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.

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

Contests Home

Previous Contests

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Kamilla Kamilla**: *on* 4/10/16 at 17:27pm UTC, wrote This is really good information I have visited this blog to read something...

**Joy Christian**: *on* 3/20/13 at 12:53pm UTC, wrote Hi Michael, Good to know you are still there for the fight. We shall...

**Michael Goodband**: *on* 3/20/13 at 11:04am UTC, wrote Hi Joy, It's a good idea to have your own blog, and I've added it to my...

**Joy Christian**: *on* 3/19/13 at 21:43pm UTC, wrote Thanks, Fred.

**Fred Diether**: *on* 3/18/13 at 22:03pm UTC, wrote Hi Joy, That is an excellent idea for the start of a new blog thread on...

**Joy Christian**: *on* 3/18/13 at 13:59pm UTC, wrote PPS: At some stage I plan to summarize on my blog some of the discussions...

**Joy Christian**: *on* 3/17/13 at 13:35pm UTC, wrote PS: The discussion on the significance of the parallelized spheres is on...

**Joy Christian**: *on* 3/17/13 at 12:17pm UTC, wrote Hi Michael, Just to let you know: I have started my own blog about quantum...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Georgina Woodward**: "State latency is an explanation for the results of Stern Gerlach experiment..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

**Joe Fisher**: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Joe Fisher**: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Eckard Blumschein**: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..."
*in* Will A.I. Take Over...

**Robert Rise**: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..."
*in* Time in Physics & Entropy...

**Steve Dufourny**: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..."
*in* Will A.I. Take Over...

**Steve Dufourny**: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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

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.

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.

FQXi FORUM

October 24, 2019

CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]

TOPIC: Is Quantum Theory As Fundamental As It Seems? by Michael James Goodband [refresh]

TOPIC: Is Quantum Theory As Fundamental As It Seems? by Michael James Goodband [refresh]

The success of quantum theory in describing the particle forces has been assumed to imply that quantum theory is fundamental. This assumption has been integral to the search for a unified physics theory, but what if it is wrong? Questioning why we needed quantum theory in the first place is directly answered by experiments revealing electrons to possess a wave property that cannot be derived in classical physics. What if this is exactly as it sounds?

Michael Goodband holds a physics degree from Cambridge University and a PhD in theoretical physics. His IT development work on agent-based evolutionary software systems encountered issues with causal closure in agent systems, sparking independent research. Author of "Agent Physics" (2012).

Dear Michael James Goodband,

I found your essay fascinating, but, like my own essay, it must be read more than once to absorb what you are saying. I like the question you ask and your focus on the wave aspect of the electron and whether or not it's derivable in classical mechanics and the relevance of Godel's theorem to this. Also that his incompleteness proof applies only to theories over natural-numbers but not over real-numbers. I had missed that distinction.

Because you focus on particle creation as well as wave function quantum mechanics your essay goes beyond mine, The Nature of the Wave Function. I deal with non-relativistic QM and weak field relativity, whereas you go to QFT and black holes. You cover a lot of ground. I will have to re-read your essay to grasp your points about network expansion as it relates to complete theories, although it does seem to be a unifying scheme. I invite you to read my essay and comment.

Good luck in the contest,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

I found your essay fascinating, but, like my own essay, it must be read more than once to absorb what you are saying. I like the question you ask and your focus on the wave aspect of the electron and whether or not it's derivable in classical mechanics and the relevance of Godel's theorem to this. Also that his incompleteness proof applies only to theories over natural-numbers but not over real-numbers. I had missed that distinction.

Because you focus on particle creation as well as wave function quantum mechanics your essay goes beyond mine, The Nature of the Wave Function. I deal with non-relativistic QM and weak field relativity, whereas you go to QFT and black holes. You cover a lot of ground. I will have to re-read your essay to grasp your points about network expansion as it relates to complete theories, although it does seem to be a unifying scheme. I invite you to read my essay and comment.

Good luck in the contest,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin

Thanks for reading the essay and your comments. I have read your essay, which I found interesting, and have re-read it. Now that my essay has been posted and I am part of the contest, I will be commenting on the essays I have read.

The distinction between when Gödel's theorem applies struck me when the incompleteness conditions arose in a computer project and I considered the question, so what if a property is non-derivable? If a property can be observed, then it can be denoted and modelled in some mathematical theory; whether the theory makes any physical sense or not is a different matter. I then followed the logic of changing natural-number terms to real-number terms and was surprised to find that it easily gave many of the 'weird' characteristics of Quantum Theory. The proof that there is no hidden variable theory is trivial in this context. Such a change of representation does however raise the sort of questions about maths representation considered in Roger Schlafly's essay, where, like you, I have used the term physically-real to mean faithful mathematical representation. In these terms, the particle property is physically-real and the wave property is physically-real, but the two are mutually incompatible in classical physics. The only wave to get these two characteristics to coexist in the same term is to use a non-physically-real term, which is the wave-function.

I think that you were brave to go for the features of QT directly from GR. I arrived at GR by looking for the conditions required for the representation change to actually occur, and found that they do in a Kaluza-Klein theory. I just used topological and geometric conditions as they can be used to specify what must be true, without having to find the actual solutions. The condition of Planck's constant from the angular momentum bound of a rotating black hole on the Planck scale is a surprisingly simple condition, I would have expected it to be more complicated. This condition does imply that a black hole would have a mass shell and is devoid of space inside, which would provide a scenario of the Johann Weiser black hole essay.

Good luck in the contest,

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for reading the essay and your comments. I have read your essay, which I found interesting, and have re-read it. Now that my essay has been posted and I am part of the contest, I will be commenting on the essays I have read.

The distinction between when Gödel's theorem applies struck me when the incompleteness conditions arose in a computer project and I considered the question, so what if a property is non-derivable? If a property can be observed, then it can be denoted and modelled in some mathematical theory; whether the theory makes any physical sense or not is a different matter. I then followed the logic of changing natural-number terms to real-number terms and was surprised to find that it easily gave many of the 'weird' characteristics of Quantum Theory. The proof that there is no hidden variable theory is trivial in this context. Such a change of representation does however raise the sort of questions about maths representation considered in Roger Schlafly's essay, where, like you, I have used the term physically-real to mean faithful mathematical representation. In these terms, the particle property is physically-real and the wave property is physically-real, but the two are mutually incompatible in classical physics. The only wave to get these two characteristics to coexist in the same term is to use a non-physically-real term, which is the wave-function.

I think that you were brave to go for the features of QT directly from GR. I arrived at GR by looking for the conditions required for the representation change to actually occur, and found that they do in a Kaluza-Klein theory. I just used topological and geometric conditions as they can be used to specify what must be true, without having to find the actual solutions. The condition of Planck's constant from the angular momentum bound of a rotating black hole on the Planck scale is a surprisingly simple condition, I would have expected it to be more complicated. This condition does imply that a black hole would have a mass shell and is devoid of space inside, which would provide a scenario of the Johann Weiser black hole essay.

Good luck in the contest,

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael,

Your knowledge of physics is way above my own so I can't fully comment on your impressively sounding essay. I *do* have an answer to the wave/particle duality nature of sub-atomic particles though, namely, the spinning Archimedes screw. If an electron is visualised as a travelling Archimedes screw which has motion through space, then this repesents the 'particle' nature. If the screw is spinning as well, then this represents the 'wave' nature of the electron. A force carrying particle can be similarly thought of as a spinning Archimedes screw due to it's ability to create a force of attraction, which would be a property of the smallest graviton for example. See attached.

All the best,

Alan

attachments: Archimedesscrew.gif

report post as inappropriate

Your knowledge of physics is way above my own so I can't fully comment on your impressively sounding essay. I *do* have an answer to the wave/particle duality nature of sub-atomic particles though, namely, the spinning Archimedes screw. If an electron is visualised as a travelling Archimedes screw which has motion through space, then this repesents the 'particle' nature. If the screw is spinning as well, then this represents the 'wave' nature of the electron. A force carrying particle can be similarly thought of as a spinning Archimedes screw due to it's ability to create a force of attraction, which would be a property of the smallest graviton for example. See attached.

All the best,

Alan

attachments: Archimedesscrew.gif

report post as inappropriate

Hi Alan

In Kaluza-Klein theories (KKT) the extra dimensions are shrunk into closed spaces, which for the case of electromagnetism basically gives the motion of light as being of the form of a spiral wave travelling along the surface of a closed tube. Such rotation around the closed dimension would give a visualisation of why a photon has spin in KKT.

The wave expansion about a particle-like compactified black hole given in my essay would physically correspond to the scenario of virtual-radiation about a particle creating a particle/anti-particle pair and then for the created anti-particle to annihilate the original particle. This gives a sort of alternation between a particle and the waves of its virtual-radiation field. The wave-particle duality comes from the time-scale of this alternation being as rapid as the Planck time, and so all interactions occur over the time scale of millions of such cycles. It is like drawing a particle and a wave on two pieces of card and then rapidly flicking between them, the net result is that you see both wave and particle at the same time. Whereas you can stop flicking the cards to see one of them at a time, the Planck time scale of the alternation means that there is no corresponding way of only seeing one at a time and so we see wave-particle duality.

This gives a scenario of an alternation between a particle with a virtual-radiation wave field, where the waves in KKT travel in a spiral fashion around a compactified tube. Accurate visualisations of higher dimensional scenarios are always slightly dubious, but you could argue that the average net effect seems to have elements of your visualisation.

Michael

report post as inappropriate

In Kaluza-Klein theories (KKT) the extra dimensions are shrunk into closed spaces, which for the case of electromagnetism basically gives the motion of light as being of the form of a spiral wave travelling along the surface of a closed tube. Such rotation around the closed dimension would give a visualisation of why a photon has spin in KKT.

The wave expansion about a particle-like compactified black hole given in my essay would physically correspond to the scenario of virtual-radiation about a particle creating a particle/anti-particle pair and then for the created anti-particle to annihilate the original particle. This gives a sort of alternation between a particle and the waves of its virtual-radiation field. The wave-particle duality comes from the time-scale of this alternation being as rapid as the Planck time, and so all interactions occur over the time scale of millions of such cycles. It is like drawing a particle and a wave on two pieces of card and then rapidly flicking between them, the net result is that you see both wave and particle at the same time. Whereas you can stop flicking the cards to see one of them at a time, the Planck time scale of the alternation means that there is no corresponding way of only seeing one at a time and so we see wave-particle duality.

This gives a scenario of an alternation between a particle with a virtual-radiation wave field, where the waves in KKT travel in a spiral fashion around a compactified tube. Accurate visualisations of higher dimensional scenarios are always slightly dubious, but you could argue that the average net effect seems to have elements of your visualisation.

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Hi Michael,

Thanks very much for the clarifications and the recognition of how the Archimedes screw visualisation *does* tie-in with modern theories. Much appreciated.

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Thanks very much for the clarifications and the recognition of how the Archimedes screw visualisation *does* tie-in with modern theories. Much appreciated.

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael,

Congratulations with your interesting essay and good luck in the competition!

You raise a very important problem whether quantum theory can be substantiated in view of the Goedel theorem. The theorem is based on the fact that a set of natural numbers is infinite. As a consequence, standard quantum theory is based on standard mathematics with infinitely small, infinitely large etc. In my papers (see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1076 and references therein) I consider an approach when quantum theory is based not on complex numbers but on a Galois field. Since any Galois field is finite, no problem with the Goedel

incompleteness arises. Standard theory is formally a special case of a theory based on a Galois field in the the formal limit p->infty where p is the characteristic of the Galois field. You also raise a question whether gravity should be quantized. In my approach http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4647 gravity is

not an interaction at all but simply a kinematical manifestation of de Sitter symmetry over a Galois field.

Felix

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations with your interesting essay and good luck in the competition!

You raise a very important problem whether quantum theory can be substantiated in view of the Goedel theorem. The theorem is based on the fact that a set of natural numbers is infinite. As a consequence, standard quantum theory is based on standard mathematics with infinitely small, infinitely large etc. In my papers (see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1076 and references therein) I consider an approach when quantum theory is based not on complex numbers but on a Galois field. Since any Galois field is finite, no problem with the Goedel

incompleteness arises. Standard theory is formally a special case of a theory based on a Galois field in the the formal limit p->infty where p is the characteristic of the Galois field. You also raise a question whether gravity should be quantized. In my approach http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4647 gravity is

not an interaction at all but simply a kinematical manifestation of de Sitter symmetry over a Galois field.

Felix

report post as inappropriate

Dear Felix

Thanks for your positive comments and best of luck to you too!

You're absolutely right that Gödel's theorem has a critical dependence upon the natural-numbers being infinite, where for physical theories the natural-numbers arise as the cardinality of sets. Hence your finite Galois field avoids incompleteness issues. I note that your paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1076 has to make the assumption that the universe is finite in order to get finite sets of particles. I also have to impose this finite universe condition to get a closed universe with the necessary topology to get a chiral twisted space that looks like the electroweak vacuum, and a spectrum of 12 topological monopoles that look like the 12 fundamental fermionic particles.

Despite our different approaches, we agree on this finite condition and we are not the only ones. In my case the finite condition of a closed universe gives topological monopole particles with a finite radius and no point singularity. Other essays have argued against point-like particles and singularities from a different basis. So with regards to possible 'meta'-principles asked for in the contest, a meta-principle of reality being finite - as in a closed universe and no singularities - is one that is being proposed from a number of different angles.

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your positive comments and best of luck to you too!

You're absolutely right that Gödel's theorem has a critical dependence upon the natural-numbers being infinite, where for physical theories the natural-numbers arise as the cardinality of sets. Hence your finite Galois field avoids incompleteness issues. I note that your paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1076 has to make the assumption that the universe is finite in order to get finite sets of particles. I also have to impose this finite universe condition to get a closed universe with the necessary topology to get a chiral twisted space that looks like the electroweak vacuum, and a spectrum of 12 topological monopoles that look like the 12 fundamental fermionic particles.

Despite our different approaches, we agree on this finite condition and we are not the only ones. In my case the finite condition of a closed universe gives topological monopole particles with a finite radius and no point singularity. Other essays have argued against point-like particles and singularities from a different basis. So with regards to possible 'meta'-principles asked for in the contest, a meta-principle of reality being finite - as in a closed universe and no singularities - is one that is being proposed from a number of different angles.

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Dear Doctor Goodband,

Due to an abysmal lack of formal education on my part, although I valiantly tried my best to read your essay several times, I did not understand a word of it. While it might readily seem to be the height of ignorant impertinence for me to make any sort of comment about your essay, as a realist whose essay Sequence Consequence fully explains my position, I would like to pose this question to you. Just as it has been physically impossible for scientists to create a perfect vacuum in the laboratory, why are scientists so confident that they can effortlessly build a perfect dark chamber? Whether or not visible light is made up of a finite number of perfectly formed identical photons or exchangeable identical particles or identical waves seems immaterial. Whatever light is made up of it is still a physical entity and as such once it comes into existence, light cannot be totally eradicated it can only be altered. It is my contention that visible light does not have a speed of motion, it is always stationary. I truly believe that once visible light strikes a surface, it stays on that surface illuminating it. If the source of the light goes out, the visible light on the surface automatically assumes the darkened appearance of the surface, but it cannot physically move away or cease to exist.

report post as inappropriate

Due to an abysmal lack of formal education on my part, although I valiantly tried my best to read your essay several times, I did not understand a word of it. While it might readily seem to be the height of ignorant impertinence for me to make any sort of comment about your essay, as a realist whose essay Sequence Consequence fully explains my position, I would like to pose this question to you. Just as it has been physically impossible for scientists to create a perfect vacuum in the laboratory, why are scientists so confident that they can effortlessly build a perfect dark chamber? Whether or not visible light is made up of a finite number of perfectly formed identical photons or exchangeable identical particles or identical waves seems immaterial. Whatever light is made up of it is still a physical entity and as such once it comes into existence, light cannot be totally eradicated it can only be altered. It is my contention that visible light does not have a speed of motion, it is always stationary. I truly believe that once visible light strikes a surface, it stays on that surface illuminating it. If the source of the light goes out, the visible light on the surface automatically assumes the darkened appearance of the surface, but it cannot physically move away or cease to exist.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael James

I think Quantization is imperative to describe the infinite universe with finite expressions, in that the quantization of physical noumenon of nature needs adaptations for sensing the phenomena of nature.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

I think Quantization is imperative to describe the infinite universe with finite expressions, in that the quantization of physical noumenon of nature needs adaptations for sensing the phenomena of nature.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Hi Michael,

Your comments on the essay by Edwin Eugene Klingman led me to your own essay. You wrote on Edwin's blog:

"Models with causal linkage between the particle and wave property generally have problems with Bell-type analysis, or re-analysis. Quantum Theory has a very peculiar form of non-locality, with what can be called non-locality of identity which is confirmed by wave interference and quantum entanglement experiments. However, this is strangely not accompanied by non-locality of causation such that it could be practically used to send a signal faster than light. Unfortunately because your model has causal linkage between the wave and particle properties, when you obtain the non-locality of identity required for comparison with QT you also acquire non-locality of causation. So Joy Christian is right and the model as given in the essay does fall victim to the non-locality issue, as encountered via Bell-type analysis."

I have been trying to tell this to Edwin for some time now, but you have been able to say it much more clearly. Bell's analysis is not something that can be overcome that easily.

In any case, what I found interesting in your own essay is your comments about the four parallelizable spheres, S^0, S^1, S^3, and S^7, and their associated normed division algebras. In this context you may find my attached paper interesting (with a fuller account of my ideas in several chapters of my book).

Best of luck for the essay competition,

Joy Christian

attachments: 5_1101.1958v1.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Your comments on the essay by Edwin Eugene Klingman led me to your own essay. You wrote on Edwin's blog:

"Models with causal linkage between the particle and wave property generally have problems with Bell-type analysis, or re-analysis. Quantum Theory has a very peculiar form of non-locality, with what can be called non-locality of identity which is confirmed by wave interference and quantum entanglement experiments. However, this is strangely not accompanied by non-locality of causation such that it could be practically used to send a signal faster than light. Unfortunately because your model has causal linkage between the wave and particle properties, when you obtain the non-locality of identity required for comparison with QT you also acquire non-locality of causation. So Joy Christian is right and the model as given in the essay does fall victim to the non-locality issue, as encountered via Bell-type analysis."

I have been trying to tell this to Edwin for some time now, but you have been able to say it much more clearly. Bell's analysis is not something that can be overcome that easily.

In any case, what I found interesting in your own essay is your comments about the four parallelizable spheres, S^0, S^1, S^3, and S^7, and their associated normed division algebras. In this context you may find my attached paper interesting (with a fuller account of my ideas in several chapters of my book).

Best of luck for the essay competition,

Joy Christian

attachments: 5_1101.1958v1.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

Fascinating paper! It looks very much like you've got the other side of the story I have presented in the context of extended GR.

In my Agent Physics book - and in the review paper of the chapter presenting the theory http://www.mjgoodband.co.uk/papers/STUFT.pdf - I proposed the following meta-principle:

Physical causation will only be consistent and complete if it realises all the manifolds S0, S1, S3 and S7.

I assume that this applies to a real physical manifold - as in a real fabric of reality like the fabric concept of space-time - which when read off directly in the context of extended GR specifies a closed S3 universe with particle dimensions S7. Such a universe is necessarily cyclical S1 and to obtain the manifold S0 as physical objects requires topological monopoles - hence the given pattern S10 -> S3*S7 with the formation of a physical twist in the fabric of space which breaks the S7 symmetry in a suitable way. This gives monopoles and anti-monopoles - giving a realisation of S0 - which must be in a representation of the rotation group - with group manifold S3 - and particle symmetry representation of the manifold S7. The S1 representation would come from the monopoles having a wave property, which I have to add from observation as my derivation of QFT is based on the wave property being non-derivable.

