain the bizzare duality of this string!?

Regarding 'Local Time' it has always seemed to me purely an issue of interpretation. The 'Lightship' scenario I gave on the sister string, while confirming a non SR based simultaneity, could also be said to demonstrate local time (If you prefer the word 'timing' Paul that's fine, but terms most others understand may normally be more helpful to communication). Viz;

In the frame of the moving lightship signals are certainly sent out at precise 1 second intervals. However, all the other (co-moving) observers will measure the duration between each signal as either greater or less than the 1 second according to their own watch. This does not give the confused 'local time' in most peoples minds but does give a local time equivalent to Minkowski's. This is 'Proper Time' as defined by the time valid only WITHIN each frame. i.e. only a guy on the lightship, or moving on the same vector, will find it's signals at 1 second intervals.

SR confused a simple situation by not fully considering that light changed speed to the local c when entering media in relative motion. This then raises the confusion, if the other observers have clocks co-ordinated while in the same frame ans the emitter, do they speed up and slow down on frame transformation.!? The simple Occam truth of course exposes this as simplistic nonsense.

Is it that difficult to absorb and retain?

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 15:21 GMT
The problem of simultaneity in our causal universe is a basic one, the time limit of simultaneity is in my point of view the Planck time (5.39121x10^-44sec).If teleportation is a^rocess in absolute simultaneity as Einstein pointed out, then the same moment object a has to be at coordinates x and y at the same Planck moment, that cannot work because you double the mass/energy in the same system, so the change of coordinates has to take place at different Planck moments, meaning that it seems in our universe as a cause and effect, but as the two Planck moments are in Total Simultaneity (see http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/913) where all possible moments of all possible universes are non causal possibillities, separeted by an in our view infinity. As a matter of fact the new Planck moment with the new coordinates of the subject could be experienced as a normal causal effect of the "teleportation" process. This process is already achieved for little masses /particles.

Furthermore the effect of "locality" is that a particle has an area around it where the velocity of c is limited. (the total of this locality (inclusive particle) however can move faster as the speed of light. Coordinates inside this Locality are clear they can be described by measurements that are realised relative to the outer limits of the locality, which means indeed a kind of holographic effect , the borders are reference to all of the inside.

When thinking further this means that every locality (each with its own scale, quantum scale, molecular scale, planet scale, universe) has its own kind of holographic approach, you cannot apply the same rules to the same scale...

So when we are indicating coordinates tthey always refer to their own scale, so time/place, every "object" in its relative locality has its own coordinates, so it is impossible to create a simultaneity between two different localities.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 17:57 GMT
Wilhelmus, instantaneity is fundamental to unifying physics. "Matter" and energy are known to be quantum mechanical in nature.

Instantaneity fundamentally balances and unifies force/energy.

E = "mass" multiplied times (the speed of light squared). The speed of light squared may be held to involve acceleration or an increase in force/energy. We can then compare to F=ma.

F = m multiplied times a ultimately and fundamentally reveals that inertia and gravity are balanced and equivalent (both at half strength energy/force) in conjunction with INSTANTANEITY. Acceleration may be understood (fundamentally) as being equivalent with gravity given such UNIFORM force/energy. (INERTIA IS RESISTANCE TO ACCELERATION.) Thus, force/energy is fundamentally potential AND actual in conjunction with instantaneity.

Wherefore, if inertia and gravity are both equivalent and balanced at (half strength force/energy), in conjunction with space being equally (and both) invisible and visible, with balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion, then the space is understood as combining, inluding, and balancing smaller and larger space as the same space in keeping with the fundamental inclusion and demonstration of instantaneity. Gravitational/electromagnetic/inertial equilibrium is fundamentally achieved. Dreams do all of this, as they fundamentally and generally unify physics. Dreams meet the theoretical/thoughtful/ideal requirements of fundamentally and generally unifying physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 16:42 GMT
Frank,

dreams=consciousness.

simultanuous instantaneity is only conceivable in our consciousness

the limit of instantanueity is the Planck length/time

in a quantum of this instantaneity everything is simultanuous.

the potentiality of waves and energy is created by ordering the instants.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 19:25 GMT
Wilhelmus, the body and thought are fundamental to physics. Unification in physics begins with gravity. Gravity enjoins and balances invisible and visible space; and gravity, invisible and visible, is key to distance in/of space. Look at the eye/body and the visible body (as it enjoins the end of space at the ground). Visible space that is also invisible is key. Dreams do this. Vision begins invisibly inside the body/eye.