Unless I'm much mistaken, it looks as though your work could be stated as the meta-principle:

Physically-real representation of reality (in the sense of ERP) will only be consistent and complete if it involves all the manifolds S0, S1, S3 and S7.

Would this be correct? Such a condition on mathematical representation would be the other side to the equivalent condition being applied to a real physical fabric of reality. However, the consequence of this restriction is that the symmetry breaking required to give topological monopoles must be of the form:

S7 = SU(4)/SU(3) -> (Spin(3) * SU(2) * U(1))/Z3

Which would imply that the local colour group HAS to be SO(3) and not SU(3). Once the significance of the manifolds S0, S1, S3 and S7 is recognised there doesn't seem to be a way of avoiding this conclusion. Does this seem correct to you?

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Fascinating paper! It looks very much like you've got the other side of the story I have presented in the context of extended GR.

In my Agent Physics book - and in the review paper of the chapter presenting the theory http://www.mjgoodband.co.uk/papers/STUFT.pdf - I proposed the following meta-principle:

Physical causation will only be consistent and complete if it realises all the manifolds S0, S1, S3 and S7.

I assume that this applies to a real physical manifold - as in a real fabric of reality like the fabric concept of space-time - which when read off directly in the context of extended GR specifies a closed S3 universe with particle dimensions S7. Such a universe is necessarily cyclical S1 and to obtain the manifold S0 as physical objects requires topological monopoles - hence the given pattern S10 -> S3*S7 with the formation of a physical twist in the fabric of space which breaks the S7 symmetry in a suitable way. This gives monopoles and anti-monopoles - giving a realisation of S0 - which must be in a representation of the rotation group - with group manifold S3 - and particle symmetry representation of the manifold S7. The S1 representation would come from the monopoles having a wave property, which I have to add from observation as my derivation of QFT is based on the wave property being non-derivable.

Unless I'm much mistaken, it looks as though your work could be stated as the meta-principle:

Physically-real representation of reality (in the sense of ERP) will only be consistent and complete if it involves all the manifolds S0, S1, S3 and S7.

Would this be correct? Such a condition on mathematical representation would be the other side to the equivalent condition being applied to a real physical fabric of reality. However, the consequence of this restriction is that the symmetry breaking required to give topological monopoles must be of the form:

S7 = SU(4)/SU(3) -> (Spin(3) * SU(2) * U(1))/Z3

Which would imply that the local colour group HAS to be SO(3) and not SU(3). Once the significance of the manifolds S0, S1, S3 and S7 is recognised there doesn't seem to be a way of avoiding this conclusion. Does this seem correct to you?

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Hi Michael,

You wrote: "Fascinating paper! It looks very much like you've got the other side of the story I have presented in the context of extended GR."

Yes, it does seem like our two respective approaches are flip sides of the same coin. I have arrived at the parallelized spheres via an analysis of EPR and Bell, whereas you have arrived at them (it seems) more from the particle physics side. But the conclusion seems inevitable:

"Physical causation will only be consistent and complete if it realises all the manifolds S0, S1, S3 and S7."

By the way, we are not the only ones who have recognized the significance of these manifolds for fundamental physics. Geoffrey Dixon, Rick Lockyer, and Michael Atiyah (to name just a few) also seem to share our conviction.

I also agree with your proposed meta-principle for my work, although I would use a slightly different language:

"Locally causal representation of reality (in the senses of EPR and Bell) can only be consistent and complete (in the sense of Einstein and EPR) if it is based on a parallelized 7-sphere, S^7, which contains S^3, S^1, and S^0 as nested submanifolds, in the manner of Hopf."

This is more mouthful than what you have suggested, but it describes what I am proposing more accurately.

I am not sure how to answer your other question:

"However, the consequence of this restriction is that the symmetry breaking required to give topological monopoles must be of the form:

S7 = SU(4)/SU(3) -> (Spin(3) * SU(2) * U(1))/Z3

Which would imply that the local colour group HAS to be SO(3) and not SU(3). Once the significance of the manifolds S0, S1, S3 and S7 is recognised there doesn't seem to be a way of avoiding this conclusion. Does this seem correct to you?"

I am not sure about this, mainly because I am not a particle physicist. What I am 100% sure about is the significance of the manifolds S^0, S^1, S^3, and S^7. If this implies what you think it implies, then I would put my last penny on it.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: "Fascinating paper! It looks very much like you've got the other side of the story I have presented in the context of extended GR."

Yes, it does seem like our two respective approaches are flip sides of the same coin. I have arrived at the parallelized spheres via an analysis of EPR and Bell, whereas you have arrived at them (it seems) more from the particle physics side. But the conclusion seems inevitable:

"Physical causation will only be consistent and complete if it realises all the manifolds S0, S1, S3 and S7."

By the way, we are not the only ones who have recognized the significance of these manifolds for fundamental physics. Geoffrey Dixon, Rick Lockyer, and Michael Atiyah (to name just a few) also seem to share our conviction.

I also agree with your proposed meta-principle for my work, although I would use a slightly different language:

"Locally causal representation of reality (in the senses of EPR and Bell) can only be consistent and complete (in the sense of Einstein and EPR) if it is based on a parallelized 7-sphere, S^7, which contains S^3, S^1, and S^0 as nested submanifolds, in the manner of Hopf."

This is more mouthful than what you have suggested, but it describes what I am proposing more accurately.

I am not sure how to answer your other question:

"However, the consequence of this restriction is that the symmetry breaking required to give topological monopoles must be of the form:

S7 = SU(4)/SU(3) -> (Spin(3) * SU(2) * U(1))/Z3

Which would imply that the local colour group HAS to be SO(3) and not SU(3). Once the significance of the manifolds S0, S1, S3 and S7 is recognised there doesn't seem to be a way of avoiding this conclusion. Does this seem correct to you?"

I am not sure about this, mainly because I am not a particle physicist. What I am 100% sure about is the significance of the manifolds S^0, S^1, S^3, and S^7. If this implies what you think it implies, then I would put my last penny on it.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Michael,

For me the significance, or rather the inevitability of the manifolds S^0, S^1, S^3, and S^7 is necessitated by a rather innocent looking algebraic identity (cf. equation 1.53 of the attached paper). I am sure you are more than acquainted with this identity, but for a summary of my perspective on the matter please have a look at sections 1.4 and 1.5 of the attached paper.

Best,

Joy

attachments: 9_Origins.pdf

report post as inappropriate

For me the significance, or rather the inevitability of the manifolds S^0, S^1, S^3, and S^7 is necessitated by a rather innocent looking algebraic identity (cf. equation 1.53 of the attached paper). I am sure you are more than acquainted with this identity, but for a summary of my perspective on the matter please have a look at sections 1.4 and 1.5 of the attached paper.

Best,

Joy

attachments: 9_Origins.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Hi Michael,

Thanks again for your comments on my thread. They definitely helped my 2nd reading of your essay.

Like Joy I had noted your mention of S0, S1, S3, and S7 as the only normed division algebras, a point that Joy has repeatedly remarked on. This time I was particularly fascinated by your view of black holes as Kaluza-Klein 'particles' with empty S2 interior and 'real physical surface' as event horizon, and no singularity.

You indicate also that you derive values close to the Standard Model "despite being derived solely within classical physics." I plan to look at that reference. In the first page or so you remark there is no means in classical mechanics for a single particle to travel as a wave. Of course my model is based on the particle always traveling 'with' a wave. It is this linked state that you seem to view as a causal linkage leading to Bell-type non-locality issues. With inherently unknowable phase the abstraction 'causal' may be stronger than is actually the case, as there is also a self-interacting aspect of the C-field that may or may not allow physically real solutions to be derivable. In other words I am uncertain, according to your definition, whether to consider my wave property of the particle 'derivable' or not. [By the way, I tried to get your book Agent Physics on Amazon, with no success. Any ideas?]

Another point I did not fully appreciate the first time I read your essay is this: "Conservation laws applying to charges of particles mean that no real-number valued variables could be the cause of changes in particles numbers [with implications for incompleteness proof]." And this time through I did like your conserved charge as a limit to black hole self-immolation.

The following section on Non-physically-real terms is a tough nut to crack. I read and understood the words, but it doesn't jell. Partly because I believe particles derive from physical processes, not symmetry. Perhaps I'll understand this better after reading your reference [15]. I do agree with you about physics unification without quantum mechanics being fundamental.

In studying your 'twist' in S7, it does not sound the same as Joy's torsional twist. Is it? I did not interpret your change in metric in the ergo-region to be equivalent to Joy's change in handedness, but do you believe your solution is isomorphic to his?

I hope to have a few new questions after another reading or so.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Thanks again for your comments on my thread. They definitely helped my 2nd reading of your essay.

Like Joy I had noted your mention of S0, S1, S3, and S7 as the only normed division algebras, a point that Joy has repeatedly remarked on. This time I was particularly fascinated by your view of black holes as Kaluza-Klein 'particles' with empty S2 interior and 'real physical surface' as event horizon, and no singularity.

You indicate also that you derive values close to the Standard Model "despite being derived solely within classical physics." I plan to look at that reference. In the first page or so you remark there is no means in classical mechanics for a single particle to travel as a wave. Of course my model is based on the particle always traveling 'with' a wave. It is this linked state that you seem to view as a causal linkage leading to Bell-type non-locality issues. With inherently unknowable phase the abstraction 'causal' may be stronger than is actually the case, as there is also a self-interacting aspect of the C-field that may or may not allow physically real solutions to be derivable. In other words I am uncertain, according to your definition, whether to consider my wave property of the particle 'derivable' or not. [By the way, I tried to get your book Agent Physics on Amazon, with no success. Any ideas?]

Another point I did not fully appreciate the first time I read your essay is this: "Conservation laws applying to charges of particles mean that no real-number valued variables could be the cause of changes in particles numbers [with implications for incompleteness proof]." And this time through I did like your conserved charge as a limit to black hole self-immolation.

The following section on Non-physically-real terms is a tough nut to crack. I read and understood the words, but it doesn't jell. Partly because I believe particles derive from physical processes, not symmetry. Perhaps I'll understand this better after reading your reference [15]. I do agree with you about physics unification without quantum mechanics being fundamental.

In studying your 'twist' in S7, it does not sound the same as Joy's torsional twist. Is it? I did not interpret your change in metric in the ergo-region to be equivalent to Joy's change in handedness, but do you believe your solution is isomorphic to his?

I hope to have a few new questions after another reading or so.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Michael,

Nine pages is just not enough! I doubt that anyone can understand your essay with one or two readings. I would advise anyone who wishes to better understand what you are doing to read your reference [15].

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Nine pages is just not enough! I doubt that anyone can understand your essay with one or two readings. I would advise anyone who wishes to better understand what you are doing to read your reference [15].

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin is probably right. There are two interlinked parts in my essay which are both quite involved, and have been discussed carefully as they suggest a model for physics unification. See

1) http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0010

2) [15] http://www.mjgoodband.co.uk/papers/QFT_KK.pdf

The first part is about the physical conditions under which Gödel's incompleteness theorem can apply...

view entire post

1) http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0010

2) [15] http://www.mjgoodband.co.uk/papers/QFT_KK.pdf

The first part is about the physical conditions under which Gödel's incompleteness theorem can apply...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Edwin

I am glad that my comments were helpful.

On the issue of a black hole being a hollow S2 in my Kaluza-Klein theory, Johann Weiser presents results of numerical calculations in GR with a relativistic ideal gas model, which shows the metric of a black hole as being a hollow mass shell. The particles of the Weiser solutions all reside just outside the event horizon radius, the inside is hollow and there is no physical singularity at the centre. In section 3 of ref [15] http://www.mjgoodband.co.uk/papers/QFT_KK.pdf. I also give a simple thermodynamic analysis which yields the temperature and entropy expressions for a black hole, but without using the Quantum Theory of Hawking radiation.

My usage of the word 'twist' refers to a physical twist in the higher dimensional torus S3*S7 with 'outer circle' S3 of the spatial universe and 'inner circle' S7 of compactified dimensions associated with particle symmetries in KKT. In visual terms, imagine a ball of dough and poke a hole through it to get a doughnut or the torus S1*S1. This is the analogy of imagining the universe as a closed surface and then registering that the operative word in wormhole is 'hole' - a hole in a sphere gives a torus whatever the number of dimensions. However, a normal sphere is the odd one out of spheres S^N, as it is possible to poke a hole through all higher dimensional spheres to get a torus with a twist in it. For the doughnut we have to break the loop, twist one end relative to the other and stick it back together again. This is the sort of physical twist I mean, resulting from poking a wormhole through S10 to give the 'torus' S3*S7 with a twist in it - this twist has the properties of the electroweak vacuum, including giving a closed formula for the Weinberg angle (in the technical notes of the essay) which is within the experimental range.

Joy's torsion refers to the twisted structure of the fibre bundles S3 and S7. Wikipedia has a stab at giving a visualisation of the torsion of the S1 fibre in going around the S2 base-space of S3 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopf_bundle, but I can't say that it helps me much. With my QFT background I tend to visualise the topological monopole ('t Hooft-Polyakov monopole) you get when the S2 base-space and S1 fibre of S3 are in a sense unwrapped. A simple visualisation of this is given by imagining poking cocktail sticks into an orange and then slotting Hula-Hoops onto the sticks - the circle S1 of the Hula-Hoop gives the S1 fibre and the surface of the orange gives the S2. The change in orientation of the cocktail sticks going around the orange gives a sense of the fibre-bundle torsion, but this configuration has the symmetry of the sphere S2 whereas the torsion of the fibre-bundle gives S3.

Best,

Michael

I am glad that my comments were helpful.

On the issue of a black hole being a hollow S2 in my Kaluza-Klein theory, Johann Weiser presents results of numerical calculations in GR with a relativistic ideal gas model, which shows the metric of a black hole as being a hollow mass shell. The particles of the Weiser solutions all reside just outside the event horizon radius, the inside is hollow and there is no physical singularity at the centre. In section 3 of ref [15] http://www.mjgoodband.co.uk/papers/QFT_KK.pdf. I also give a simple thermodynamic analysis which yields the temperature and entropy expressions for a black hole, but without using the Quantum Theory of Hawking radiation.

My usage of the word 'twist' refers to a physical twist in the higher dimensional torus S3*S7 with 'outer circle' S3 of the spatial universe and 'inner circle' S7 of compactified dimensions associated with particle symmetries in KKT. In visual terms, imagine a ball of dough and poke a hole through it to get a doughnut or the torus S1*S1. This is the analogy of imagining the universe as a closed surface and then registering that the operative word in wormhole is 'hole' - a hole in a sphere gives a torus whatever the number of dimensions. However, a normal sphere is the odd one out of spheres S^N, as it is possible to poke a hole through all higher dimensional spheres to get a torus with a twist in it. For the doughnut we have to break the loop, twist one end relative to the other and stick it back together again. This is the sort of physical twist I mean, resulting from poking a wormhole through S10 to give the 'torus' S3*S7 with a twist in it - this twist has the properties of the electroweak vacuum, including giving a closed formula for the Weinberg angle (in the technical notes of the essay) which is within the experimental range.

Joy's torsion refers to the twisted structure of the fibre bundles S3 and S7. Wikipedia has a stab at giving a visualisation of the torsion of the S1 fibre in going around the S2 base-space of S3 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopf_bundle, but I can't say that it helps me much. With my QFT background I tend to visualise the topological monopole ('t Hooft-Polyakov monopole) you get when the S2 base-space and S1 fibre of S3 are in a sense unwrapped. A simple visualisation of this is given by imagining poking cocktail sticks into an orange and then slotting Hula-Hoops onto the sticks - the circle S1 of the Hula-Hoop gives the S1 fibre and the surface of the orange gives the S2. The change in orientation of the cocktail sticks going around the orange gives a sense of the fibre-bundle torsion, but this configuration has the symmetry of the sphere S2 whereas the torsion of the fibre-bundle gives S3.

Best,

Michael

Michael,

It's a breath of fresh air to see some serious understanding of modern topology, when these forums have been full of serious misunderstandings the last couple of years. Where were you when we needed you? :-)

Also, I for one very much appreciate your organization -- building from classical black hole relativity to quantum theory. Nice.

I don't think Joy Christian's mathematically complete framework has the problem of demanding a closed universe; parallelization of S^1, S^3, S^7 gives us a flat space to work in, so that conformal mapping guarantees angle preservation to infinity even in a curved space, and simple connectedness does the rest. I.e., because all real functions are continuous, and because the octonionic space of S^7 allows the geometric algebra to return all real values, the set of complete measurement results on S^3 constitutes a closed logical judgment on all the local physics, even in an open universe. (There's some peripheral discussion of this issue in my essay "The perfect first question," that I hope you get a chance to visit.) I'm not familiar with the term "particle space" that you apply to S^7; however, it seems to fit with my informal characterization of Christian's S^7 structure as "physical space" in concert with S^3 as "measure space."

Really, you've done a crackerjack job. Thanks for sharing and best wishes in the competition.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

It's a breath of fresh air to see some serious understanding of modern topology, when these forums have been full of serious misunderstandings the last couple of years. Where were you when we needed you? :-)

Also, I for one very much appreciate your organization -- building from classical black hole relativity to quantum theory. Nice.

I don't think Joy Christian's mathematically complete framework has the problem of demanding a closed universe; parallelization of S^1, S^3, S^7 gives us a flat space to work in, so that conformal mapping guarantees angle preservation to infinity even in a curved space, and simple connectedness does the rest. I.e., because all real functions are continuous, and because the octonionic space of S^7 allows the geometric algebra to return all real values, the set of complete measurement results on S^3 constitutes a closed logical judgment on all the local physics, even in an open universe. (There's some peripheral discussion of this issue in my essay "The perfect first question," that I hope you get a chance to visit.) I'm not familiar with the term "particle space" that you apply to S^7; however, it seems to fit with my informal characterization of Christian's S^7 structure as "physical space" in concert with S^3 as "measure space."

Really, you've done a crackerjack job. Thanks for sharing and best wishes in the competition.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Given the prior discussion of Joy Christian's work on FQXi I thought it might help to clarify how my S10 unified field theory arrives at the same conclusion: it is all about the Hopf spheres S0, S1, S3 and S7. This might initially look like yet another case of putting mathematics before physics - the cart before the horse - that many of the essay entrants have pointed at as being a problem with...

view entire post

view entire post

Hi Michael,

Nice summary. As Tom says: Where were you when we needed you? :-)

The discussion of my work, both here at FQXi and elsewhere, is usually at a very superficial level. Most people seem to get stuck at the most basic EPR correlation, when I want to talk about local causality of any conceivable quantum correlations, no matter what the underling quantum state. This can *only* be done by recognizing the exceptional properties of the parallelized 7-sphere---especially its closed-ness under multiplication, as well as that of its fibres, S^3, S^1, and S^0.

This is perhaps *the* fundamental conceptual difference between our respective uses of these spheres. While I too arrived at them through physical considerations (by analysing the conceptual arguments of Einstein, EPR, and Bell), what I ended up with are the *parallelized* spheres, which are---so to speak---as flat as a sheet of paper. More precisely, their curvature tensors vanish identically, while torsions within them remaining non-zero. Thus the theory of gravity more appropriate in the context of my work is the teleparallel gravity, not the usual general relativity. It turns out that without parallelization local causality cannot be maintained for all conceivable quantum correlations, or even for the basic EPR correlation. Parallelization is the *only* way to meet Bell's challenge. Unfortunately this fact is not yet widely appreciated, even by some supporters of my work.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Nice summary. As Tom says: Where were you when we needed you? :-)

The discussion of my work, both here at FQXi and elsewhere, is usually at a very superficial level. Most people seem to get stuck at the most basic EPR correlation, when I want to talk about local causality of any conceivable quantum correlations, no matter what the underling quantum state. This can *only* be done by recognizing the exceptional properties of the parallelized 7-sphere---especially its closed-ness under multiplication, as well as that of its fibres, S^3, S^1, and S^0.

This is perhaps *the* fundamental conceptual difference between our respective uses of these spheres. While I too arrived at them through physical considerations (by analysing the conceptual arguments of Einstein, EPR, and Bell), what I ended up with are the *parallelized* spheres, which are---so to speak---as flat as a sheet of paper. More precisely, their curvature tensors vanish identically, while torsions within them remaining non-zero. Thus the theory of gravity more appropriate in the context of my work is the teleparallel gravity, not the usual general relativity. It turns out that without parallelization local causality cannot be maintained for all conceivable quantum correlations, or even for the basic EPR correlation. Parallelization is the *only* way to meet Bell's challenge. Unfortunately this fact is not yet widely appreciated, even by some supporters of my work.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

As the potential skunk at the picnic, and the possibly alluded to deluded 'supporter' and one who is minimally familiar with both of your work, it is not clear to me that a shared appreciation of S0, S1, S3, and S7 doth a marriage make. I too believe that these normed division algebras are important and, with Rick Lockyer's view of Octonions, see them as applying to my own work. Just sayin'.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hello Professor Mickael from UK,

Ok let's play, they need help :)

Your essay shows us a very good knowledge of several theories, existings.But I see several irrationalities. Why BH particules ? the derivations cannot give us a quantum BH, a BH is a sphere , with a volume, central to galaxies, with rotations. So indeed Godel is right, but his reasoning is subtle, indeed a lot of people confound the theorems of uncompleteness of Godel with the physical axiomatizations. the axiom of truth becomes an essential. Is it important to insert not coherent derivations or superimposings for a kind of confusions.

My perception is that a lot of persons utilize this uncompleteness of Godel to imply an, ocean of confusions. In fact, the coherences must be formalized with a kind of universal wisdom !!! Is it necessary to imply the confusions when the truth is so evident and simple? it is the question after all.

The Uncompleteness is simple in its pure meaning.

until soon and spherically yours of course.

report post as inappropriate

Ok let's play, they need help :)

Your essay shows us a very good knowledge of several theories, existings.But I see several irrationalities. Why BH particules ? the derivations cannot give us a quantum BH, a BH is a sphere , with a volume, central to galaxies, with rotations. So indeed Godel is right, but his reasoning is subtle, indeed a lot of people confound the theorems of uncompleteness of Godel with the physical axiomatizations. the axiom of truth becomes an essential. Is it important to insert not coherent derivations or superimposings for a kind of confusions.

My perception is that a lot of persons utilize this uncompleteness of Godel to imply an, ocean of confusions. In fact, the coherences must be formalized with a kind of universal wisdom !!! Is it necessary to imply the confusions when the truth is so evident and simple? it is the question after all.

The Uncompleteness is simple in its pure meaning.

until soon and spherically yours of course.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy (Part 1),

I have been contemplating your work in the links you gave. My slip in saying the Hopf spheres I think was my subconscious trying to get my attention: with the particle/anti-particle space being S^0={-1,1} and the space of cyclic waves being S^1, the existence of wave-particle duality seems to be saying the fibre-bundle of the first Hopf sphere. This implies that the first...

view entire post

I have been contemplating your work in the links you gave. My slip in saying the Hopf spheres I think was my subconscious trying to get my attention: with the particle/anti-particle space being S^0={-1,1} and the space of cyclic waves being S^1, the existence of wave-particle duality seems to be saying the fibre-bundle of the first Hopf sphere. This implies that the first...

view entire post

Hi Michael,

You have raised a number of interesting issues. I will number my responses to them for clarity.

(1) You wrote: "...the assertion of S^7 ONLY precludes the possibility in physics that the two spaces have different origins such that the S^3 is not a physical subspace of S^7."

The "S^7 only" assertion is not strictly necessary for my analysis to go through. However,...

view entire post

You have raised a number of interesting issues. I will number my responses to them for clarity.

(1) You wrote: "...the assertion of S^7 ONLY precludes the possibility in physics that the two spaces have different origins such that the S^3 is not a physical subspace of S^7."

The "S^7 only" assertion is not strictly necessary for my analysis to go through. However,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

I will frame my point about separate occurrences of S3 and S7 in terms of the classic EPR scenario of correlated spin states between 2 particles, which without special characters I will denote as e^|e_ for electron spin up e^ and electron spin down e_ .

My point is that this is just quantum mechanics, think quantum field theory. Just as the emission of a photon converts e^ to e_ the emission of a W-boson converts an electron into an neutrino, an up quark into a down quark etc. and there are also inter-family conversion reactions. Such interactions mean that the most general EPR 2 particle scenario in QFT is *not* of the form A^|A_ but A^|B_ where particles A and B can be of any type; A=B is just a special case in QFT.

The observables to consider in the correlation analysis are both the spin eigenvalues of the rotation group SU(2) - group space S3 - and the particle types which are eigenvalues of some 'particle space'. I use this term in place of particle symmetry group, because grand unified theories assumed that it was going to be a group - a hidden assumption I could have raised in my essay - whereas my work says that it is the quotient group SU(4)/SU(3) isomorphic to S7. So there are 2 sets of observables with quantum correlations {^,_} and {A,B,...} where the values of the first set are the eigenvalues of the rotation group with space S3. In my case the second set contains eigenvalues of SU(4)/SU(3) ~ S7 (after the symmetry has been broken) and the S3 is clearly distinct from this S7.

Your analysis should also apply to the quantum correlations between the observables in each of the 2 sets {^,_} and {A,B,...} for the most general EPR 2 particle scenario A^|B_ in the Standard Model QFT. Ultimately my question is whether there is a way to use your analysis in reverse to place a constraint on the origin of these observables?

I.e. some argument of the form

Parallelised S3 => group space S3 for the observables {^, _}

Parallelised S7 => 'group space' S7 for the observables {A,B,...}

A straightforward argument doesn't seem to work, which is why I am asking :-)

Michael

I will frame my point about separate occurrences of S3 and S7 in terms of the classic EPR scenario of correlated spin states between 2 particles, which without special characters I will denote as e^|e_ for electron spin up e^ and electron spin down e_ .

My point is that this is just quantum mechanics, think quantum field theory. Just as the emission of a photon converts e^ to e_ the emission of a W-boson converts an electron into an neutrino, an up quark into a down quark etc. and there are also inter-family conversion reactions. Such interactions mean that the most general EPR 2 particle scenario in QFT is *not* of the form A^|A_ but A^|B_ where particles A and B can be of any type; A=B is just a special case in QFT.

The observables to consider in the correlation analysis are both the spin eigenvalues of the rotation group SU(2) - group space S3 - and the particle types which are eigenvalues of some 'particle space'. I use this term in place of particle symmetry group, because grand unified theories assumed that it was going to be a group - a hidden assumption I could have raised in my essay - whereas my work says that it is the quotient group SU(4)/SU(3) isomorphic to S7. So there are 2 sets of observables with quantum correlations {^,_} and {A,B,...} where the values of the first set are the eigenvalues of the rotation group with space S3. In my case the second set contains eigenvalues of SU(4)/SU(3) ~ S7 (after the symmetry has been broken) and the S3 is clearly distinct from this S7.

Your analysis should also apply to the quantum correlations between the observables in each of the 2 sets {^,_} and {A,B,...} for the most general EPR 2 particle scenario A^|B_ in the Standard Model QFT. Ultimately my question is whether there is a way to use your analysis in reverse to place a constraint on the origin of these observables?

I.e. some argument of the form

Parallelised S3 => group space S3 for the observables {^, _}

Parallelised S7 => 'group space' S7 for the observables {A,B,...}

A straightforward argument doesn't seem to work, which is why I am asking :-)

Michael

Hi Michael,

You have framed your question very clearly. It reminds me of some passionate discussions I had last year on these pages with Ray B. Munroe, who is sadly no longer with us. He was a supporter of my use of 7-sphere, but he also saw things from the particle physics perspective and I had to explain my foundational perspective to him from scratch. Please allow me to do the same here,...

view entire post

You have framed your question very clearly. It reminds me of some passionate discussions I had last year on these pages with Ray B. Munroe, who is sadly no longer with us. He was a supporter of my use of 7-sphere, but he also saw things from the particle physics perspective and I had to explain my foundational perspective to him from scratch. Please allow me to do the same here,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Joy (Part 2),

There is a critical dividing line between your work and mine which doesn't seem to have been fully appreciated yet: essentially my extended GR is on the physically-real side and your work is on the non-physically-real side - as in QT. Although the physically-real side of extended GR is consistent I prove that it is incomplete because the calculation of the mass reduction of the topological monopoles as Planck scale rotating black holes is subject to Gödel's incompleteness theorem. This both means that the reduced masses of the particle-like objects cannot be calculated from classical physics, and that the self-consistent dynamic state of the particle-like objects can possess a non-derivable feature.

Assuming that this feature is a wave property, Gödel's proof can be circumvented by changing from physically-real terms denoting the countable number of particles at specific points in space, to non-physically-real terms denoting them as real-number valued fields spread throughout space with a wave property, ie. a wave function. The mathematical conditions of Gödel's proof can then be used to prove no hidden variable theory and the mathematical conversion from wave function to particle number cannot be derived in classical physics - hence has 'weird' descriptions like 'collapse of the wave-function' which make little physical sense.

However, in the switch in integrals from physically-real terms to the non-physically-real term of the wave function there is a critical flatness condition. The problematic expansion is about a black hole, and the event horizon and ergo-region *cannot* be denoted by a continuous field term in space, so the replacement which derives QFT *only* holds in flat space away from the black hole. This firstly means that QFT *cannot* be unified with GR. But there is a further problem with this approximation of QFT, in that it excludes the ergo-region with its sign reversal of the metric term gtt that allows apparently non-local causation to make sense in physical causation terms. In an approximation that excludes this ergo-region, you *are* going to have a causation issue. The purpose of the representational change to the non-physically-real wave function and QT is to get a consistent and complete theory, but the represenational replacement doesn't even consider this causation issue.

It would seem that my flat space condition on the representational replacement was just the beginning of the 'flattening' required to get QT fully consistent and complete. There is going to have to be some condition in QT to resolve this causation issue, but I currently don't understand the parallelization of S0, S1,S3 and S7 well enough to understand how it does it.

Best,

Michael

There is a critical dividing line between your work and mine which doesn't seem to have been fully appreciated yet: essentially my extended GR is on the physically-real side and your work is on the non-physically-real side - as in QT. Although the physically-real side of extended GR is consistent I prove that it is incomplete because the calculation of the mass reduction of the topological monopoles as Planck scale rotating black holes is subject to Gödel's incompleteness theorem. This both means that the reduced masses of the particle-like objects cannot be calculated from classical physics, and that the self-consistent dynamic state of the particle-like objects can possess a non-derivable feature.

Assuming that this feature is a wave property, Gödel's proof can be circumvented by changing from physically-real terms denoting the countable number of particles at specific points in space, to non-physically-real terms denoting them as real-number valued fields spread throughout space with a wave property, ie. a wave function. The mathematical conditions of Gödel's proof can then be used to prove no hidden variable theory and the mathematical conversion from wave function to particle number cannot be derived in classical physics - hence has 'weird' descriptions like 'collapse of the wave-function' which make little physical sense.

However, in the switch in integrals from physically-real terms to the non-physically-real term of the wave function there is a critical flatness condition. The problematic expansion is about a black hole, and the event horizon and ergo-region *cannot* be denoted by a continuous field term in space, so the replacement which derives QFT *only* holds in flat space away from the black hole. This firstly means that QFT *cannot* be unified with GR. But there is a further problem with this approximation of QFT, in that it excludes the ergo-region with its sign reversal of the metric term gtt that allows apparently non-local causation to make sense in physical causation terms. In an approximation that excludes this ergo-region, you *are* going to have a causation issue. The purpose of the representational change to the non-physically-real wave function and QT is to get a consistent and complete theory, but the represenational replacement doesn't even consider this causation issue.

It would seem that my flat space condition on the representational replacement was just the beginning of the 'flattening' required to get QT fully consistent and complete. There is going to have to be some condition in QT to resolve this causation issue, but I currently don't understand the parallelization of S0, S1,S3 and S7 well enough to understand how it does it.

Best,

Michael

Michael,

Quick reply, while I am still digesting ...

Truncate your theory to the S^7 limit, and I think you will find that Joy's framework satisifies both the completeness criterion for a physical theory (as described by EPR) and Godel completeness.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Quick reply, while I am still digesting ...

Truncate your theory to the S^7 limit, and I think you will find that Joy's framework satisifies both the completeness criterion for a physical theory (as described by EPR) and Godel completeness.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Hello,

I am surprised that several "said" responsible scientists are so irrational in their superimposings.probably it is due to a lack of generality, I don't know, or the bad strategies simply.In all case, I am surprised by this comportment. But Like I love Jesus Christ and Buddah , I pardon you all. I am understanding your strategy after all.It is simply logic your comportment.I know this Good team band. And I accept. I continue, I persevere like a real searcher. Like a real generalist, a real universalit. I just show you what are my sciences, in fact I am happy to give courses to these strategists.In fact it exists the true and the false. I pray for them in fact.I pray in a pure spherical universality. I am going dear friends to go at new York, I will put an ocean of flowers and plants in this town.It is the country of the freedom. I will go !

Soon furthermore.and REVOLUTION SPHERIZATION WITH SCIENCES AND UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS.

Spherically yours.

ps to the Institute of Advanced Studies....be rational and respect the real generalists please.Don't make films in your heads but simply respect me.Change of strategy.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

I am surprised that several "said" responsible scientists are so irrational in their superimposings.probably it is due to a lack of generality, I don't know, or the bad strategies simply.In all case, I am surprised by this comportment. But Like I love Jesus Christ and Buddah , I pardon you all. I am understanding your strategy after all.It is simply logic your comportment.I know this Good team band. And I accept. I continue, I persevere like a real searcher. Like a real generalist, a real universalit. I just show you what are my sciences, in fact I am happy to give courses to these strategists.In fact it exists the true and the false. I pray for them in fact.I pray in a pure spherical universality. I am going dear friends to go at new York, I will put an ocean of flowers and plants in this town.It is the country of the freedom. I will go !

Soon furthermore.and REVOLUTION SPHERIZATION WITH SCIENCES AND UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS.

Spherically yours.

ps to the Institute of Advanced Studies....be rational and respect the real generalists please.Don't make films in your heads but simply respect me.Change of strategy.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

or probably that they confound what is the good equations and the general equations.Or perhaps that they show simply an ocean of words for the confusions and their own knowledges showed in live.Or it is just for this monney also.Or this or that.

In all case, I know this team and why they make that. Simply the hate probably.

I pray for their souls. They need help in fact. Furthermore you imagine their credibility if I am recognized.I understand their strategy and their fear.Probably that they are going to discuss between a kind of team band for a kind of pseudo politeness.Probably also that they think that they understand the maths of de sitter and riemann or ....but do they understand the maths of Dufourny.I doubt.

spherically yours

Regards

report post as inappropriate

In all case, I know this team and why they make that. Simply the hate probably.

I pray for their souls. They need help in fact. Furthermore you imagine their credibility if I am recognized.I understand their strategy and their fear.Probably that they are going to discuss between a kind of team band for a kind of pseudo politeness.Probably also that they think that they understand the maths of de sitter and riemann or ....but do they understand the maths of Dufourny.I doubt.

spherically yours

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Hello Dr. Goodband

You plainly seem to have taken the bull by the horns, but with my limited technical knowledge I could follow some (but not all) of the skilful action and wish you good luck in finishing off the Quantum Bull and do a great favor to physics.

In my fqxi essay Fix Physics! and my earlier Beautiful Universe Theory (BU). I have tried to trace the steps by which modern physics went 'wrong' with suggestions on how it may be revamped. One major cause is the false particle-wave duality concept: It is not individual electrons or photons that show up as dots in a double-slit image-field - just sensor atoms reaching saturation point. Eric Reiter independently reached (and experimentally proved) the same idea. His fqxi essay shows how the point photon concept is simply wrong. With the fall of the point photon the probability interpretation as a physical 'fact' and much puzzlement in QM falls by the side.

You speak of a "finite physical network that is potentially infinite in theory, this situation could only arise in the context of an infinite network expansion about some object." This is very much like the node lattice of my (BU) theory. Indeed the 5th dimension of Kaluza-Klein has been somewhere interpreted as nodes of such an ether lattice.

Despite the mostly qualitative nature of my work, I would be honoured if you can read and comment on it.

Best wishes,

Vladimir Tamari

report post as inappropriate

You plainly seem to have taken the bull by the horns, but with my limited technical knowledge I could follow some (but not all) of the skilful action and wish you good luck in finishing off the Quantum Bull and do a great favor to physics.

In my fqxi essay Fix Physics! and my earlier Beautiful Universe Theory (BU). I have tried to trace the steps by which modern physics went 'wrong' with suggestions on how it may be revamped. One major cause is the false particle-wave duality concept: It is not individual electrons or photons that show up as dots in a double-slit image-field - just sensor atoms reaching saturation point. Eric Reiter independently reached (and experimentally proved) the same idea. His fqxi essay shows how the point photon concept is simply wrong. With the fall of the point photon the probability interpretation as a physical 'fact' and much puzzlement in QM falls by the side.

You speak of a "finite physical network that is potentially infinite in theory, this situation could only arise in the context of an infinite network expansion about some object." This is very much like the node lattice of my (BU) theory. Indeed the 5th dimension of Kaluza-Klein has been somewhere interpreted as nodes of such an ether lattice.

Despite the mostly qualitative nature of my work, I would be honoured if you can read and comment on it.

Best wishes,

Vladimir Tamari

report post as inappropriate

Michael, I am impressed with your work to the extent that I tried to order your book from Amazon U.K. through you directly (Amazon is out of stock) and the order was rejected with a message that it can't be sent to my U.S. address. What gives? -- are you only allowed to sell your own book in the U.K.? :-) Please send an ordering link to my Email, thomasray1209@comcast.net and I guarantee you a sale, if the shipping cost isn't prohibitive. Otherwise, any chance of Amazon U.S. making it available?

Meantime, on the question of scientific realism, I too have looked at Joy Christian's framework with that question in mind. Rather than applying the Godel incompleteness theorem to the broad set of scientific theories which incorporate physically real terms (which would naively include the theoretical components of Joy's framework, i.e., the prediction of physically real quantum correlations) -- I find that mathematical completeness, as Joy describes, which meets the EPR criterion (every element of the mathematical theory corresponds to every element of the physical measure) also satisfies Godel completeness. I am willing to engage on this issue.

I think it is important to understand that Joy's framework is noncontextual, and not merely an interpretation of observed quantum mechanical phenomena. His logical judgment on the state of quantum correlations is completely closed, exactly as the mathematically complete judgments of relativity in the classical domain. Christian's research, by taking a global (topological) approach to local realism, breaks down the distinction between local and global and prescribes an exact limit to the range of observables, just as relativity does ("all physics is local"), though in an extended universal domain unrestricted by classical mechanics.