The dream includes bodily experience with middle inertial/gravitational force/energy and fundamental instantaneity.

F = [inertial] mass multiplied times ACCELERATION is the most basic law of the universe.

Accordingly, inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing is achieved in dreams (both at half strength force/energy). This is required for fundamental unification in physics.

The dream is a linked center of body experience -- we are one with the originating and fundamental growth experience in dreams. Dreams are demonstrative of our growth and of our becoming other than we are. (We CONTINUE to live and grow after we are born.)

Dreams fundamentally and generally unify physics. I proved it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 16:14 GMT
Frank,

on gravity :

the unification of gravity in a so called unified theory is not succeeding because I think that every scale has its own limits with the limitations that are "Eigentum" and cannot be used on other scales, but have effects on them. so on the causal deterministic scale garvity is an "effect" that is caused by another dimensional universe. it is not caused by wave-function of the so called God particle, the Higgs Boson. I don't think that gravity can be explained in the same way as we explain "coulour".

on dreams:

we are born and will die. Before we were born : Could we dream ? After we die : shall we dream ?

Our awareness is the result of of the instrument that is our body, this beautiful tool with its own limitations, one of these limitations is to observe instantaneity, we are always at every point in our life experiencing the past, even our consciousness is aware of its universe only 50 milliseconds after the processing of the "input". For this input the eye is one of the instruments, we observe direct with our eys only 5% sharp and in coulour, the rest is "interpretated" and "adjusted" by our consciousness. (a bit like the 5% of baryonic material that we can observe in our universe, the rest we just cannot observe...)

So it is mainly our consciousness that is responsible for our observations and experiences, dreams are also an experience of our consciousness in our instrument the body when we sleep, our consciousness here creates realities of our wishes and fears, creates a world that is independant (partially) of our perceptions, so did we dream before we were born : No because then we had not yet a base of perceptions from where we could create reality. For dreams after we are dead I cannot respond, because of the reason that I just cannot interprete if the perceptions that are realised during our life are available or not for our consciousness. In my view of the Total Simultaneity the answer is a YES, because all the possible perceptions are always available, and our consciousness is a timeless existing contact-line between this Total Simultaneity and our causal deterministic universe with a time arrow, but this is my way of thinking and perhaps not the truth.

Another thought that crosses my mind is that we dream constantly , we are constantly conscious which means constant contact with this "fifth" dimension (wher gravity comes from) so cwe have the power to imagine every thing that is possible.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 18:04 GMT
Wilhelmus. Keep it simple.

This is not really all that difficult and complicated. We all originate and grow from the center of the human body. F=ma is the bottom line in physics insofar as it can ultimately mean balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity (both at middle or half force/energy). This is what happens in dreams, as they demonstrate our growth and becoming other than we are in conjunction with instantaneity. Dreams demonstrate equivalent and balanced attraction and repulsion.

Inertia/resistance to acceleration and gravity/acceleration must be equivalent and balanced at half strength force/energy to fundamentally unify physics. That is undeniable. Space must be equally, and BOTH, invisible and visible.

Observer and observed both have to be part of any real, fundamental, and truly unified/extensive unification of physics.

In dreams, instantaneity is understood as involving balanced and fundamental

[middle] force/energy with fundamental [middle] distance in/of space in keeping

with combining, including, and balancing larger and smaller space as the same

space. This is also due to the fact that the space of dreams is both (and it

is equally) invisible and visible. Dreams combine and include opposites.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 08:12 GMT
Frank

What is the "center of the human body"?

Assuming we do "originate and grow" from it (whatever that means) how can this possibly affect the reality we inhabit?

Presumably this idea relates to all organisms capable of effecting a detection of reality?