As a result, I find that Joy Christian meets Karl Popper's criteria for metaphysical realism (*Realism and the Aim of Science,* Routledge 1983). In turn, I think that your own variety of realism is satisfied, and that Joy Christian's result lies outside the set of constructs that would be subject to Godel incompleteness.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Meantime, on the question of scientific realism, I too have looked at Joy Christian's framework with that question in mind. Rather than applying the Godel incompleteness theorem to the broad set of scientific theories which incorporate physically real terms (which would naively include the theoretical components of Joy's framework, i.e., the prediction of physically real quantum correlations) -- I find that mathematical completeness, as Joy describes, which meets the EPR criterion (every element of the mathematical theory corresponds to every element of the physical measure) also satisfies Godel completeness. I am willing to engage on this issue.

I think it is important to understand that Joy's framework is noncontextual, and not merely an interpretation of observed quantum mechanical phenomena. His logical judgment on the state of quantum correlations is completely closed, exactly as the mathematically complete judgments of relativity in the classical domain. Christian's research, by taking a global (topological) approach to local realism, breaks down the distinction between local and global and prescribes an exact limit to the range of observables, just as relativity does ("all physics is local"), though in an extended universal domain unrestricted by classical mechanics.

As a result, I find that Joy Christian meets Karl Popper's criteria for metaphysical realism (*Realism and the Aim of Science,* Routledge 1983). In turn, I think that your own variety of realism is satisfied, and that Joy Christian's result lies outside the set of constructs that would be subject to Godel incompleteness.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Tom. I'm still having problems with Amazon not displaying the correct stock and shipping settings. Just in case it takes a while, I'm setting up the option of making Agent Physics available from my website http://www.mjgoodband.co.uk at the same shipping rates as Amazon. This may take a day or two (will update). In the meantime there's more about Agent Physics on...

view entire post

view entire post

Dang it -- I messed up cutting and pasting. I will repost correctly here, and hope I can get the last version deleted. Sorry.

Michael,

I am so grateful -- as I expect Joy is as well -- to be able to have meaningful dialogue on the real issues. For so long, and for Joy many years longer than I, we've been forced to respond to straw man arguments. Very debilitating and...

view entire post

Michael,

I am so grateful -- as I expect Joy is as well -- to be able to have meaningful dialogue on the real issues. For so long, and for Joy many years longer than I, we've been forced to respond to straw man arguments. Very debilitating and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Fixing the link (hopefully):

Leslie Lamport

http://research.microsoft.com/enus/um/people/lamport/pubs/pu

bs.html#buridan

report post as inappropriate

Leslie Lamport

http://research.microsoft.com/enus/um/people/lamport/pubs/pu

bs.html#buridan

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy and Tom,

I too am grateful to you for engaging in meaningful discussion. I was previously unaware of Joy's work (and Buridan's principle ) and your comments have advanced my thinking to the point where I am certain that the key issue really is a mathematics description problem in trying "to reconcile local discrete measures with globally continuous functions".

In the spirit...

view entire post

I too am grateful to you for engaging in meaningful discussion. I was previously unaware of Joy's work (and Buridan's principle ) and your comments have advanced my thinking to the point where I am certain that the key issue really is a mathematics description problem in trying "to reconcile local discrete measures with globally continuous functions".

In the spirit...

view entire post

Dear Michael:

The conclusion of your paper that QM is not a fundamental theory is vindicated in my paper – “ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”. My paper also provides evidence to what is fundamental universal reality and how to explain the inner workings of quantum mechanics (including wave-particle duality) and resolve its paradoxes.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

Best of Luck & Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

The conclusion of your paper that QM is not a fundamental theory is vindicated in my paper – “ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”. My paper also provides evidence to what is fundamental universal reality and how to explain the inner workings of quantum mechanics (including wave-particle duality) and resolve its paradoxes.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

Best of Luck & Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

CORRECTION - Reposting the above under my name:

Dear Michael:

The conclusion of your paper that QM is not a fundamental theory is vindicated in my paper – “ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”. My paper also provides evidence to what is fundamental universal reality and how to explain the inner workings of quantum mechanics (including wave-particle duality) and resolve its paradoxes.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

Best of Luck & Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael:

The conclusion of your paper that QM is not a fundamental theory is vindicated in my paper – “ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”. My paper also provides evidence to what is fundamental universal reality and how to explain the inner workings of quantum mechanics (including wave-particle duality) and resolve its paradoxes.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

Best of Luck & Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Sorry - my LOGIN did not work. Please post your comments on my paper under my posted paper “ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”.

Thanks

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Thanks

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Hello Michael,

I greatly enjoyed reading your essay, and I find myself almost completely in agreement with your thesis. Well done! Edwin Eugene had made a recommendation a while back, but then when I read your comments on Vladimir's essay page, I knew I had to find time to read your essay immediately.

You have put some of the pieces together nicely. I like your STUFT theory rather well. And it further explains some of what I found interesting and intriguing in Joy Christian's work.

Like Tom Ray, I've got notebooks full of ideas after finding inspiration there. I like your response to Tom's comments, regarding global and local functional structure, though, and your comments to Joy above resonate with me also. I guess it is a matter of perspective or emphasis, in some measure, depending on what you are trying to show.

I have much to learn, but I expect I'll find some interesting insights in the comments on this page. I've had an interest in related topics for some time, and you will find mention thereof in my essay "Cherished Assumptions and the Progress of Physics."

But for now, I must sleep.

all the best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I greatly enjoyed reading your essay, and I find myself almost completely in agreement with your thesis. Well done! Edwin Eugene had made a recommendation a while back, but then when I read your comments on Vladimir's essay page, I knew I had to find time to read your essay immediately.

You have put some of the pieces together nicely. I like your STUFT theory rather well. And it further explains some of what I found interesting and intriguing in Joy Christian's work.

Like Tom Ray, I've got notebooks full of ideas after finding inspiration there. I like your response to Tom's comments, regarding global and local functional structure, though, and your comments to Joy above resonate with me also. I guess it is a matter of perspective or emphasis, in some measure, depending on what you are trying to show.

I have much to learn, but I expect I'll find some interesting insights in the comments on this page. I've had an interest in related topics for some time, and you will find mention thereof in my essay "Cherished Assumptions and the Progress of Physics."

But for now, I must sleep.

all the best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hello again Michael,

I have given considerable thought to what is implied by living inside a 3-sphere, what is seen by folks who reside inside a set of 'compact' dimensions, and so on. We might not notice. Size is relative, not absolute, and interiority/exteriority may be too, if we entertain higher order dimensions where geometry may be non-commutative or even non-associative.

That was part of what I was getting at, in my essay, when I was talking about the universe being inside out of the way we perceive it. We think we are pointing to an edge, or a spot on the universe's periphery, and yet we point at the center.

However; when we think we are pointing directly at the center of the planet, we are only getting the Schwarzschild radius away. This I see as related to the interlocking keyring example used to depict Hopf fibrations of S3. The actual center of the Earth is behind the event horizon, induced by the parallelization of the fiber bundle, it would seem.

My guess is the reason we don't 'see' space as octonionic, but appear to be inside the quaternionic space of S3 relates to the decoupling of matter and energy - which sets a time and distance scale for the universe, as a whole. More later in another missive.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I have given considerable thought to what is implied by living inside a 3-sphere, what is seen by folks who reside inside a set of 'compact' dimensions, and so on. We might not notice. Size is relative, not absolute, and interiority/exteriority may be too, if we entertain higher order dimensions where geometry may be non-commutative or even non-associative.

That was part of what I was getting at, in my essay, when I was talking about the universe being inside out of the way we perceive it. We think we are pointing to an edge, or a spot on the universe's periphery, and yet we point at the center.

However; when we think we are pointing directly at the center of the planet, we are only getting the Schwarzschild radius away. This I see as related to the interlocking keyring example used to depict Hopf fibrations of S3. The actual center of the Earth is behind the event horizon, induced by the parallelization of the fiber bundle, it would seem.

My guess is the reason we don't 'see' space as octonionic, but appear to be inside the quaternionic space of S3 relates to the decoupling of matter and energy - which sets a time and distance scale for the universe, as a whole. More later in another missive.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

and you insist furthermore with your friends, how can you make this ? just for this papper and your hate and your vanity. You think what my friend ? That your faith is more than mine or what ? let me laugh, never I have crushed even an insect. You are not a scientist , it is not possible, and your firends also are not scizentists, it is not possible. In fact , you are just a team of vanitious false scientists.

Your maths are so ironical, I ask me even where you have studied our mathjs you and your friends.Frankly, I really suggest that you buy better books of maths. If you made a correct mathemtical improvement ok, but no, you are weak in fact.I just see an ocean of stupidities.In fact your maths and your team do not arrive even at 5 per cent of my works.

Ironical. Irritating that I arrive at New York soon no? you must become murders or pay people or invent an other strategy, because there, we are going to laugh you know. You know it also in fact :) isn't it ? probably that your hormons are touched , you and your friends, logic for the weak scientists. Even in team and even with your tools and your dtrategy, I continue all days to teach you my theory of spherization.:) I am not arrogant, it is god who said me that.He said me also, pay attention Steve, my son, the human nature is sometimes very bad. I know Father ! I continue just in praying and in showing them what is a real universal heart.

report post as inappropriate

Your maths are so ironical, I ask me even where you have studied our mathjs you and your friends.Frankly, I really suggest that you buy better books of maths. If you made a correct mathemtical improvement ok, but no, you are weak in fact.I just see an ocean of stupidities.In fact your maths and your team do not arrive even at 5 per cent of my works.

Ironical. Irritating that I arrive at New York soon no? you must become murders or pay people or invent an other strategy, because there, we are going to laugh you know. You know it also in fact :) isn't it ? probably that your hormons are touched , you and your friends, logic for the weak scientists. Even in team and even with your tools and your dtrategy, I continue all days to teach you my theory of spherization.:) I am not arrogant, it is god who said me that.He said me also, pay attention Steve, my son, the human nature is sometimes very bad. I know Father ! I continue just in praying and in showing them what is a real universal heart.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jonathan

The way I visualise compact dimensions and why we don't notice them, is that we are spanning them in the same way that our shoulders span a narrow corridor. After a while moving backwards and forwards in such a corridor, you could stop regarding going left and right as constituting a dimension at all! For a closed universe, an analogy would be the experience of a single celled organism living *within* the water film of a soap bubble - it could only move in 2D within the film of the bubble and would have no experience of the 'extra' third dimension because the cell spanned it.

In a KK theory with compact dimensions, a particle spans these dimensions and experiences changes in the relative orientation of the compact dimensions at different points in space as particle forces. Moving in the direction of these compact dimensions effectively amounts to rotating on the spot - like a hamster going around its wheel and going nowhere - such rotations are the origin of gauge rotations in the dimensionally reduced theory. A consequence of compact dimensions in STUFT is that they provide the 'measuring rod' for all measurements, up to and including the measurement of their own scale. So even if the scale of these dimensions changed, their measured scale in terms of themselves would remain the same - apparently 'constant'.

Michael

The way I visualise compact dimensions and why we don't notice them, is that we are spanning them in the same way that our shoulders span a narrow corridor. After a while moving backwards and forwards in such a corridor, you could stop regarding going left and right as constituting a dimension at all! For a closed universe, an analogy would be the experience of a single celled organism living *within* the water film of a soap bubble - it could only move in 2D within the film of the bubble and would have no experience of the 'extra' third dimension because the cell spanned it.

In a KK theory with compact dimensions, a particle spans these dimensions and experiences changes in the relative orientation of the compact dimensions at different points in space as particle forces. Moving in the direction of these compact dimensions effectively amounts to rotating on the spot - like a hamster going around its wheel and going nowhere - such rotations are the origin of gauge rotations in the dimensionally reduced theory. A consequence of compact dimensions in STUFT is that they provide the 'measuring rod' for all measurements, up to and including the measurement of their own scale. So even if the scale of these dimensions changed, their measured scale in terms of themselves would remain the same - apparently 'constant'.

Michael

Michael,

I forgot to mention that is does appear that you have successfully sketched out how Quantum Mechanics could be an emergent theory, rather than fundamental. Since that is the question you ask in your title, I thought I should let you know that it looks like you have indeed proved feasibility for your topological solution, and made significant progress toward a robust formulation.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I forgot to mention that is does appear that you have successfully sketched out how Quantum Mechanics could be an emergent theory, rather than fundamental. Since that is the question you ask in your title, I thought I should let you know that it looks like you have indeed proved feasibility for your topological solution, and made significant progress toward a robust formulation.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jonathan

Thank you for that acknowledgement of my essay showing how QT can arise as an emergent theory, you are the first to do so.

It is perhaps not as clear as it could have been, but I had to compress it to fit the word count so that I could put in the follow-up consequence of QT not being fundamental. Which is that physics unification must then be sought in classical physics, and to unify with GR this would seem to imply extending GR with extra dimensions, and there is only one way that adds up in terms of particles as topological defects, the Higgs field and coupling constants - STUFT - which is uniquely defined in terms of the 4 special manifolds S0, S1, S3, S7 and the Relativity meta-principle of 'make no preference'. Without the constraint of QT *having* to be fundamental, STUFT is uniquely the only purely geometrical theory giving the correct charge spectrum of 12 (and only 12) topological monopoles as fermionic particles.

Another dramatic consequence of this emergent QT proof, is that a similar pattern can systematically occur elsewhere in science under certain conditions - I use these conditions to define the domain of Agent Physics. A general science perspective of the extension of this emergence proof throughout science in given here

Regards

Michael

Thank you for that acknowledgement of my essay showing how QT can arise as an emergent theory, you are the first to do so.

It is perhaps not as clear as it could have been, but I had to compress it to fit the word count so that I could put in the follow-up consequence of QT not being fundamental. Which is that physics unification must then be sought in classical physics, and to unify with GR this would seem to imply extending GR with extra dimensions, and there is only one way that adds up in terms of particles as topological defects, the Higgs field and coupling constants - STUFT - which is uniquely defined in terms of the 4 special manifolds S0, S1, S3, S7 and the Relativity meta-principle of 'make no preference'. Without the constraint of QT *having* to be fundamental, STUFT is uniquely the only purely geometrical theory giving the correct charge spectrum of 12 (and only 12) topological monopoles as fermionic particles.

Another dramatic consequence of this emergent QT proof, is that a similar pattern can systematically occur elsewhere in science under certain conditions - I use these conditions to define the domain of Agent Physics. A general science perspective of the extension of this emergence proof throughout science in given here

Regards

Michael

Hello Michael,

I am looking forward to settling down with your book (have been traveling and have not been in a position to do so yet). I can already see, however, that it deserves slow and careful reading. Skimming through gives me the impression that the material is quite suitable for at least a 1-semester course ... I hope that you or another instructor can make that happen somewhere, in a physics or philosophy of science curriculum.

It's especially important, I think, that you emphasize both in the book and in your essay that inductive judgments (such as found in the standard interpretations of QM) cannot be logically closed. We seem to have gotten so far away from the fundamental tenets of scientific rationalism and mathematical completeness -- even I, who am quite familiar with the results of Godel and the philosophies of Popper and Tarski, did not immediately recognize that Bell's choice of measurement domain (S^0) obviates completeness. I only grew to understand the significance by following Joy's argument (reinforced now, by yours). So I do appreciate the breadth of applications of your program across a wide spectrum of disciplines and subdisciplines in physics, the foundations of mathematics, and the foundations of the philosophy of science.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

I am looking forward to settling down with your book (have been traveling and have not been in a position to do so yet). I can already see, however, that it deserves slow and careful reading. Skimming through gives me the impression that the material is quite suitable for at least a 1-semester course ... I hope that you or another instructor can make that happen somewhere, in a physics or philosophy of science curriculum.

It's especially important, I think, that you emphasize both in the book and in your essay that inductive judgments (such as found in the standard interpretations of QM) cannot be logically closed. We seem to have gotten so far away from the fundamental tenets of scientific rationalism and mathematical completeness -- even I, who am quite familiar with the results of Godel and the philosophies of Popper and Tarski, did not immediately recognize that Bell's choice of measurement domain (S^0) obviates completeness. I only grew to understand the significance by following Joy's argument (reinforced now, by yours). So I do appreciate the breadth of applications of your program across a wide spectrum of disciplines and subdisciplines in physics, the foundations of mathematics, and the foundations of the philosophy of science.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Tom,

Not only "Bell's choice of measurement domain (S^0) obviates completeness" as you put it, but his choice is both a physical and a mathematical non-starter. His measurement functions A(a, L) do not (and cannot) satisfy the completeness criterion of EPR, unless their co-domain is chosen to be a unit parallelized 3-sphere (S^3). For no other choice of the co-domain (in the standard EPR-Bohm case) can Bell's local-realistic prescription A(a, L) for the measurement functions can be EPR-complete. For example, even a round 3-sphere will not do, let alone any other non-compact choice (such as the real line R). Thus Bell's argument is simply a non-starter---a scandal of epic proportions.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Not only "Bell's choice of measurement domain (S^0) obviates completeness" as you put it, but his choice is both a physical and a mathematical non-starter. His measurement functions A(a, L) do not (and cannot) satisfy the completeness criterion of EPR, unless their co-domain is chosen to be a unit parallelized 3-sphere (S^3). For no other choice of the co-domain (in the standard EPR-Bohm case) can Bell's local-realistic prescription A(a, L) for the measurement functions can be EPR-complete. For example, even a round 3-sphere will not do, let alone any other non-compact choice (such as the real line R). Thus Bell's argument is simply a non-starter---a scandal of epic proportions.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Joy,

I'm getting it. :-) New post in my forum on the arithmetic issue.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

I'm getting it. :-) New post in my forum on the arithmetic issue.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Hello Michael,

I liked your essay very much. You have informed insight into areas of physics that I feel are quite important.

Joy Christian mentioned my work in one of his responses to you. You can get a good overview of my ideas by reading my essay The Algebra of Everything. Your work is steeped in General Relativity, but perhaps what might be called Octonion Relativity might better connect up with your Octonion component. You will find this in my essay.

I am very interested in your opinion, especially on the Hadamard structure that is prevalent within the structure of Octonion Algebra. If you could weigh in on my blog, I would be in your debt.

Regards,

Rick

report post as inappropriate

I liked your essay very much. You have informed insight into areas of physics that I feel are quite important.

Joy Christian mentioned my work in one of his responses to you. You can get a good overview of my ideas by reading my essay The Algebra of Everything. Your work is steeped in General Relativity, but perhaps what might be called Octonion Relativity might better connect up with your Octonion component. You will find this in my essay.

I am very interested in your opinion, especially on the Hadamard structure that is prevalent within the structure of Octonion Algebra. If you could weigh in on my blog, I would be in your debt.

Regards,

Rick

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Goodband:

Your question about whether quantum mechanics is fundamental is a good one. But implicit in your question is the assumption that QM should be interpreted as a universal theory of all matter. On the contrary, I would suggest QM is rather a mechanism for generating localized particle properties from primary continuous fields (electrons, photons, quarks), where these localized (but not point) particles then follow classical trajectories (as derived from the quantum equations). (Please see my essay "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality", http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1296.) Composites such as nucleons and atoms are localized objects WITHOUT wave properties of their own. Beams of neutrons or atoms do not require de Broglie waves for quantum diffraction from a crystal lattice, which instead reflects quantized momentum transfer between the beam particle and the crystal. Remarkably, this reinvisioned quantum picture is logically consistent and avoids quantum paradoxes. Even more remarkably, this interpretation seems to be virtually new in the history of quantum theory, although it could have been proposed right at the beginning. The FQXi contest would seem to be an ideal venue to explore such concepts, but this has drawn relatively little attention.

Thank you.

Alan M. Kadin, Ph.D.

report post as inappropriate

Your question about whether quantum mechanics is fundamental is a good one. But implicit in your question is the assumption that QM should be interpreted as a universal theory of all matter. On the contrary, I would suggest QM is rather a mechanism for generating localized particle properties from primary continuous fields (electrons, photons, quarks), where these localized (but not point) particles then follow classical trajectories (as derived from the quantum equations). (Please see my essay "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality", http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1296.) Composites such as nucleons and atoms are localized objects WITHOUT wave properties of their own. Beams of neutrons or atoms do not require de Broglie waves for quantum diffraction from a crystal lattice, which instead reflects quantized momentum transfer between the beam particle and the crystal. Remarkably, this reinvisioned quantum picture is logically consistent and avoids quantum paradoxes. Even more remarkably, this interpretation seems to be virtually new in the history of quantum theory, although it could have been proposed right at the beginning. The FQXi contest would seem to be an ideal venue to explore such concepts, but this has drawn relatively little attention.

Thank you.

Alan M. Kadin, Ph.D.

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Kadin

I apologize for not having yet commented on your essay, I am woefully behind!

I agree with you that seriously reconsidering quantum theory is drawing much less attention in this FQXi contest than it should be - it is as if it is the assumption that still cannot be questioned, even when all other assumptions are up for grabs! My essay makes a rather more serious challenge to the assumptions of quantum theory than is perhaps initially apparent, and proceeds to show that QT isn't fundamental as its mathematical form can be derived by a change in mathematical representation.

It is not just us essay contestants who are encountering problems challenging the assumption of quantum theory. Joy Christian's work shows that Bell's theorem doesn't prove that QT has no replacement - which effectively seems to me to amount to a proof that QT isn't fundamental - and has been getting serious stick, as opposed to being ignored. My essay outlines a totally independent proof of the same thing. In strict physics terms this opens the door to seriously questioning the status of QT, and hopefully this may happen before the end of the contest.

I think your closing lines nicely capture what's gone wrong with physics:

"Generations of physicists have been educated to ignore physical intuition about the paradoxes, while focusing on mathematics divorced from physical pictures. In response, the field of theoretical physics became more mathematically abstract, straying far from its origins explaining the behavior of real objects moving in real space."

Incidentally, the same is also true of general relativity, which has become something of a mathematical map detached from its physical territory - a trend which looks as though it is set to get a lot worse with notions of emergent dimensions.

Michael

I apologize for not having yet commented on your essay, I am woefully behind!

I agree with you that seriously reconsidering quantum theory is drawing much less attention in this FQXi contest than it should be - it is as if it is the assumption that still cannot be questioned, even when all other assumptions are up for grabs! My essay makes a rather more serious challenge to the assumptions of quantum theory than is perhaps initially apparent, and proceeds to show that QT isn't fundamental as its mathematical form can be derived by a change in mathematical representation.

It is not just us essay contestants who are encountering problems challenging the assumption of quantum theory. Joy Christian's work shows that Bell's theorem doesn't prove that QT has no replacement - which effectively seems to me to amount to a proof that QT isn't fundamental - and has been getting serious stick, as opposed to being ignored. My essay outlines a totally independent proof of the same thing. In strict physics terms this opens the door to seriously questioning the status of QT, and hopefully this may happen before the end of the contest.

I think your closing lines nicely capture what's gone wrong with physics:

"Generations of physicists have been educated to ignore physical intuition about the paradoxes, while focusing on mathematics divorced from physical pictures. In response, the field of theoretical physics became more mathematically abstract, straying far from its origins explaining the behavior of real objects moving in real space."

Incidentally, the same is also true of general relativity, which has become something of a mathematical map detached from its physical territory - a trend which looks as though it is set to get a lot worse with notions of emergent dimensions.

Michael

Hello Michael,

I am re-posting a comment I made elsewhere, with minor edits, as it pertains to your work.

I thought this might be a good place to raise the question of whether viewing particles and spaces as topological objects might account for the observations of Jenkin and Fischbach of varying decay rates for nuclei, depending on Sun-Earth distance. Apparently this has taken on a new dimension recently, as with more sensitive measurements it works as a kind of early warning system for solar storms.

This would argue heavily for the interpretation that the fabric of spacetime is of the nature of S3, topologically speaking. Or at least; I think that a topological description with a non-trivial twist in the fibration might easily account for such an effect as follows. When there is a mass ejection, this is a ripple in the topological fabric in the region of the Sun, in effect it is a rapid partial eversion of the Sun's mass. And this ripple propagates because of the topological connectedness.

Would you care to comment? Is this relevant here?

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I am re-posting a comment I made elsewhere, with minor edits, as it pertains to your work.

I thought this might be a good place to raise the question of whether viewing particles and spaces as topological objects might account for the observations of Jenkin and Fischbach of varying decay rates for nuclei, depending on Sun-Earth distance. Apparently this has taken on a new dimension recently, as with more sensitive measurements it works as a kind of early warning system for solar storms.

This would argue heavily for the interpretation that the fabric of spacetime is of the nature of S3, topologically speaking. Or at least; I think that a topological description with a non-trivial twist in the fibration might easily account for such an effect as follows. When there is a mass ejection, this is a ripple in the topological fabric in the region of the Sun, in effect it is a rapid partial eversion of the Sun's mass. And this ripple propagates because of the topological connectedness.

Would you care to comment? Is this relevant here?

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Regarding the Jenkins and Fischbach findings,

These slides from Recontres de Moriond tell the whole story.

Evidence of Solar Influences on Nuclear Decay Rates

Enjoy,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

attachments: 2_Local_to_nonlocal.pdf

These slides from Recontres de Moriond tell the whole story.

Evidence of Solar Influences on Nuclear Decay Rates

Enjoy,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jonathan,

You raise a very interesting point that I hadn't registered. I was just adopting the standard closed universe picture of GR and not registering it implied that S3 space-time must be a fibre-bundle, which as you suggest could result in unexpected effects. Further non-standard effects could arise in my model because the electroweak vacuum is of the form of a twist in the compactified dimensions in going all the way around the universe. So the sort of ripples you suggest might also involve changes in the electroweak vacuum, which could result in changes to the decay rates of particles. Such results could well be relevant, and perhaps provide a test for the topological structure of space-time. The problem I would have is that the particle masses and particle family mixing angles are not calculable in my model, which is a bit of problem for calculating changes to particle decay rates.

With particles being topological defects in my model, simple heuristic arguments say that neutrinos must have a non-zero mass, which is suggested in the link as being a possible factor. The topological defect particles take the form of compactified rotating black holes, which means particles would have rotational frame-dragging that should give non-standard spin interactions - but with a cross-section that would be too small to be of relevance for particle decay effects.

Another non-standard thought that occurred to me reading Joy Christian's book is that S3 can occur as a flat sphere with zero curvature - so could the universe be closed and flat at the same time?

I did enjoy, thanks!

Michael

You raise a very interesting point that I hadn't registered. I was just adopting the standard closed universe picture of GR and not registering it implied that S3 space-time must be a fibre-bundle, which as you suggest could result in unexpected effects. Further non-standard effects could arise in my model because the electroweak vacuum is of the form of a twist in the compactified dimensions in going all the way around the universe. So the sort of ripples you suggest might also involve changes in the electroweak vacuum, which could result in changes to the decay rates of particles. Such results could well be relevant, and perhaps provide a test for the topological structure of space-time. The problem I would have is that the particle masses and particle family mixing angles are not calculable in my model, which is a bit of problem for calculating changes to particle decay rates.

With particles being topological defects in my model, simple heuristic arguments say that neutrinos must have a non-zero mass, which is suggested in the link as being a possible factor. The topological defect particles take the form of compactified rotating black holes, which means particles would have rotational frame-dragging that should give non-standard spin interactions - but with a cross-section that would be too small to be of relevance for particle decay effects.

Another non-standard thought that occurred to me reading Joy Christian's book is that S3 can occur as a flat sphere with zero curvature - so could the universe be closed and flat at the same time?

I did enjoy, thanks!

Michael

Hi Michael,

You asked: "...could the universe be closed and flat at the same time?"

Indeed it can. And I claim that it is. That is the message coming out of my work, as you seem to have gathered.

Without the universe being closed as well as flat, the strength and origins of the quantum correlations are impossible to understand in local-realistic terms.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

You asked: "...could the universe be closed and flat at the same time?"

Indeed it can. And I claim that it is. That is the message coming out of my work, as you seem to have gathered.

Without the universe being closed as well as flat, the strength and origins of the quantum correlations are impossible to understand in local-realistic terms.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

I am currently reading your book, and it is the highlight of my year! - unless I am completely missunderstanding it ;-)

Your disproof of Bell's theorem seems to me to be effectively amount to a proof that QT is not fundamental, as your model demonstrates that a local classical physics theory *can* exist, would I be correct? If so, then my proof is a totally independent proof...

view entire post

I am currently reading your book, and it is the highlight of my year! - unless I am completely missunderstanding it ;-)

Your disproof of Bell's theorem seems to me to be effectively amount to a proof that QT is not fundamental, as your model demonstrates that a local classical physics theory *can* exist, would I be correct? If so, then my proof is a totally independent proof...

view entire post

attachments: 2_Local_to_nonlocal.pdf

always a poor team still of strategists full of hate, still a poor band of frustrated, probably that your young life at school was difficult, probably that you makes a kind of revenge in making the bad. Jonathan , I have pity my friend and for your frustrated friends also. You are not foundamental, nor universal, nor relevant and still less an imrpover. Let me laugh in seeing your poor strategy and your hate increasing. I love USA and I am christian.

What is your poor probelm ? the vanity. I don't know me, buy a bibble and makes a redemption.I don't know, you are not relevant in fact even in your strategy.

Become a murder, it is better you know. And we shall see how shall be your humility in front of our god. You are a comic.Ok he said, ok.

report post as inappropriate

What is your poor probelm ? the vanity. I don't know me, buy a bibble and makes a redemption.I don't know, you are not relevant in fact even in your strategy.

Become a murder, it is better you know. And we shall see how shall be your humility in front of our god. You are a comic.Ok he said, ok.

report post as inappropriate

Michael

"Concerns can also be raised about the gravitational “constant” G and the “constant” speed of light c, asking...

Your concerns is valid.See my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

"Concerns can also be raised about the gravitational “constant” G and the “constant” speed of light c, asking...

Your concerns is valid.See my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael

Your paper is very interesting.See my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1468

I believe QM is not As Fundamental As It Seems

If we want to reconcile quantum, we should give up one implicit assumption we tend to forget: the differentiability. What would be the benefits of these changes? It has many surprising consequences. We show that the weird uncertainty principle and non-commutativity become straightforward in the circumstances of non-differentiable functions. It's just the result of the divergence of usual definition of \emph{velocity}. All weirdness of quantum mechanics are due to we are trying to making sense of nonsense.

Thanks,

Xiong

report post as inappropriate

Your paper is very interesting.See my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1468

I believe QM is not As Fundamental As It Seems

If we want to reconcile quantum, we should give up one implicit assumption we tend to forget: the differentiability. What would be the benefits of these changes? It has many surprising consequences. We show that the weird uncertainty principle and non-commutativity become straightforward in the circumstances of non-differentiable functions. It's just the result of the divergence of usual definition of \emph{velocity}. All weirdness of quantum mechanics are due to we are trying to making sense of nonsense.

Thanks,

Xiong

report post as inappropriate

Hello again Michael (and Joy),

It gives a whole new meaning to the term 'fabric of space' when you are talking in literal terms about fibers in the bundle from the Hopf fibration of S3, which constitute that fabric. I'm continuing here where my comments will be visible.

My understanding is that it's the parallelism within that fibration which produces both correlations and flatness. The fact that S3 and S7 are parallelizable is what guarantees - in effect - that this is what will happen when we examine how the fiber bundle is disposed in these spaces.

I too am reading Joy's book, but I have not gotten too far yet. Ergo; given some familiarity with the topic of debate, most of what I have read so far is familiar and easy to follow.

It would appear that both your work Michael, and Joy Christian's, point to a road by which Quantum Mechanics may be derived emergently. Curiously, it also ties in with some theoretical ideas I've been working on for a couple of decades, or at least it appears that it may.

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

attachments: Balloon_world.pdf

report post as inappropriate

It gives a whole new meaning to the term 'fabric of space' when you are talking in literal terms about fibers in the bundle from the Hopf fibration of S3, which constitute that fabric. I'm continuing here where my comments will be visible.

My understanding is that it's the parallelism within that fibration which produces both correlations and flatness. The fact that S3 and S7 are parallelizable is what guarantees - in effect - that this is what will happen when we examine how the fiber bundle is disposed in these spaces.

I too am reading Joy's book, but I have not gotten too far yet. Ergo; given some familiarity with the topic of debate, most of what I have read so far is familiar and easy to follow.

It would appear that both your work Michael, and Joy Christian's, point to a road by which Quantum Mechanics may be derived emergently. Curiously, it also ties in with some theoretical ideas I've been working on for a couple of decades, or at least it appears that it may.

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jonathan,

I will let Michael respond to your comments in his own way, but let me just endorse two of your observations:

"My understanding is that it's the parallelism within that fibration which produces both correlations and flatness."

This is essentially correct as far as parallelism is concerned, but one need not consider fibrations of S3 or S7 at all to parallelize them. Since both of these spheres are simply-connected spaces, their parallelization amounts to vanishing of their Riemann curvature tensors. This ensures that torsions within them would be non-vanishing, because otherwise they would reduce to flat Euclidean spaces. Fibrations thus simply provide nice visualizations of these features. Full details on this can be found in Chapter 7 of my book. In addition, I am currently working on a new paper that may clarify the issue of parallelization further, at least in the case of the 3-sphere.

"It would appear that both your work Michael, and Joy Christian's, point to a road by which Quantum Mechanics may be derived emergently."

This is correct. In fact I have already derived ALL possible quantum correlations within my local-realistic framework, thus reproducing the kinematical part of quantum mechanics in toto. Moreover, my latest FQXi grant is for investigating how the dynamics of quantum theory would emerge from my framework. So far no progress has been made in this front, but, as they say: watch this space.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

I will let Michael respond to your comments in his own way, but let me just endorse two of your observations:

"My understanding is that it's the parallelism within that fibration which produces both correlations and flatness."

This is essentially correct as far as parallelism is concerned, but one need not consider fibrations of S3 or S7 at all to parallelize them. Since both of these spheres are simply-connected spaces, their parallelization amounts to vanishing of their Riemann curvature tensors. This ensures that torsions within them would be non-vanishing, because otherwise they would reduce to flat Euclidean spaces. Fibrations thus simply provide nice visualizations of these features. Full details on this can be found in Chapter 7 of my book. In addition, I am currently working on a new paper that may clarify the issue of parallelization further, at least in the case of the 3-sphere.

"It would appear that both your work Michael, and Joy Christian's, point to a road by which Quantum Mechanics may be derived emergently."

This is correct. In fact I have already derived ALL possible quantum correlations within my local-realistic framework, thus reproducing the kinematical part of quantum mechanics in toto. Moreover, my latest FQXi grant is for investigating how the dynamics of quantum theory would emerge from my framework. So far no progress has been made in this front, but, as they say: watch this space.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jonathan,

Taking the "fabric of space" as literally being a physical surface is the first assumption of my STUF-Theory, the second is that this physical surface realises *all* of the spheres S0, S1, S3, S7. This comes from the relevance of the normed division algebras to metric spaces, and the Relativity meta-principle of make no preference - so all of them. The map condition from S7...

view entire post

Taking the "fabric of space" as literally being a physical surface is the first assumption of my STUF-Theory, the second is that this physical surface realises *all* of the spheres S0, S1, S3, S7. This comes from the relevance of the normed division algebras to metric spaces, and the Relativity meta-principle of make no preference - so all of them. The map condition from S7...

view entire post

attachments: Balloon_world.pdf

weak reasoning ! it lacks a lot of generalities dear Badband in your reasoning and strategies.:)

In fact you repeat always the same :) SO AND SO3 AND SO7 AND AFTER YOU SHALL INSERT THE SO8 AND AFTER THE SO11 and after what , a book sent for the so12. Let me laugh.

I have pity in fact. You think what with your hate ? I forgive you all ahahah

KK theory for the compactification...

view entire post

In fact you repeat always the same :) SO AND SO3 AND SO7 AND AFTER YOU SHALL INSERT THE SO8 AND AFTER THE SO11 and after what , a book sent for the so12. Let me laugh.

I have pity in fact. You think what with your hate ? I forgive you all ahahah

KK theory for the compactification...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

FQXi'ers - On the connection of my work to Joy Christian's (in parts because it's long)

Joy expressed Bell's analysis about whether there could exist a 'complete' 'local' theory that could replace Quantum Theory, as Bell considering functions of the form

A(n,l): R3 * L -> S0 (see eqn 1.1)

R3 is a co-ordinate based denotation of the flat Euclidean space E3 in...

view entire post

Joy expressed Bell's analysis about whether there could exist a 'complete' 'local' theory that could replace Quantum Theory, as Bell considering functions of the form

A(n,l): R3 * L -> S0 (see eqn 1.1)

R3 is a co-ordinate based denotation of the flat Euclidean space E3 in...

view entire post

In the archetypal EPR scenario, the interaction point is stationary and the two objects move in opposite directions:

A(n, l): (E3(v>0) sub M4) * L -> S2 sub S3

B(n, l): (E3(-v) sub M4) * L -> S2 sub S3

The condition E3(v>0) sub M4 adds the minimum dynamics condition to Joy's analysis - and adds Relativity - where constraints on the expectation value integral (eqn...

view entire post

A(n, l): (E3(v>0) sub M4) * L -> S2 sub S3

B(n, l): (E3(-v) sub M4) * L -> S2 sub S3

The condition E3(v>0) sub M4 adds the minimum dynamics condition to Joy's analysis - and adds Relativity - where constraints on the expectation value integral (eqn...

view entire post

Hi Michael,

You're talking my language now (or rather, the language of Nature) ...

" ... the hidden domain being that of a black hole particle on the Planck scale, the rotation causes a maximal ergo-region where the metric signature of Minkowski space-time M4 is reversed, ie. (-,+,+,+) -> (+,+,+,+). This means that there will be one more +1 or -1 issue in Joy's analysis, where the...

view entire post

You're talking my language now (or rather, the language of Nature) ...

" ... the hidden domain being that of a black hole particle on the Planck scale, the rotation causes a maximal ergo-region where the metric signature of Minkowski space-time M4 is reversed, ie. (-,+,+,+) -> (+,+,+,+). This means that there will be one more +1 or -1 issue in Joy's analysis, where the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Tom,

The question of measure space vs. physical space is *precisely* the point to address, especially in the context of the distinction between local - as in the local vicinity of particles - and global structure. Both Joy's and my results regarding QT are local (vicinity) results about the description of measurements, i.e. conditions on measurement space which imply conditions on...

view entire post

The question of measure space vs. physical space is *precisely* the point to address, especially in the context of the distinction between local - as in the local vicinity of particles - and global structure. Both Joy's and my results regarding QT are local (vicinity) results about the description of measurements, i.e. conditions on measurement space which imply conditions on...

view entire post

Greetings folks,

I must say that reading the comments above brings the feeling of coming home, or finding myself unexpectedly in a familiar place. Reading your essay, Michael, brings with it a sense of being told things I already knew or believed, with the sense that an expert is telling you why it's finally OK to believe those things. The correct application of Gödel's theorem as opening up possibilities and choices, rather than closing things down, is most welcome.

But a lot of what I read in your STUFT paper and the material discussed in Joy Christian's book put me in a geometrical playground of unlimited proportions, and let me have my favorite toys in the sandbox with me. I learn a lot through visualization. I take Alain Connes' recommendation to budding mathematicians seriously, by taking time to recline and reflect periodically when absorbing new concepts, and I find it serves me greatly.