How can what happens in our heads (and incidentally the heads of other animals) possibly affect reality?

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 3, 2012 @ 16:29 GMT
Tom, Ray, JC et al,

The Hopf fibration is a relationship between various spaces which have knot theoretic content. In the simple case of a one dimensional knot these can describe the various paths in a path integral. The equation is a form of the Jones’ polynomial, which is a skein relationship for a knot. The function W(C) = exp( i∫A*dx) is the Wilson line or loop integral for the valuation of a gauge connection. The expectation value is the path integral

= ∫D[g,A]W(C)e^{-iS}

The element α = 1 - 2πi/kN, for N = mode number and k = momentum vector, and z = -2πi/k. Clearly then α^{-1} = 1/(1 - 2πi/kN). For k very large α^{-1} =~ 1 + 2πi/kN. The Skein relationship is then

- + 4πi/kN ( +) = 2πi/k.

For the next case with S^3 --- > S^7 --- > S^4 the knots involve how one can tie various 3-spheres to construct S^4.

These relationships have some bearing upon holography. The lesser dimensional space contains field content (Qubits etc) which have nonlocal content which holographically constructs the additional dimension though skein relations in a space of dimension equal to the sum of the two. This includes the S^7 and S^8 spaces where S^7 are “knotted” in S^{15}. These have some bearing upon odd and even dimensional Dp-branes in 10 and 11 dimensional SUGRA.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Jan. 3, 2012 @ 21:34 GMT
Lawrence,

Thanks for the nice summary. I find some of your wordings confusing, however.

You wrote: "For the next case with S^3 --- > S^7 --- > S^4 the knots involve how one can tie various 3-spheres to construct S^4."

I understand what you are saying here. And it is indeed quite enlightening to think of the Hopf fibration in terms of knots and Skein relations. But my problem is with your phrase "...to construct S^4." This is somewhat misleading, because S^4 is just the base space of the bundle S^7. I prefer to think of S^7 as 4-sphere worth of 3-spheres, with the 3-spheres all knotted to each other in a specific Skein relation. This way of phrasing explicitly recognizes the fact that the real meat of the 7-sphere is in the knotted collection of the 3-spheres, with S^4 simply providing their total number (i.e., answering the question: How many 3-spheres are there in the 7-sphere?). Perhaps I am just playing with words, but this helps me to see things with my mind's eye.

Joy

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 3, 2012 @ 22:48 GMT
Hi Joy,

Good question, I was thinking exactly what you said. Perhaps having 4-spheres worth of 3-spheres is equivalent to having 3-spheres worth of 4-spheres? But I agree with you that the 3-spheres should be more stable (unless these nested hyperspheres represent stable complex bi-quaternions). Thus, perhaps the 4-spheres are more likely to decompose into 'knoted strings' (i.e. 'particles') of 3-spheres and 1-spheres. And the existence of 'knotted strings' within our 'Quaternion Spacetime' (as Minkowski metric implies) requires a minimum 8-D complex bi-quaternion representation.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Jan. 3, 2012 @ 23:44 GMT
Hi Ray,

You asked: "Perhaps having 4-spheres worth of 3-spheres is equivalent to having 3-spheres worth of 4-spheres?"

Absolutely not! That kind of reciprocity can only be valid if S^7 were globally equal to S^4 x S^3. But S^7 is only locally equal to S^4 x S^3. Also, my point to Lawrence has nothing to do with the stability of the 7-sphere. As Lawrence concurred earlier, 7-sphere is perhaps the most stable of all topological spaces.

Joy

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 4, 2012 @ 01:17 GMT
Ray et al,

This sounded mysterious because this is one of those blogs that goes crazy with carrot symbols. A lot got chopped up. I replaced them with the texified \langle \rangle symboles.