The thing is; it keeps me on track, because it is harder to visualize things - including abstract formulations in higher Math - that lead to impossibilities. This is why I find the work you and Joy are doing so exciting, because it jibes well with what my visualizations tell me, and it appears to lead to physically realistic possibilities. Of course, that doesn't mean that it IS what is real, but it could be.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I must say that reading the comments above brings the feeling of coming home, or finding myself unexpectedly in a familiar place. Reading your essay, Michael, brings with it a sense of being told things I already knew or believed, with the sense that an expert is telling you why it's finally OK to believe those things. The correct application of Gödel's theorem as opening up possibilities and choices, rather than closing things down, is most welcome.

But a lot of what I read in your STUFT paper and the material discussed in Joy Christian's book put me in a geometrical playground of unlimited proportions, and let me have my favorite toys in the sandbox with me. I learn a lot through visualization. I take Alain Connes' recommendation to budding mathematicians seriously, by taking time to recline and reflect periodically when absorbing new concepts, and I find it serves me greatly.

The thing is; it keeps me on track, because it is harder to visualize things - including abstract formulations in higher Math - that lead to impossibilities. This is why I find the work you and Joy are doing so exciting, because it jibes well with what my visualizations tell me, and it appears to lead to physically realistic possibilities. Of course, that doesn't mean that it IS what is real, but it could be.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jonathan,

What you are saying is music to my ears. And I suspect it is music to Michael's ears too.

However, while you, Rick, Michael, Tom, Fred, and others are trying to take these ideas further, I am engaged in addressing your very prudent caution: "...that doesn't mean that it IS what is real..."

I want to make sure that it IS real before proceeding further. And in physics we do that by testing our hypotheses experimentally. Despite opposition, scepticism, detraction, and even scorn and derision, I am completely convinced by my theoretical analysis. What I am not sure about, however, is whether Nature prefers to side with me and Michael or with the quantum mystics. Only she can answer this question correctly, and I intend to get her answer.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

What you are saying is music to my ears. And I suspect it is music to Michael's ears too.

However, while you, Rick, Michael, Tom, Fred, and others are trying to take these ideas further, I am engaged in addressing your very prudent caution: "...that doesn't mean that it IS what is real..."

I want to make sure that it IS real before proceeding further. And in physics we do that by testing our hypotheses experimentally. Despite opposition, scepticism, detraction, and even scorn and derision, I am completely convinced by my theoretical analysis. What I am not sure about, however, is whether Nature prefers to side with me and Michael or with the quantum mystics. Only she can answer this question correctly, and I intend to get her answer.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

My faith in rationalism agrees with Joy -- scientific results cannot be objective without a clear correspondence between the abstract description and the physical measurement.

If this framework isn't true, then I have to agree with Einstein: "I would feel sorry for the dear Lord ..." There is no rule that says the world has to be rational; if it isn't, though, we've been doing science all wrong for 300 years. I can't imagine the alternative.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

If this framework isn't true, then I have to agree with Einstein: "I would feel sorry for the dear Lord ..." There is no rule that says the world has to be rational; if it isn't, though, we've been doing science all wrong for 300 years. I can't imagine the alternative.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

Does my description of the connection of my work to yours seem correct to you?

On the topic of experimental tests, would I be correct in thinking that the correlation inequalities for observables arising through gravitational interactions, i.e. astronomical observations, could provide a test for teleparallel gravity? As your work implies that this would be required for gravity to be quantied, is there a test here for whether gravity is quantised or not?

Obviously I don't think it is - as QT is not fundamental and so Nature is under no obligation to comply with the prior beliefs of physicists and have quantised gravity - but an experimental test would nice.

Michael

Does my description of the connection of my work to yours seem correct to you?

On the topic of experimental tests, would I be correct in thinking that the correlation inequalities for observables arising through gravitational interactions, i.e. astronomical observations, could provide a test for teleparallel gravity? As your work implies that this would be required for gravity to be quantied, is there a test here for whether gravity is quantised or not?

Obviously I don't think it is - as QT is not fundamental and so Nature is under no obligation to comply with the prior beliefs of physicists and have quantised gravity - but an experimental test would nice.

Michael

If the Planck length not valid in 2D, because no, gravitation no G?

See essay 1413

See Wilczek articles

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Ab

s_limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/physt

oday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_toda

y/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

Is trinity sacred?

report post as inappropriate

See essay 1413

See Wilczek articles

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Ab

s_limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/physt

oday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_toda

y/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

Is trinity sacred?

report post as inappropriate

Sorry for broken links

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_l

imits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoda

y/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/p

hystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

Is trinity sacred?

report post as inappropriate

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_l

imits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoda

y/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/p

hystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

Is trinity sacred?

report post as inappropriate

Hi Michael,

Let me introduce you to Jens Koeplinger's essay, in case you haven't seen it already. It is amusing and entertaining. His main work however is much more substantive. Parts of it is based on Rick Lockyer's approach to octonions. I thought you might benefit from it since it also takes the division algebras seriously.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Let me introduce you to Jens Koeplinger's essay, in case you haven't seen it already. It is amusing and entertaining. His main work however is much more substantive. Parts of it is based on Rick Lockyer's approach to octonions. I thought you might benefit from it since it also takes the division algebras seriously.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

Thanks for the pointer. I can see where you, Rick Lockyer, Jens Koeplinger and others are hoping to go with the octonions.

In contrast, I have gone to the very end of the line with Einstein: to his vision of physics unification in a purely geometric theory. I *conclude* S0, S1, S3, S7, I don't assume them, and arrive at the conditions of your framework. If you read my S10 Unified Field Theory paper you will see that it *is* a full theory based on 11D GR. I have checked your book carefully for any condition which specifies your favoured choice and rules out my realisation of Einstein's vision, and I cannot find one.

Just as you said the credit had to go to Einstein, my STUF-Theory is the form of physics unification that Einstein envisaged it to be - purely geometric GR in which QT is *not* fundamental. The things to pin down were the number of dimensions, the separation of space dimensions from extra dimensions, and the way QT arises: the dimensions of the spheres add to 11D; a cosmological 'constant' for a closed space just isn't physics; and the origin of QT is with a mathematical representation change because Nature is *described* by Maths, Maths is *not* Nature. The distinction is actually the crux of it, which is why I made it the topic of my essay.

Michael

Thanks for the pointer. I can see where you, Rick Lockyer, Jens Koeplinger and others are hoping to go with the octonions.

In contrast, I have gone to the very end of the line with Einstein: to his vision of physics unification in a purely geometric theory. I *conclude* S0, S1, S3, S7, I don't assume them, and arrive at the conditions of your framework. If you read my S10 Unified Field Theory paper you will see that it *is* a full theory based on 11D GR. I have checked your book carefully for any condition which specifies your favoured choice and rules out my realisation of Einstein's vision, and I cannot find one.

Just as you said the credit had to go to Einstein, my STUF-Theory is the form of physics unification that Einstein envisaged it to be - purely geometric GR in which QT is *not* fundamental. The things to pin down were the number of dimensions, the separation of space dimensions from extra dimensions, and the way QT arises: the dimensions of the spheres add to 11D; a cosmological 'constant' for a closed space just isn't physics; and the origin of QT is with a mathematical representation change because Nature is *described* by Maths, Maths is *not* Nature. The distinction is actually the crux of it, which is why I made it the topic of my essay.

Michael

Michael & Joy,

"I have gone to the very end of the line with Einstein: to his vision of physics unification in a purely geometric theory."

That's the way I think, too. Einstein did say that if algebra (quantum numbers) were going to contribute to the basis of a complete theory, the algebraic methods would have to be improved. With all the emphasis on octonion algebra, though, I still see the fundamental framework of physics as analytical, which I much better understand and which I htink most closely resembles experience. I think I have made the point before that if Hestenes were not able to explicitly translate his method to Minkowski space, I don't think it would hold my interest.

It's still the property of orientability, however, by which the mathematical structure informs the physics, so we need that discrete part to make the whole thing work, don't we?

Tom

report post as inappropriate

"I have gone to the very end of the line with Einstein: to his vision of physics unification in a purely geometric theory."

That's the way I think, too. Einstein did say that if algebra (quantum numbers) were going to contribute to the basis of a complete theory, the algebraic methods would have to be improved. With all the emphasis on octonion algebra, though, I still see the fundamental framework of physics as analytical, which I much better understand and which I htink most closely resembles experience. I think I have made the point before that if Hestenes were not able to explicitly translate his method to Minkowski space, I don't think it would hold my interest.

It's still the property of orientability, however, by which the mathematical structure informs the physics, so we need that discrete part to make the whole thing work, don't we?

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Hi Michael and Tom,

If Albert was alive today and knew all the physics we know (which is orders of magnitude more than he could have hoped), then would he have accepted Michael's claim? That is the question I want to answer for myself. But to do that I will have to put in at least as much time and effort into Michael's theory as he has into my framework. I will try to read at least some of his papers---with serious intention to agree with him---and then we will see. For now I remain sceptical.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

If Albert was alive today and knew all the physics we know (which is orders of magnitude more than he could have hoped), then would he have accepted Michael's claim? That is the question I want to answer for myself. But to do that I will have to put in at least as much time and effort into Michael's theory as he has into my framework. I will try to read at least some of his papers---with serious intention to agree with him---and then we will see. For now I remain sceptical.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael,

''The experimental observation of electrons passing through slits generating the wave characteristic of an interference pattern challenges this divide, although this is only really clear when the electron beam intensity is reduced to the point of a single electron passing through the slits at a time.''

If we were to assume that we live in a universe which creates...

view entire post

''The experimental observation of electrons passing through slits generating the wave characteristic of an interference pattern challenges this divide, although this is only really clear when the electron beam intensity is reduced to the point of a single electron passing through the slits at a time.''

If we were to assume that we live in a universe which creates...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Anton,

The notion of a self-creating particle that you allude to could be one way of viewing the problematic dynamics that I identify in my essay for a "bare" particle being a topological defect in space. In my pure GR theory, such topological defects have the appearance of Planck scale black holes bearing charges, but their spinning creates an ergo-region that can contain virtual radiation. Despite virtual matter appearing in QT, it is actually a relativistic concept m^2

The notion of a self-creating particle that you allude to could be one way of viewing the problematic dynamics that I identify in my essay for a "bare" particle being a topological defect in space. In my pure GR theory, such topological defects have the appearance of Planck scale black holes bearing charges, but their spinning creates an ergo-region that can contain virtual radiation. Despite virtual matter appearing in QT, it is actually a relativistic concept m^2

Dear Michael James Goodband

Of course the physics indispensable the quantum theory,because it is the basic values that constitute all.

Maybe I understand your problem,let try temporarily excluded all equations and formulas of mathematical in your essay(they are still unknown and there is not enough data)and see a very simple idea of mine:

The ABSOLUTE THEORY of me and an explanation of the nature of the Mass :

Be identified due to the change by the purely feel and rely on

the determination by our measurement equipment.

Must be the impact to get this changes,and the absolutely is only

one the mainly reason,that of course is the impact of a type of

the force.

So: the absolutely nature or the definition of mass would be:

Expression due the impact of force on to the material.

What do you think about this idea?

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

Kind Regards ! Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Of course the physics indispensable the quantum theory,because it is the basic values that constitute all.

Maybe I understand your problem,let try temporarily excluded all equations and formulas of mathematical in your essay(they are still unknown and there is not enough data)and see a very simple idea of mine:

The ABSOLUTE THEORY of me and an explanation of the nature of the Mass :

Be identified due to the change by the purely feel and rely on

the determination by our measurement equipment.

Must be the impact to get this changes,and the absolutely is only

one the mainly reason,that of course is the impact of a type of

the force.

So: the absolutely nature or the definition of mass would be:

Expression due the impact of force on to the material.

What do you think about this idea?

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

Kind Regards ! Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Folks,

I appreciate the kind remarks by Joy in response to my comments above. I also greatly appreciate the comparison by Michael of his work with that of Dixon and Furey. I was just reading from Dixon's recent work earlier today, so it was nice to see the differences spelled out.

Sorry for not commenting sooner. I'm catching up here after a hiatus to take care of unexpected responsibilities. But I'm happy to see such interesting exchanges in the comments above.

As regards the people who confuse Math and Physics; I think that Hestenes has the right idea - that the need for congruent Geometry determines what mathematical possibilities are physically realistic. It's easy enough to use symbolic Math to create expressions that don't make sense geometrically, but I think good geometry is what nature requires.

This is why Michael's approach is different from Dixon's or Furey's, though some might confuse them. This same confusion explains why some people fail to grasp Joy's central point. Michael and Joy both make Geometry fundamental, and use the Maths to represent the geometry. Those who do the reverse or believe the algebra is more fundamental see things differently.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I appreciate the kind remarks by Joy in response to my comments above. I also greatly appreciate the comparison by Michael of his work with that of Dixon and Furey. I was just reading from Dixon's recent work earlier today, so it was nice to see the differences spelled out.

Sorry for not commenting sooner. I'm catching up here after a hiatus to take care of unexpected responsibilities. But I'm happy to see such interesting exchanges in the comments above.

As regards the people who confuse Math and Physics; I think that Hestenes has the right idea - that the need for congruent Geometry determines what mathematical possibilities are physically realistic. It's easy enough to use symbolic Math to create expressions that don't make sense geometrically, but I think good geometry is what nature requires.

This is why Michael's approach is different from Dixon's or Furey's, though some might confuse them. This same confusion explains why some people fail to grasp Joy's central point. Michael and Joy both make Geometry fundamental, and use the Maths to represent the geometry. Those who do the reverse or believe the algebra is more fundamental see things differently.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jonathan,

On comparison with Dixon and Furey, they are attempting to match up the symmetry groups SU(3), SU(2), U(1) with the algebras O, H, C, which they do but fail to find the 3 families of particles. I contend that this is because the colour group isn't really SU(3) but Spin(3). I followed field theory practise of focusing on the local structure and gave SO(3), which in retrospect...

view entire post

On comparison with Dixon and Furey, they are attempting to match up the symmetry groups SU(3), SU(2), U(1) with the algebras O, H, C, which they do but fail to find the 3 families of particles. I contend that this is because the colour group isn't really SU(3) but Spin(3). I followed field theory practise of focusing on the local structure and gave SO(3), which in retrospect...

view entire post

Hello Everyone:

Michael,

I am both delighted and curious about what you say in the last two paragraphs above. I eagerly look forward to your new article.

Tom,

I looked at your latest attachment but couldn't really understand it---may be because I am too distracted at the moment by life in general. I must meet a couple of deadlines and there is also some progress being made on the experimental front. But I want to thank you for your continuing efforts to explain things your way. We have to accept, however, that some people will never get the point.

Jonathan,

You wrote: "Michael and Joy both make Geometry fundamental, and use the Maths to represent the geometry. Those who do the reverse or believe the algebra is more fundamental see things differently."

I couldn't agree more. This, however, does not undermine the importance of algebra in our works.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Michael,

I am both delighted and curious about what you say in the last two paragraphs above. I eagerly look forward to your new article.

Tom,

I looked at your latest attachment but couldn't really understand it---may be because I am too distracted at the moment by life in general. I must meet a couple of deadlines and there is also some progress being made on the experimental front. But I want to thank you for your continuing efforts to explain things your way. We have to accept, however, that some people will never get the point.

Jonathan,

You wrote: "Michael and Joy both make Geometry fundamental, and use the Maths to represent the geometry. Those who do the reverse or believe the algebra is more fundamental see things differently."

I couldn't agree more. This, however, does not undermine the importance of algebra in our works.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

I have yet to accomplish the final critical step in the comparison as I am currently distracted by what looks as though it will prove to be a fruitless essay contest, despite the essay presenting the correct false assumption that is preventing progress towards physics unification (also outlined in the essay).

A hidden domain containing either holes or singularities and being...

view entire post

I have yet to accomplish the final critical step in the comparison as I am currently distracted by what looks as though it will prove to be a fruitless essay contest, despite the essay presenting the correct false assumption that is preventing progress towards physics unification (also outlined in the essay).

A hidden domain containing either holes or singularities and being...

view entire post

Dear Michael,

Interesting ideas. I remain however skeptic of extended applications of Goedel's incompleteness to physics (or other natural sciences for that matter). I think there is a lot of risk involved in making such an adventurous connection, specially because models of physics are not necessarily the way nature works, they are only mathematical models, but more important because Goedel's requires consistency of axiomatic systems to apply which is not always clear how to interpret in physics specially if a physics theory is not fully axiomatic or axiomatizable.

report post as inappropriate

Interesting ideas. I remain however skeptic of extended applications of Goedel's incompleteness to physics (or other natural sciences for that matter). I think there is a lot of risk involved in making such an adventurous connection, specially because models of physics are not necessarily the way nature works, they are only mathematical models, but more important because Goedel's requires consistency of axiomatic systems to apply which is not always clear how to interpret in physics specially if a physics theory is not fully axiomatic or axiomatizable.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Hector,

The difference between mathematical models and the way nature really works, is precisely the point I'm making. Maths models of certain forms have mathematical restrictions that nature doesn't - maths can be incomplete but reality isn't - and we our free to fix our models by changing their maths form.

The Gödel connection is not as adventurous as it may at first appear,...

view entire post

The difference between mathematical models and the way nature really works, is precisely the point I'm making. Maths models of certain forms have mathematical restrictions that nature doesn't - maths can be incomplete but reality isn't - and we our free to fix our models by changing their maths form.

The Gödel connection is not as adventurous as it may at first appear,...

view entire post

Your maths are false dear bad band.

In fact You have made your times dear strings theorists.In fact it is logic that you doubt.Just for the investments of course.and funds.

Jonathan, Lisi, you are not able to ponder correct universal extrapolations, so don't insist with your paralleizations, it is just weak and not general.

Ironical is a weak word.

report post as inappropriate

In fact You have made your times dear strings theorists.In fact it is logic that you doubt.Just for the investments of course.and funds.

Jonathan, Lisi, you are not able to ponder correct universal extrapolations, so don't insist with your paralleizations, it is just weak and not general.

Ironical is a weak word.

report post as inappropriate

or perhaps that Mr Aguirre and Mr Tegmark prefer the parallel universes for the mathematical universe hypothesis. Or perhaps that they do not know what you try to do. It is better indeed to put the false names.

MIT and Santa Cruz wake up.what is this circus? it is simply a sad story .You cannot accept that dear directors of FQXi.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

MIT and Santa Cruz wake up.what is this circus? it is simply a sad story .You cannot accept that dear directors of FQXi.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Hello Michael and everyone,

One cosmological theory I've been examining involves a change in metric of space (a metric reversal?) associated with decoupling, or what is now called recombination. What I envision is that the 'fabric of space' turns inside out at that juncture, such that the expanding fireball that was contained is now excluded from the space that had contained it, or 'painted' on its surface - to become the CMB.

Of course; the microwave background appears to be all around us, but just as I suggest in my essay - we are in a space that is inside out. That is; we inhabit a closed space with the topology of S3 - which appears to be an extended space although it is compact with respect to the bulk. In one paper published with Ray Munroe, we speculated that this mechanism might provide a cutoff - to keep higher-dimensional spaces hidden at lower energies.

So I am asking here; does a metric reversal associated with decoupling - and thus separated from us by a vast distance - satisfy the requirements to establish equivalence by placing the hidden domain in the right place? Is beyond the horizon close enough to 'at infinity' to keep it hidden? Would someone situated in the pre-decoupling space see our local universe as part of their space, or perhaps as a ball (a 3-sphere of course) shrinking away?

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

One cosmological theory I've been examining involves a change in metric of space (a metric reversal?) associated with decoupling, or what is now called recombination. What I envision is that the 'fabric of space' turns inside out at that juncture, such that the expanding fireball that was contained is now excluded from the space that had contained it, or 'painted' on its surface - to become the CMB.

Of course; the microwave background appears to be all around us, but just as I suggest in my essay - we are in a space that is inside out. That is; we inhabit a closed space with the topology of S3 - which appears to be an extended space although it is compact with respect to the bulk. In one paper published with Ray Munroe, we speculated that this mechanism might provide a cutoff - to keep higher-dimensional spaces hidden at lower energies.

So I am asking here; does a metric reversal associated with decoupling - and thus separated from us by a vast distance - satisfy the requirements to establish equivalence by placing the hidden domain in the right place? Is beyond the horizon close enough to 'at infinity' to keep it hidden? Would someone situated in the pre-decoupling space see our local universe as part of their space, or perhaps as a ball (a 3-sphere of course) shrinking away?

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hi Michael and everyone,

In another blog I said to Joy, "You remark that "one can view a 7-sphere as a 4-sphere of 3-spheres" and elsewhere "...a 7-sphere can be thought of as a six sphere worth of circles." Then I asked, "Can this 6-sphere then be divided into two 3-spheres...?"

Joy replied: "You ask: "Can this 6-sphere ... be divided into two 3-spheres worth of circles?" The answer is no, because 6-sphere worth of circles is not the same as two 3-spheres worth of circles. It makes no sense to replace the 6-sphere base with two 3-spheres base. No such fibration of the 7-sphere exists.

But in this current blog Michael says:

"...the group spaces are S3, S3, S1 and fit into S7. [where...] The spin space S3 has a spatial origin, whereas colour space S3 and electromagnetism S1 have an origin in the particle symmetry space S7... [but] the issue I have is with the composite view: whether the differential manifolds of the particle symmetry spaces (S3, S3, S1) spaces can form S7. At best they could only give the topological S7 and *not* the differential manifold S7, which is ...required for Joy's parallelisation condition. [...] So for component spaces S3, S3, S1 - whatever their origin - this demands that from the perspective of observable functions these spaces *must* form the topological space S7, and then the parallelisation condition of Joy demands that it *must* be the differential manifold S7"

Now my interpretation of the two spheres (S3, S3) was not the same as Michael's, but I fail to see what the physical interpretation ["whatever their origin"] has to do with it. Why did it "make no sense to replace the 6-sphere base with two 3-spheres base" in the other blog, but now seems to make sense that "(S3, S3, S1) spaces can form S7" in this blog. I'm sure I'm missing something, but what is it?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

In another blog I said to Joy, "You remark that "one can view a 7-sphere as a 4-sphere of 3-spheres" and elsewhere "...a 7-sphere can be thought of as a six sphere worth of circles." Then I asked, "Can this 6-sphere then be divided into two 3-spheres...?"

Joy replied: "You ask: "Can this 6-sphere ... be divided into two 3-spheres worth of circles?" The answer is no, because 6-sphere worth of circles is not the same as two 3-spheres worth of circles. It makes no sense to replace the 6-sphere base with two 3-spheres base. No such fibration of the 7-sphere exists.

But in this current blog Michael says:

"...the group spaces are S3, S3, S1 and fit into S7. [where...] The spin space S3 has a spatial origin, whereas colour space S3 and electromagnetism S1 have an origin in the particle symmetry space S7... [but] the issue I have is with the composite view: whether the differential manifolds of the particle symmetry spaces (S3, S3, S1) spaces can form S7. At best they could only give the topological S7 and *not* the differential manifold S7, which is ...required for Joy's parallelisation condition. [...] So for component spaces S3, S3, S1 - whatever their origin - this demands that from the perspective of observable functions these spaces *must* form the topological space S7, and then the parallelisation condition of Joy demands that it *must* be the differential manifold S7"

Now my interpretation of the two spheres (S3, S3) was not the same as Michael's, but I fail to see what the physical interpretation ["whatever their origin"] has to do with it. Why did it "make no sense to replace the 6-sphere base with two 3-spheres base" in the other blog, but now seems to make sense that "(S3, S3, S1) spaces can form S7" in this blog. I'm sure I'm missing something, but what is it?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

Michael is simply exploring whether there are any connections between our respective approaches. He is simply thinking out loud to get input from us.

But the answer to your question is simple. Michael is talking about the *total* or *bundle* space S7, which can be decomposed as S3 x S3 x S1 locally (i.e., at some point of S7).

You, on the other hand, were asking me about dividing the *base* space into S3 x S3. But for that to be possible there must exist a fibration of S7 of the form

S1 --> S7 --> S3 x S3.

But no such fibration of S7 can exist because S3 x S3 has a hole in it (i.e., it is not simply-connected). What *does* exist is a fibration of the form

S1 --> S7 --> S6.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Michael is simply exploring whether there are any connections between our respective approaches. He is simply thinking out loud to get input from us.

But the answer to your question is simple. Michael is talking about the *total* or *bundle* space S7, which can be decomposed as S3 x S3 x S1 locally (i.e., at some point of S7).

You, on the other hand, were asking me about dividing the *base* space into S3 x S3. But for that to be possible there must exist a fibration of S7 of the form

S1 --> S7 --> S3 x S3.

But no such fibration of S7 can exist because S3 x S3 has a hole in it (i.e., it is not simply-connected). What *does* exist is a fibration of the form

S1 --> S7 --> S6.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

You say, "Michael is talking about the *total* or *bundle* space S7, which can be decomposed as S3 x S3 x S1 locally (i.e., at some point of S7). You, on the other hand, were asking me about dividing the *base* space into S3 x S3. But for that to be possible there must exist a fibration of S7 of the form S1 --> S7 --> S3 x S3."

Actually, I was not asking about dividing the *base* space into S3 x S3. What I was trying to ask was whether S7 could be viewed as two S3's connected somehow by an S1. This seems to me equivalent to Michael's (S3, S3, S1) spaces forming S7.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding all the way around. There are many well-informed and bright people on this blog, but I don't think we're all playing on the same field. Nevertheless it's quite interesting to see this tennis ball being slammed between different courts.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

You say, "Michael is talking about the *total* or *bundle* space S7, which can be decomposed as S3 x S3 x S1 locally (i.e., at some point of S7). You, on the other hand, were asking me about dividing the *base* space into S3 x S3. But for that to be possible there must exist a fibration of S7 of the form S1 --> S7 --> S3 x S3."

Actually, I was not asking about dividing the *base* space into S3 x S3. What I was trying to ask was whether S7 could be viewed as two S3's connected somehow by an S1. This seems to me equivalent to Michael's (S3, S3, S1) spaces forming S7.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding all the way around. There are many well-informed and bright people on this blog, but I don't think we're all playing on the same field. Nevertheless it's quite interesting to see this tennis ball being slammed between different courts.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

You wrote: "What I was trying to ask was whether S7 could be viewed as two S3's connected somehow by an S1."

Yes, but only locally (in a local neighborhood). It is not possible to decompose S7 globally in that manner.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: "What I was trying to ask was whether S7 could be viewed as two S3's connected somehow by an S1."

Yes, but only locally (in a local neighborhood). It is not possible to decompose S7 globally in that manner.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

It is what your probelm Mr Spindel and Mr Milnor, you are not skilling to understand my works, so ....., you lacks of credibility and funds , it is that?. You want the nobel in fact. Let me laugh.Your sciences are limited and not general, so why you insist with your strategy.

You know what ? You can all keeping your monney dear band of limited scientists. I am laughing in seeing the pseudo sciences, really. even with my bad english , I give you courses all the times. And the milnor prizes

It is what the probelm dear bad band. You need funds and an international credibility or what ?. Put the balls in the spheres dudes. You can all keeping your money.Milner and Milnor, forget me and also you know what? .like that you can still focus on strategies. ok . Now put the balls where I think in the spheres and publish for the nobel band of comics. I dislike the corruptions.Me I have made my works, I am a real searcher me.

Just for you and for the evolution of physics, I will continue to share my works.Me I improve band of comics, you no. The abel prize, nothing to do.The milnor mentoring, nothing to do.The Milner prize, still less to do. Mr Spindel , still less to do.and what ? all is said band of pseudos startegists lacking of generalism. Make all what you want, all is said, between us you know the truth .Ironical no? Exotic spheres ahahahah and what after? multiverses also.and after the balls inserted in the spheres. let me laugh, I have pity spiritually speaking.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

You know what ? You can all keeping your monney dear band of limited scientists. I am laughing in seeing the pseudo sciences, really. even with my bad english , I give you courses all the times. And the milnor prizes

It is what the probelm dear bad band. You need funds and an international credibility or what ?. Put the balls in the spheres dudes. You can all keeping your money.Milner and Milnor, forget me and also you know what? .like that you can still focus on strategies. ok . Now put the balls where I think in the spheres and publish for the nobel band of comics. I dislike the corruptions.Me I have made my works, I am a real searcher me.

Just for you and for the evolution of physics, I will continue to share my works.Me I improve band of comics, you no. The abel prize, nothing to do.The milnor mentoring, nothing to do.The Milner prize, still less to do. Mr Spindel , still less to do.and what ? all is said band of pseudos startegists lacking of generalism. Make all what you want, all is said, between us you know the truth .Ironical no? Exotic spheres ahahahah and what after? multiverses also.and after the balls inserted in the spheres. let me laugh, I have pity spiritually speaking.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Hi all,

Obviously there are unresolved local--global issues as pointed out above. But there is yet another issue that I am confused about. In general, I believe physicists tend to bifurcate into two main branches: Those who believe physical reality exists in its own right and that mathematical maps are the best tool to represent this territory, and the other branch seems to believe that reality is to be attached to the maps and that territory somehow falls out of such as exemplified by Lisi's E8, in which the effort is made to fit all relevant 'pieces' into the slots in the map and to postulate "yet undiscovered" pieces to fill unused slots.

Quotes from above seem to fall on one side or the other. At 17:27 Michael says that a group

"gives 3 particle families, which is due to: the fiber-bundle structure of S7..."

I don't conceive of particle families as "due to" mathematical concepts. I believe mathematical concepts derive from physical reality: No physical reality - no mathematical concepts.

At 16:23 Joy seems to fall on the physical reality side:

"I tend to think of S3 -- and more generally S7 -- as the actual physical space where these events are occurring. In your analysis,on the other hand, S3 and S7 are symmetry spaces."

To which Michael responds:

"This gives 3 types of spaces -- physical, symmetry, measurement."

Any clarifying comments?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

attachments: 2_Balloon_world.pdf

Obviously there are unresolved local--global issues as pointed out above. But there is yet another issue that I am confused about. In general, I believe physicists tend to bifurcate into two main branches: Those who believe physical reality exists in its own right and that mathematical maps are the best tool to represent this territory, and the other branch seems to believe that reality is to be attached to the maps and that territory somehow falls out of such as exemplified by Lisi's E8, in which the effort is made to fit all relevant 'pieces' into the slots in the map and to postulate "yet undiscovered" pieces to fill unused slots.

Quotes from above seem to fall on one side or the other. At 17:27 Michael says that a group

"gives 3 particle families, which is due to: the fiber-bundle structure of S7..."

I don't conceive of particle families as "due to" mathematical concepts. I believe mathematical concepts derive from physical reality: No physical reality - no mathematical concepts.

At 16:23 Joy seems to fall on the physical reality side:

"I tend to think of S3 -- and more generally S7 -- as the actual physical space where these events are occurring. In your analysis,on the other hand, S3 and S7 are symmetry spaces."

To which Michael responds:

"This gives 3 types of spaces -- physical, symmetry, measurement."

Any clarifying comments?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

I am most definitely on the physical territory side of the line, not the mathematical map side. My model is explicitly based upon a physicality assumption that the GR manifold is a real physical "fabric of reality" surface - not just a map - and the GR development is explicitly dependent upon this (see my Balloon World attachment for a 2D version that discusses this physicality of...

view entire post

I am most definitely on the physical territory side of the line, not the mathematical map side. My model is explicitly based upon a physicality assumption that the GR manifold is a real physical "fabric of reality" surface - not just a map - and the GR development is explicitly dependent upon this (see my Balloon World attachment for a 2D version that discusses this physicality of...

view entire post

attachments: 2_Balloon_world.pdf

Dear Michael Goodband,

Only mapists believe that the future can be measured. So they arrive at symmetries that my Fig. 3 in 1364 reveals as artifacts. I am really not a mapist.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Only mapists believe that the future can be measured. So they arrive at symmetries that my Fig. 3 in 1364 reveals as artifacts. I am really not a mapist.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

Note that the sequence (on pg 4 of your essay) R, C, H, O ends on O, there is no more. My pure geometric theory is of the form of a unified GR which yields the closed spaces S0, S1, S3, S7 in these algebraic spaces - it is this which makes it unique and consequently of interest. The fact that it yields the correct electroweak vacuum, bosons and 12 fermionic particles of the Standard Model - and no more - only adds to the interest. The particles are explicitly topological monopoles with the non-zero radius of the Planck length - no point particles or singularities anywhere here. One of the points of my essay is that QFT is an approximation that *requires* point particles for the approximation to work. As you imply in your essay (pg 7, 8), a physical theory with points is likely to be problematic somewhere. Ditto infinity - hence the appeal of closed finite spaces.

The future can be predicted - subject to limits. I am not a Parmenides who believes in block-time where the future is somehow fixed, only to be mapped by the fatalistic. The underlying issue here is still the nature of time, which the 2008 FQXi essay contest apparently did not resolve ;-) Did this set the precedent for FQXi essay contests in addressing the questions posed?

Michael

Note that the sequence (on pg 4 of your essay) R, C, H, O ends on O, there is no more. My pure geometric theory is of the form of a unified GR which yields the closed spaces S0, S1, S3, S7 in these algebraic spaces - it is this which makes it unique and consequently of interest. The fact that it yields the correct electroweak vacuum, bosons and 12 fermionic particles of the Standard Model - and no more - only adds to the interest. The particles are explicitly topological monopoles with the non-zero radius of the Planck length - no point particles or singularities anywhere here. One of the points of my essay is that QFT is an approximation that *requires* point particles for the approximation to work. As you imply in your essay (pg 7, 8), a physical theory with points is likely to be problematic somewhere. Ditto infinity - hence the appeal of closed finite spaces.

The future can be predicted - subject to limits. I am not a Parmenides who believes in block-time where the future is somehow fixed, only to be mapped by the fatalistic. The underlying issue here is still the nature of time, which the 2008 FQXi essay contest apparently did not resolve ;-) Did this set the precedent for FQXi essay contests in addressing the questions posed?

Michael

Michael,

Your statement :

"there are only 4 normed division algebras over the real numbers - real numbers, complex numbers, quaternions and octonions " may suggest that you try to find physical simplification of the Frobenius theorem on the limits of pure mathematical generalizations numbers after complex numbers and quaternions.If I understand, Frobenius theorem has a proof and I know nothing about any counter-example existence for such theorem in current literature.

report post as inappropriate

Your statement :

"there are only 4 normed division algebras over the real numbers - real numbers, complex numbers, quaternions and octonions " may suggest that you try to find physical simplification of the Frobenius theorem on the limits of pure mathematical generalizations numbers after complex numbers and quaternions.If I understand, Frobenius theorem has a proof and I know nothing about any counter-example existence for such theorem in current literature.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael,

I just read your very interesting essay. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. Concerning your invocation of Godel’s theorem in regard to physical measurement on page one, I have a question which might be rather clumsy to state. I am thinking that perhaps two different ideas of “proof” or “derivation” are involved. Suppose you have a true statement about...

view entire post

I just read your very interesting essay. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. Concerning your invocation of Godel’s theorem in regard to physical measurement on page one, I have a question which might be rather clumsy to state. I am thinking that perhaps two different ideas of “proof” or “derivation” are involved. Suppose you have a true statement about...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben

Thanks for your comments and your thoughtful questions.

My comments to Hector Zenil and my general meta-science paper set the context for considering Godel's theorem in scientific theories to be far more general than the one instance I discuss in my essay. The general scenario is that of a network of sets of different objects that are linked through causal changes A -> B...

view entire post

Thanks for your comments and your thoughtful questions.

My comments to Hector Zenil and my general meta-science paper set the context for considering Godel's theorem in scientific theories to be far more general than the one instance I discuss in my essay. The general scenario is that of a network of sets of different objects that are linked through causal changes A -> B...

view entire post

4,5) The essays you mention all consider quantum gravity (QG), but this is only necessary if QT is fundamental, but it isn't and so QG is not proven to be necessary. I derive the form of QFT, which wouldn't have been possible if QT was fundamental, and Joy Christian derives the same correlation results as QT without mentioning QT, again that wouldn't have been possible if QT was fundamental.

Janko Kokosar considers black holes with singularities in a QG context, both points of which I disagree with. The black holes of my theory are the 4D GR form of 11D topological defects where space is wrapped around compactified dimensions S7, this means that the black hole has no singularity and there is no space inside - a black hole is literally a hole in space and the event horizon marks an edge of reality beyond which there is nothing.

I find the Higgs field to be a local field theory description of a global twist in the S3*S7 torus of the physical manifold of space, and the Higgs isn't the source of mass for fermions - it is for the bosons. That twist gives the topological conditions for the topological defect particles as Planck scale black holes, so it is the causal reason for the black hole form of particles.

Michael

Side-note on the first line of Janko's section 8: 11D GR can be written on a T-shirt

Janko Kokosar considers black holes with singularities in a QG context, both points of which I disagree with. The black holes of my theory are the 4D GR form of 11D topological defects where space is wrapped around compactified dimensions S7, this means that the black hole has no singularity and there is no space inside - a black hole is literally a hole in space and the event horizon marks an edge of reality beyond which there is nothing.

I find the Higgs field to be a local field theory description of a global twist in the S3*S7 torus of the physical manifold of space, and the Higgs isn't the source of mass for fermions - it is for the bosons. That twist gives the topological conditions for the topological defect particles as Planck scale black holes, so it is the causal reason for the black hole form of particles.

Michael

Side-note on the first line of Janko's section 8: 11D GR can be written on a T-shirt

Michael

"The real foundational question exposed by this derivation of quantum field theory is, do there really exist observable features in classical physics that cannot be derived?"

Very nice essay and clear analysis, somewhat similar to Lawrence Crowell's. I'd like to suggest that, if you can speak another language, the answer to the above is 'No', as I offer a mechanism Unifying Classical physics and non commutable QFT in my essay. I hope you may read and comment or falsify the alternative logical assumptions offered and resulting ontological construction, reproducing the framework of truth function logic to derive space-time.

Best wishes

Peter Jackson

PS The 'other' language is English, but you may find familiarity with the iambic pentameter helps the flow!.

report post as inappropriate

"The real foundational question exposed by this derivation of quantum field theory is, do there really exist observable features in classical physics that cannot be derived?"

Very nice essay and clear analysis, somewhat similar to Lawrence Crowell's. I'd like to suggest that, if you can speak another language, the answer to the above is 'No', as I offer a mechanism Unifying Classical physics and non commutable QFT in my essay. I hope you may read and comment or falsify the alternative logical assumptions offered and resulting ontological construction, reproducing the framework of truth function logic to derive space-time.

Best wishes

Peter Jackson

PS The 'other' language is English, but you may find familiarity with the iambic pentameter helps the flow!.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael.

Question and hint about interior of black hole (BH) I gave generaly, not linked to my theory. It seems to me, that the interior does not exist, AND that exteriors of BHs are independent from interior. That means that exteriors of BHs "(1) with interior" and "(2) without interior" are the same. Anyway, space time is emergent, thus it is not necessary to worry, what is in this hole inside horizon. I wrote still other arguments. Thus we have the same conclusion.