The Hopf fibration is a relationship between various spaces which have knot theoretic content. In the simple case of a one dimensional knot these can describe the various paths in a path integral. \langle W(C)\rangle = ∫D[g,A]W(C)e^{-iS}

The element α = 1 - 2πi/kN, for N = mode number and k = momentum vector, and z = -2πi/k. Clearly then α^{-1} = 1/(1 - 2πi/kN). For k very large α^{-1} =~ 1 + 2πi/kN. The Skein relationship is then

\langle W(L^+)\rangle -\langle W(L^-)\rangle + 4πi/kN (\langle W(L^+)\rangle +\langle W(L^-)\rangle ) = 2πi/k\langle W(L^0)\rangle .

For the next case with S^3 --- > S^7 --- > S^4 the knots involve how one can tie various 3-spheres to construct S^4.

These relationships have some bearing upon holography. The lesser dimensional space contains field content (Qubits etc) which have nonlocal content which holographically constructs the additional dimension though skein relations in a space of dimension equal to the sum of the two. This includes the S^7 and S^8 spaces where S^7 are “knotted” in S^{15}. These have some bearing upon odd and even dimensional Dp-branes in 10 and 11 dimensional SUGRA.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 15:17 GMT
Are you sure that you make maths with convergences for physics. Or is it a simple publicity speculative for the geometrical algebras.

Frankly and honestly, it is not really sciences all that. You are better than that Lawrence. Forget the publicity please of Mr Witten and Mr Lisi.They are not genius you know ! I can understand the lack of investments and funds for several universities or systems or institutes, but all that is really without real generality.

You are better that that Lawrence.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 14:24 GMT
I love catalyzing you Lawrence and Dr Cosmic Ray.Two mavericks but I d like see more lol

Thermo

QM

Geometrical Algebras

finite groups (Galois)

coherences, constants, invariances

...

I am persuaded that you can find a road to calculate this uniqueness number for the quantum and cosmological scale.This number is the key and after we can correrlate the volumles so after the rotations for the proportions with a differenciation fermions bosons with sense !

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 08:14 GMT
Steve

The concept that there is such a phenomenon, whch can then be quantified, is the key. Ultimately there must be a static state. That is physical existence. And the duration of this is a unit of time (as in timing).

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 13:36 GMT
We have no choice , we must to accept our diseases. I accept my neurological probelms. It is like that. I enjoy life even if I suffer or even if I am bad in my mind. I try to find universal reasons to continue, to fight, to beat the odds. It is the life of all humans.

I take meds since the age of 20 when I was in the coma for an big epileptic crisis. I have headaches all the days. I accept, it is my life. I have fear to have an other big crisis, I beleive that my heart have success when I was 20 but now at the age of 36, I don't know how my body will react . I relativate.

I know that the next big crisis, I will be in the other part lol. But I don't fear to die ray, I have a big universal faith. I accept my sufferings and accept my destiny with humility.

This universal faith is a good friend for our sufferings like humans.

Friendly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 13:50 GMT
Dear Steve,

None of us are perfect. We can only try to do the best with our resources (health, time, money) at hand.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Styeve Dufourny replied on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 14:27 GMT
None of us indeed is perfect, because we are humans and because we are young at the universal scale.That is why we see the vanity, or the jealousy or the human instincts. The life is not easy but the universal faith helps !

We have defaults and qualities. I think that the real secret of the real humility is this universality. The money is an error of our evolution. It is a catalyzer of bad comportments and behaviours. But we have no choice to use it like a tool. Indeed this bad habit, this papper governing the lifes, implies an ocean of chaotical problems. The ressources are numerous and can be considered like tools if they are utilized with this said universality and its rationalism, deterministic of evolution. The rest is vain after all.

Ray have you seen how the world goes? Do you know that in your country 98 per cent of people have difficulties to finish the months. And it is not a problem due to differences of thoughts between democrates and republicans. The capitalism and the democracy must harmonized correctly for an universal financial market. The money must be given with the biggest consciousness.

A real universal sorting is essential for the well of all creations on Earth. And the humans are not the only one animal !!!An hymenoptera like a cetacea is also important that an other mammalian .....we are composed by the same essence ray, the spheres of light becoming mass ....we can perceive these creations due to our 3D perception, it is wonderful.

Friendly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear Steve and all,

You are infact that

universal i
, all you have to do is realize your self.

Conscience is the cosmological constant.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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