I DO not say that quantum BH has singularity, because I believe to Feynman's hint that "limited space contains limited information".

I have not yet read your essay, but one problem, which I suspect at you, is that you do not need quantum theory at arising at mass. I think that this is necessary. You also has 11 dimensions. I think that additonal dimensions are against Ockham's razor.

Ockham razor is also that I persist at my theory although is not compatibile with Higgs boson. The reason is, because my theory is very simple.

But I will read your essay.

Best regards,

Janko Kokosar

report post as inappropriate

Question and hint about interior of black hole (BH) I gave generaly, not linked to my theory. It seems to me, that the interior does not exist, AND that exteriors of BHs are independent from interior. That means that exteriors of BHs "(1) with interior" and "(2) without interior" are the same. Anyway, space time is emergent, thus it is not necessary to worry, what is in this hole inside horizon. I wrote still other arguments. Thus we have the same conclusion.

I DO not say that quantum BH has singularity, because I believe to Feynman's hint that "limited space contains limited information".

I have not yet read your essay, but one problem, which I suspect at you, is that you do not need quantum theory at arising at mass. I think that this is necessary. You also has 11 dimensions. I think that additonal dimensions are against Ockham's razor.

Ockham razor is also that I persist at my theory although is not compatibile with Higgs boson. The reason is, because my theory is very simple.

But I will read your essay.

Best regards,

Janko Kokosar

report post as inappropriate

Dear Janko,

It is interesting that we have arrived at the same conclusion about the interior of black holes and that they are the form of the fundamental particles, and yet our views of the nature of the space in which they exist are contradictory: you that space is emergent, and me that it is a real physical "fabric" (characterised by physical constants c, G, h). That perhaps makes our point of agreement more remarkable.

The point discussed in my essay is that I start from classical physics and attempt to calculate the mass of a particle as a topological defect in a real "fabric of space" and find mathematical incompleteness in the way. Changing the mathematical terms of the theory to go around this block yields the form of quantum theory. Conclusions: 1) quantum theory isn't fundamental otherwise it wouldn't be possible to derive its form 2) cannot calculate mass of fermions in classical physics, but neither can QFT.

Occam's Razor doesn't help in practise because we all seem to have different concepts of simple. My extra dimensions are in the context of a pure geometric GR theory with a physical "fabric of space", no extra fields of any form (a great piece of simplicity), quantum theory is derived, and just involves the closed spaces S0, S1, S3, S7 in the 4 normed division algebras (significant uniqueness for a metric based theory like GR).

I suspect you could present a similar argument about the simplicity of your theory.

Best regards,

Michael

It is interesting that we have arrived at the same conclusion about the interior of black holes and that they are the form of the fundamental particles, and yet our views of the nature of the space in which they exist are contradictory: you that space is emergent, and me that it is a real physical "fabric" (characterised by physical constants c, G, h). That perhaps makes our point of agreement more remarkable.

The point discussed in my essay is that I start from classical physics and attempt to calculate the mass of a particle as a topological defect in a real "fabric of space" and find mathematical incompleteness in the way. Changing the mathematical terms of the theory to go around this block yields the form of quantum theory. Conclusions: 1) quantum theory isn't fundamental otherwise it wouldn't be possible to derive its form 2) cannot calculate mass of fermions in classical physics, but neither can QFT.

Occam's Razor doesn't help in practise because we all seem to have different concepts of simple. My extra dimensions are in the context of a pure geometric GR theory with a physical "fabric of space", no extra fields of any form (a great piece of simplicity), quantum theory is derived, and just involves the closed spaces S0, S1, S3, S7 in the 4 normed division algebras (significant uniqueness for a metric based theory like GR).

I suspect you could present a similar argument about the simplicity of your theory.

Best regards,

Michael

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is and was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have of points. After it anyone give you of points so you have of points and is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: or or In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points then the participant`s rating was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Hi Michael,

Please check this link and find how five essays, including yours, were removed from the 35 finalists. I posted some messages with attachments containing the page and screenshots at 0:01.

Good luck,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Please check this link and find how five essays, including yours, were removed from the 35 finalists. I posted some messages with attachments containing the page and screenshots at 0:01.

Good luck,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Space-Time: real or emergent?

This may well depend upon what you think these terms mean. Nothing prevents clear understanding quite like speaking the same language, but using the same words with different meanings. So instead of using these ambiguous terms and hoping everyone chooses the same meaning, let's call the manifold of GR an "absolute" space in the sense that the "absolute" scale...

view entire post

This may well depend upon what you think these terms mean. Nothing prevents clear understanding quite like speaking the same language, but using the same words with different meanings. So instead of using these ambiguous terms and hoping everyone chooses the same meaning, let's call the manifold of GR an "absolute" space in the sense that the "absolute" scale...

view entire post

Hi Michael,

I have posted a new paper on the arXiv concerning the local origins of quantum correlations. I thought you might find it interesting. I am also attaching a PDF file of the paper below for your convenience.

I hope you are not too discouraged by the outcome of the essay contest. We must continue to fight against the prevalent ideology.

Best,

Joy

attachments: 2piSpinor.pdf

report post as inappropriate

I have posted a new paper on the arXiv concerning the local origins of quantum correlations. I thought you might find it interesting. I am also attaching a PDF file of the paper below for your convenience.

I hope you are not too discouraged by the outcome of the essay contest. We must continue to fight against the prevalent ideology.

Best,

Joy

attachments: 2piSpinor.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

Thanks for the update. I see that this is the work you were referring to about an experimental test between SO(3) and SU(2).

I like the idea of something like a table-tennis ball (cut in half and judiciously stuck back together) being the required hidden domain containing two objects with orientation entanglement. The crux of the paper strikes me as being on page 9, since...

view entire post

Thanks for the update. I see that this is the work you were referring to about an experimental test between SO(3) and SU(2).

I like the idea of something like a table-tennis ball (cut in half and judiciously stuck back together) being the required hidden domain containing two objects with orientation entanglement. The crux of the paper strikes me as being on page 9, since...

view entire post

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your feedback. I view my proposed experiment somewhat differently from how you have viewed it. The two lumps are not supposed to provide the initial orientation of the 3-sphere. The lumps are there to provide different spin directions to be observed by the experimenter, along the chosen direction of her detector (s along a). For each direction s of the spin there are two hidden possibilities for the initial orientation of the 3-sphere, namely L = +1 or -1. The rotating fragments would thus behave like fermions rather than bosons because they would be rotating with respect to each other. A fermion is a fermion because it behaves like an anchored rock rather than a free rock, where the anchor (or the rope) has only abstract or symbolic meaning (it does not have to be physical). In other words, it is the *relative* rather than absolute rotation that makes a fermion a fermion. Since in my experiment each bomb fragment is rotating with respect to (or relative to) the other fragment, it will behave like an anchored rock---i.e., like a fermion. That is the hypothesis, and the experiment is supposed to test this hypothesis.

As for Kuhn's perspective on the scientific revolutions, there is even more depressing book on the subject: "The Golem", by Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch. I highly recommend this book if you haven't read it. Because of my negative experiences since my first anti-Bell paper appeared on the arXiv in 2007, I am able to relate to every episode of scientific misconduct analysed by Collins and Pinch. It is also a more entertaining book compared to Kuhn's rather dry analysis. Sociology of science seems to follow its own laws, and by now I have learned to resign to these laws without giving up the fight.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your feedback. I view my proposed experiment somewhat differently from how you have viewed it. The two lumps are not supposed to provide the initial orientation of the 3-sphere. The lumps are there to provide different spin directions to be observed by the experimenter, along the chosen direction of her detector (s along a). For each direction s of the spin there are two hidden possibilities for the initial orientation of the 3-sphere, namely L = +1 or -1. The rotating fragments would thus behave like fermions rather than bosons because they would be rotating with respect to each other. A fermion is a fermion because it behaves like an anchored rock rather than a free rock, where the anchor (or the rope) has only abstract or symbolic meaning (it does not have to be physical). In other words, it is the *relative* rather than absolute rotation that makes a fermion a fermion. Since in my experiment each bomb fragment is rotating with respect to (or relative to) the other fragment, it will behave like an anchored rock---i.e., like a fermion. That is the hypothesis, and the experiment is supposed to test this hypothesis.

As for Kuhn's perspective on the scientific revolutions, there is even more depressing book on the subject: "The Golem", by Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch. I highly recommend this book if you haven't read it. Because of my negative experiences since my first anti-Bell paper appeared on the arXiv in 2007, I am able to relate to every episode of scientific misconduct analysed by Collins and Pinch. It is also a more entertaining book compared to Kuhn's rather dry analysis. Sociology of science seems to follow its own laws, and by now I have learned to resign to these laws without giving up the fight.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

I don't know if it has occurred to you that one obvious name for your proposed experiment is "Christian's Exploding Balls", which is a bit unfortunate ;-)

The attached pdf outlines my interpretation of your experiment and why I think that it needs the simple modification of spring loading the two halves of the sphere to give an extra axis of rotation. As something like radioactive decay is the sort of source of randomness acceptable to physicists, your proposed experiment is effectively a variation on Schrodinger's Cat. Unfortunately there may still be some physicists who don't acknowledge that the QT description of radioactive decay stops at the detector. So some sort of QT nonsense could be used ideologues, or they could falsely claim that it is what your paper is about.

I have encountered references to "The Golem" a couple of times, but not yet read it - I found Kuhn depressing enough! It must be remembered that the laws of the sociology of science are not natural laws that cannot be broken, and the social conduct of science takes place within a larger society that doesn't have the same tolerance for the social laws of science - as seen in the prosecution of the Italian scientists. Taking tax payers money to pursue something that has already been proven to be impossible (or has already been done) is known in wider society as economic fraud, and is technically a criminal offence that carries jail time. Some of the social laws of science seem to be leading to illegality because the tax-payer is paying the bill, and some people are waking up to this fact.

Best,

Michael

attachments: Exploding_balls.pdf

I don't know if it has occurred to you that one obvious name for your proposed experiment is "Christian's Exploding Balls", which is a bit unfortunate ;-)

The attached pdf outlines my interpretation of your experiment and why I think that it needs the simple modification of spring loading the two halves of the sphere to give an extra axis of rotation. As something like radioactive decay is the sort of source of randomness acceptable to physicists, your proposed experiment is effectively a variation on Schrodinger's Cat. Unfortunately there may still be some physicists who don't acknowledge that the QT description of radioactive decay stops at the detector. So some sort of QT nonsense could be used ideologues, or they could falsely claim that it is what your paper is about.

I have encountered references to "The Golem" a couple of times, but not yet read it - I found Kuhn depressing enough! It must be remembered that the laws of the sociology of science are not natural laws that cannot be broken, and the social conduct of science takes place within a larger society that doesn't have the same tolerance for the social laws of science - as seen in the prosecution of the Italian scientists. Taking tax payers money to pursue something that has already been proven to be impossible (or has already been done) is known in wider society as economic fraud, and is technically a criminal offence that carries jail time. Some of the social laws of science seem to be leading to illegality because the tax-payer is paying the bill, and some people are waking up to this fact.

Best,

Michael

attachments: Exploding_balls.pdf

Hi Michael,

It took me a while, but now I see your point. I did a little calculation to see that the angular momentum vectors of the two shells will indeed remain confined to the vertical plane, as shown in your Figure 3. The reason for this has to do with how torque is defined in mechanics: tau = r x F. Torque thus has a vanishing component along the direction of the applied force F. In other words, the torque, and hence the angular momentum of a shell will remain confined to the plane orthogonal to F. The overall picture of the experiment will thus be identical to that in the usual EPR-Bohm type experiments (see, for example, the attached PDF).

So I am with you so far. Next, you want to introduce a spring mechanism to unconfine the two angular momenta from the vertical plane (as you show in your Figure 4). Theoretically I have no problem with this. But it may lead to some practical difficulties. Moreover, I am not convinced that the spring mechanism is necessary. The issue you discuss just below your Figure 4 arises only if we restrict to the diagonally symmetric assignments of weights on the two shells. For asymmetric assignments the issue disappears, as far as I can see. Do you agree?

I am simply trying to minimise complications, because each additional contraption may increase the danger of a systematic error in the experiment.

Best,

Joy

attachments: CHSHpage.pdf

report post as inappropriate

It took me a while, but now I see your point. I did a little calculation to see that the angular momentum vectors of the two shells will indeed remain confined to the vertical plane, as shown in your Figure 3. The reason for this has to do with how torque is defined in mechanics: tau = r x F. Torque thus has a vanishing component along the direction of the applied force F. In other words, the torque, and hence the angular momentum of a shell will remain confined to the plane orthogonal to F. The overall picture of the experiment will thus be identical to that in the usual EPR-Bohm type experiments (see, for example, the attached PDF).

So I am with you so far. Next, you want to introduce a spring mechanism to unconfine the two angular momenta from the vertical plane (as you show in your Figure 4). Theoretically I have no problem with this. But it may lead to some practical difficulties. Moreover, I am not convinced that the spring mechanism is necessary. The issue you discuss just below your Figure 4 arises only if we restrict to the diagonally symmetric assignments of weights on the two shells. For asymmetric assignments the issue disappears, as far as I can see. Do you agree?

I am simply trying to minimise complications, because each additional contraption may increase the danger of a systematic error in the experiment.

Best,

Joy

attachments: CHSHpage.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

Yes, I was going to suggest exactly what you are saying since in EPR scenarios, the polarizers (analyzers in the figure) or Stern-Gerlach device constrains the particles to give results in parallel planes. I am wondering if your experiment could be simplified by just have two flat discs with random masses on opposing sides be exploded apart?

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Yes, I was going to suggest exactly what you are saying since in EPR scenarios, the polarizers (analyzers in the figure) or Stern-Gerlach device constrains the particles to give results in parallel planes. I am wondering if your experiment could be simplified by just have two flat discs with random masses on opposing sides be exploded apart?

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Hi Fred,

Yes, two flat discs with randomly attached masses on the opposing sides may also work in principle. But then how would one explode them apart?

In the case of a snapped ball we can explode the two shells apart simply by heating the ball, because there would be air trapped inside.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Yes, two flat discs with randomly attached masses on the opposing sides may also work in principle. But then how would one explode them apart?

In the case of a snapped ball we can explode the two shells apart simply by heating the ball, because there would be air trapped inside.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

Some kind of exploding third disc inbetween? That would explode when the temperature got high enough. Perhaps you could have holes in the center of the discs and have them slide on a taught small wire when moving apart. Maybe you could do that with the hemispheres also? I am sure some clever experimenters can figure out how to do it.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Some kind of exploding third disc inbetween? That would explode when the temperature got high enough. Perhaps you could have holes in the center of the discs and have them slide on a taught small wire when moving apart. Maybe you could do that with the hemispheres also? I am sure some clever experimenters can figure out how to do it.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

After my mentioning the rotation group map S3 to S2 for my spin defects, it occurred to me that there is a second class of experiment that might be worth considering: those involving two coupled gyroscopes, either mounted side-by-side or concentrically.

Unlike in the exploding ball case, the permanent mechanical connections allow for extra mechanical trickery. Your new paper...

view entire post

After my mentioning the rotation group map S3 to S2 for my spin defects, it occurred to me that there is a second class of experiment that might be worth considering: those involving two coupled gyroscopes, either mounted side-by-side or concentrically.

Unlike in the exploding ball case, the permanent mechanical connections allow for extra mechanical trickery. Your new paper...

view entire post

Hi Michael,

I am not quite following the details of this two gyro experiment. What is the initial state here? In the case of exploding balls the explosion naturally sets the initial state, which in my picture is the orientation of the 3-sphere. What is the analogue of an initial state in the gyro case? If it is purely mechanical analogue, then it can be described by the standard bivector subalgebra, defined by

(I.a)(I.b) = -a.b - I.(a x b).

There is then no room for a stochastic sign change in the second term on the RHS. So, although it would be nice to be surprised, I think you will never find the kind of mechanical trickery you are looking for. In other words, fundamentally the difficulty here is the same as in the exploding balls case.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

I am not quite following the details of this two gyro experiment. What is the initial state here? In the case of exploding balls the explosion naturally sets the initial state, which in my picture is the orientation of the 3-sphere. What is the analogue of an initial state in the gyro case? If it is purely mechanical analogue, then it can be described by the standard bivector subalgebra, defined by

(I.a)(I.b) = -a.b - I.(a x b).

There is then no room for a stochastic sign change in the second term on the RHS. So, although it would be nice to be surprised, I think you will never find the kind of mechanical trickery you are looking for. In other words, fundamentally the difficulty here is the same as in the exploding balls case.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

The 2 gyro arrangement is me thinking out loud trying to find a classical mechanics scenario that dynamically realises the SU(2) I'm looking for with my configuration space view. But I can't find the correct initial state or mechanical trickery, and so I'm also coming round to the view that it isn't possible. In which case, the spherical symmetry of this sort of scenario should allow for a mathematical proof that it isn't possible. Turning that round the other way suggests that it would then be possible to prove that my spin defect scenario is the *only* possible configuration that gives a classical physics realisation - because it does - which is what I would then be looking for here. If true that would then mean in my configuration space view, that super-linear correlations between particle spins implies that particles are my spin defects.

I do have a concern about the ensemble sum in your new paper as the sum over lambda^k has a different physical basis in section V compared to the lambda sums/integrals in your book. In all the proofs of your book the sum over lambda is for one instance of correlation between two particles - physically meaning that the one instance explores all the global structure of S3, including the critical twist which is the source of the super-linearity - whereas in your new paper the sum is over an ensemble, where each instance doesn't globally explore S3, but they collectively do. These two scenarios are physically inequivalent. I've just registered this difference, and it strikes me as being significant enough to effect whether your experiment works out as you expect or not.

Best

Michael

The 2 gyro arrangement is me thinking out loud trying to find a classical mechanics scenario that dynamically realises the SU(2) I'm looking for with my configuration space view. But I can't find the correct initial state or mechanical trickery, and so I'm also coming round to the view that it isn't possible. In which case, the spherical symmetry of this sort of scenario should allow for a mathematical proof that it isn't possible. Turning that round the other way suggests that it would then be possible to prove that my spin defect scenario is the *only* possible configuration that gives a classical physics realisation - because it does - which is what I would then be looking for here. If true that would then mean in my configuration space view, that super-linear correlations between particle spins implies that particles are my spin defects.

I do have a concern about the ensemble sum in your new paper as the sum over lambda^k has a different physical basis in section V compared to the lambda sums/integrals in your book. In all the proofs of your book the sum over lambda is for one instance of correlation between two particles - physically meaning that the one instance explores all the global structure of S3, including the critical twist which is the source of the super-linearity - whereas in your new paper the sum is over an ensemble, where each instance doesn't globally explore S3, but they collectively do. These two scenarios are physically inequivalent. I've just registered this difference, and it strikes me as being significant enough to effect whether your experiment works out as you expect or not.

Best

Michael

Hi Michael,

I don't think there is any difference between the sums/integrals over lambdas in my book and in my latest paper. All sums are understood to be over individual "micro" states, giving super-linear correlation in the large N limit. If there are any differences in the treatments, they are purely notational, introduced for clarity only. So I am not quite sure what you mean by "sum over one instance of correlation" versus "sum over an ensemble, where each instance doesn't explore all of S3." What am I missing?

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

I don't think there is any difference between the sums/integrals over lambdas in my book and in my latest paper. All sums are understood to be over individual "micro" states, giving super-linear correlation in the large N limit. If there are any differences in the treatments, they are purely notational, introduced for clarity only. So I am not quite sure what you mean by "sum over one instance of correlation" versus "sum over an ensemble, where each instance doesn't explore all of S3." What am I missing?

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate