Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

S.E. Grimm: on 5/17/20 at 14:54pm UTC, wrote Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov, I haven't yet read your essay but I saw that...

S.E. Grimm: on 5/17/20 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Jonathan Dicklau, Thanks for the information! I have already found...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 5/17/20 at 10:51am UTC, wrote Dear Sydney, I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very...

Jonathan Dickau: on 5/15/20 at 14:05pm UTC, wrote For what it is worth... In response to your comment on my page; I think...

S.E. Grimm: on 5/13/20 at 10:16am UTC, wrote Dear Jonathan Dickau, Thanks for all the information! I have already read...

Jonathan Dickau: on 5/12/20 at 20:47pm UTC, wrote After reading your comment on my page... It's worth checking out what they...

Jonathan Dickau: on 5/11/20 at 18:18pm UTC, wrote Remarkable... Good exposition of a lovely ab initio model that...

Michael muteru: on 5/1/20 at 4:44am UTC, wrote Hello grim. I reckon with you to quite a high degree that the volume and...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Marcel-Marie LeBel: "Georgina, There is no instantaneity along the rod or within the coffee. It..." in The Nature of Time

Stefan Weckbach: "Hi Lorraine, thanks for your explanations. I think I now better..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Consider ice cream in hot coffee. They stay together, 'in time', as..." in The Nature of Time

Mykel Waggoner: "This is a link to a paper I wrote, as it explains how Quantum Entanglement..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, Replying to your last couple of posts, this is the way I would..." in The Present State of...

Robert McEachern: ""There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in..." in Undecidability,...

Georgina Woodward: "Max? Why?" in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Agnew: "Mueller opens his essay with... "As the argument goes, there are truths..." in Undecidability,...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.


FQXi FORUM
September 21, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Tessellation and concentration in quantized space by Sydney Ernest Grimm [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author S.E. Grimm wrote on Feb. 23, 2020 @ 17:37 GMT
Essay Abstract

Quantized space creates phenomenological reality but quantized space isn’t comparable with our phenomenological related concepts. To understand quantized space we must change our phenomenological point of view for the all-inclusive point of view. The latter shows that tessellation and concentration are geometrical based mechanism that are responsible for the creation of observable reality in our universe.

Author Bio

Theoretical research in the field of philosophy, mathematics and physics since 1973.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


Shawn Halayka wrote on Feb. 24, 2020 @ 01:20 GMT
Have you thought about tessellation using tetrahedra?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author S.E. Grimm replied on Feb. 24, 2020 @ 12:53 GMT
Shawn Halayka, the properties of the Higgs field (Kepler’s conjecture) are leading, not geometrical preferences. Nevertheless, I apologize for the lack of extensive clarifications. But this paper wasn’t meant to participate in the FQXi-essay contest. Yesterday I had uploaded my new paper to the preprint server. Half an hour later I read about FQXi’s new essay contest. So I was amused because my new paper described the fundamental impossibility to calculate quantum reality in a realistic way. Actually it isn’t an essay, it is just a paper about some details that are related to the concept of quantized space.

Bookmark and Share

Shawn Halayka replied on Feb. 25, 2020 @ 02:13 GMT
I don't have a new essay to submit to the contest. I'm glad tat you submitted one though.

My previous paper discusses the tessellation of space: https://vixra.org/abs/1812.0423

Imagine that the amount of dark energy per metre cubed is a measure of how much a crystal (space) undergoes dislocations and deformations. I tessellate space using tetrahedra. Regular tetrahedra cannot be used to cover 3D space, and so there must be irregularities, and those irregularities give way to dark energy. It's pretty simple.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


H.H.J. Luediger wrote on Feb. 24, 2020 @ 14:00 GMT
Dear Sydney Ernest,

very interesting essay. I will re-read it later on. For now some comments:

If we want to enter into a fruitful discussion we need to be a bit more precise in terminology. I'm not saying that there is an authoritative canon defining what exactly means what, but there are long standing conventions helping us to better communicate with one another.

Phenomenon (Erscheinung) is usually understood as that which appears to us and how it appears to us. As regards space the phenomena are of the type 'in', ''near', 'behind', 'under', 'along', 'through', 'around', etc. pp. Also parallax and distance are phenomena. So, phenomenal space is defined by prepositions, adjectives and adverbs. That's why we can operate in this 'space'.

Euclidean space is a theory not contradicting the phenomena. It is reasonable to assume that it exists, but it can never be proved to exist, for it stands in relations of non-falseness with the phenomena. Of course there are other (affirmative) views that assign existence to Euclidean or some other space.

Now, what are you describing in your essay? From my point of view it is neither a phenomenon nor a theory, but a wild speculation and I mean this in a very positive sense! This is how science begins, but it is only the beginning...!

best,

Heinz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author S.E. Grimm wrote on Feb. 24, 2020 @ 14:47 GMT
Heinz Luediger, quantized space is the division of the volume of the universe in smaller volumes (spatial units) that have identical basic properties. There exists no volume in the universe that isn’t “build up” by these units. The basic properties of the units create differences and these differences are what is called “phenomenological reality”. Everything we are aware of is part of phenomenological reality. Inclusive the contents of our text books.

Bookmark and Share

H.H.J. Luediger replied on Feb. 24, 2020 @ 15:41 GMT
Dear SE.,

maybe the trouble with physics is in its text books?

Heinz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author S.E. Grimm replied on Mar. 23, 2020 @ 12:10 GMT
;-))

It is a bit dangerous to display that opinion in science. But if we both hide it from the others, it will not hurt us.

Bookmark and Share


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Feb. 26, 2020 @ 20:56 GMT
If you introduce quantization of space than you have to know how it is related to the given physical object, you need a variable density of space.

E/c2 = m = (Pmax - Pmin) x V

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Feb. 26, 2020 @ 20:57 GMT
see my article here, I did not manage to attach it

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-48018-2

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author S.E. Grimm wrote on Feb. 27, 2020 @ 10:27 GMT
Amrit Sorli, at the lowest level there exists the structure of the basic quantum fields (quantized space). The basic quantum fields interchange quantized energy and the result of these created local differences is what we call phenomenological reality. So actually, the properties of the structure of the basic quantum fields – reality at the lowest level – are geometrical mathematical objects.

I know some cosmologists like it to use a fluid model to describe large scale changes in the macroscopic universe. But that’s a macroscopic model that is founded upon the results of phenomenological physics (fluid mechanics). I have no intention to advertise a model for cosmologists. Of course, every spatial structure that shows internal transformations can be looked upon a fluid. But as long nobody can prove the origin of the universal constants and the existence of probability with the help of the fluid model, I will not change my point of view.

Bookmark and Share


Donald G Palmer wrote on Feb. 29, 2020 @ 17:17 GMT
Dear SE Grimm

A general concern regarding any theory based upon a smallest particle or space: How can a theory that is limited to one slice of reality, say the Planck scale, determine and define the actions at the atomic scale (it should explain this), at the molecular scale (it can do some of this), at the macro-molecular and protein level, at the cellular level, at the ligament and tissue level, at the organ level, at the human body level, at the meteorological and planetary climate level, at the solar, black hole and solar system level, at the galactic level, at the galaxy cluster level?

How can any theory limited to just one slice of this continuum of scale expect to describe and determine the actions and interactions at all these levels?

If you divide up space at, say, the Plank scale, how does this transpose to our scale or to that of stars or galaxies? The proposal is that all space is either divided up only at this tiny scale, or the universe exists only as tiny particles - even when this is not our experience.

How are we to explain, at only the Planck level, the changes in a beach ball rolling down a dune and scuffing on a rock? The (macro) actions are easiest to describe at the level of the beach ball not the Planck level. Do we eschew the simpler explanation for a very difficult and poor explanation of these events? Why would we not expect to have a theory that works at all these levels - especially across these levels, since we experience actions that cross these levels?

We are measuring the universe in thin slices, like measuring only in the plane of Flatland when the universe is three-dimensional.

We have lost sight of what we are attempting to describe (all reality at all scales) - which is likely due to limitations in our tools (mathematical as well as measurement). Without admitting and addressing these limitations, we are going down a rabbit hole.

We need new tools.

Don

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author S.E. Grimm replied on Feb. 29, 2020 @ 21:41 GMT
Sorry, I forgot to push "reply"; my comment is the next post. Sydney

Bookmark and Share


Author S.E. Grimm wrote on Feb. 29, 2020 @ 21:40 GMT
Dear Donald Palmer,

If the universe is one system, it must have a structure. Without a structure there is no differentiation of properties within its “boundary”. Large scale phenomena – e.g. the solar system – are build up by the properties of the basic structure of the universe. In other words, every phenomenon – no matter its seize – must reflect the underlying basic properties of the structure of the universe. Therefore, without understanding the nature of space and time it is really hard to figure out all those confusing facts we have obtained with the help of experiments and observations. So it is wise to concentrate on the universal properties: physic laws, constants and the general behavior of the observable phenomena.

With kind regards, Sydney

Bookmark and Share

Donald G Palmer replied on Feb. 29, 2020 @ 22:22 GMT
Dear Sydney,

Your response suggests you believe the 'basic structure of the universe' exists at the smallest level. That particle physics (or below) is where and only where these structures must exist. However, this presupposes that actions do not move up or down in scale, but all occur or begin at this one level. It presupposes all structure exists at or extends from this one level - when that is not what we perceive, since we perceive structure at all levels.

What evidence is there for all (explanatory) structure to exist at only one level or that (I guess this is your position) all upward structure is a consequence of structure at the smallest scale?

How does this one-directional structure creation (from smallest to largest) explain the actions of a beach ball rolling down a dune and scuffing against a rock? How does structure only at the smallest level account for this activity of movement at our level impacting objects and actions at a smaller level?

It seems far more plausible that structure exists at all levels, that actions at larger levels can impact activities at smaller levels and that physical laws not only apply across levels, but interconnect levels (upward and downward).

What is missing are the proper tools to measure across these levels, the lack of which could give us the impression one level is all we need.

Sincerely, Don

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author S.E. Grimm replied on Mar. 1, 2020 @ 11:20 GMT
Dear Donald Palmer,

My essay isn’t an essay. I had uploaded a new paper to the preprint server Zenodo (CERN). Some minutes later I read the name FQXi in relation to a researcher and when I visited the site I realized that the new “contest” was about the impossibility to simulate phenomena in a 100% realistic way. My new paper described the same topic so I grinned a bit and uploaded my paper “to the contest” (5 minutes). The drawback of my little joke is a lack of explanation about the mathematical reasoning that “advertises” the existence of quantized space.

Is it possible that our sun can be created out of an enormous cloud of dust and Hydrogen without the existence of the Milky Way? No, because our sun is created by a transformation of local spatial properties that are an evolution of previous spatial transformations. That means that the whole universe transforms at every scale of observable reality. Moreover, our universe is non-local thus every local change of spatial properties is influenced by all the other local changes of spatial properties at exactly the same moment.

Large scale observable structures change very slow if we relate the amount of change with the shape, size and structure of its appearance. This observation is directly related to the size of the human scale. But every scale structure shares the same rate of change that is caused by the basic properties of quantized space. Because energy is directly related to change. If the quantum of energy is transferred in a linear way the velocity is the constant speed of light. However, there exists no change in our universe that isn’t caused by the transfer of energy. In other words, every change in the universe – quanta transfer – has the speed of light.

The conceptual problem is the way we try to interpret reality. If we use the phenomenological point of view we are convinced that every scale has its own “physic laws”. But it we use the all-inclusive point of view there are no scales. There is a continuous transformation of spatial properties that we call “observable reality”. Unfortunately, all the models in physics originate from phenomenological reasoning.

With kind regards, Sydney

Bookmark and Share


Flavio Del Santo wrote on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 16:40 GMT
Dear Sydney,thank you for this essay.I am not fully convinced that your initial claim “mathematics is a language to describe reality in an accurate way”, is so straightforward. I tend to agree that mathematics is a constructed, creative human activity, but its relation to reality (if there is an independent reality out there) is not so trivial. Perhaps you might also like to have a look at what I discuss in my essay, about the use of different mathematical entities in physics and how this deeply affects the foundations of physics.

Best,

Flavio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author S.E. Grimm replied on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 19:17 GMT
Dear Flavio Del Santo,

Centuries ago meta-physicists have discussed about the relation between mathematics (metrical defined concepts) and physics (observable reality). There is only one conclusion possible: if humans are created by the basic properties of our universe it is impossible that humans can create thoughts that are independent from the basic properties of our universe (and basic properties are mathematical objects). However, this is not an argumentation to state that all the mathematics is physics, like we cannot state that all the physics is corresponding with reality. Every year arXiv.org receives thousands of papers about hypotheses to interpret the observations and experiments (physics). Unfortunately none of these papers shows to be the solution for all the theoretical problems in physics. Fortunately Lee Smolin had published a thoughtful enumeration of the problems in theoretical physics: https://www.thoughtco.com/five-great-problems-in-theoretical
-physics-2699065

I will download and read your paper, thanks for the hint.

With kind regards, Sydney

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 22, 2020 @ 17:18 GMT
Dear Sydney,

Very important ideas, well illustrated. But there are questions.

Undoubtedly, the key question for physics and mathematics is the nature of space and, accordingly, its ONTOLOGICAL structure. Here it is good to recall the philosophical testament of Paul Florensky: “We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding”.

I agree: “However, this has consequences because it is not realistic to assume that the foundations of mathematics shouldn’t be identical to the foundations of physics."..."In other words, the existence of observable phenomena everywhere in the universe shows that the underlying structure must be build up on identical basic properties."

But in your justification of the basic structure there is no deepest ontology of the absolute forms of the existence of matter (absolute, unconditioned states), their connection with the structure of space (ideal entity). It seems to me that deeper dialectical and ontological ideas are needed here. Therefore, the holistic paradigm should come to the aid of the atomistic paradigm that dominates science (part paradigm). A methodology is needed, based on the total dialectical-ontological unification of matter across all levels of the Universe’s being as an holistic process of generation of meanings and structures (material-ideal), i.e., construction (modeling) of the primordial generating (basic) structure: framework, carcass, foundation for the whole system of knowledge, and not just for physics and mathematics. We all need to "dig" together - from "phenomena" to basic concept-constructs, to "noumenons".

With kind regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author S.E. Grimm replied on Mar. 22, 2020 @ 19:46 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

You are right, there is no extensive explanation. That’s because it is not an essay, it is a publication; see the explanation in my second post from below. Nevertheless, there are links in the paper to other publications where I have described the subject (or visit https://philpeople.org/profiles/sydney-ernest-grimm).

If I understand your post well, you are suggesting that I have to describe the conceptual framework of quantized space in relation to the existing scientific literature about the basic structure of the universe. Well, I have done a lot of research in my live – in other branches of science too – but I am afraid your opinion about my capacities is too optimistic.

With kind regards, Sydney

Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 23, 2020 @ 14:13 GMT
Dear Sydney,

Please tell me which article to read at the link in which your main ontological ideas are presented?

With kind regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author S.E. Grimm replied on Mar. 24, 2020 @ 13:51 GMT
Sorry, Vladimir Rogozhin, I have answered your question without pressing "Reply". My post is below.

Bookmark and Share


Author S.E. Grimm wrote on Mar. 23, 2020 @ 16:08 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

May be the short paper “Empiricism and empirical information” will give you an impression about the basic idea (actually it represents Parmenides’ main thought about the difference between observable reality and the underlying creating reality). It isn’t that I have tried to further explore Parmenides’ work. When I started research long ago I had 2 troubling questions: (1) How do I know that my hypotheses are correct? and (2) Is it possible that phenomenological reality is some kind of an illusion?

About 35 years later I stumbled on a paper about the work of Parmenides. I was shocked to discover that ~2500 years ago Parmenides had followed the same type of reasoning to answer the second question (2).

With kind regards, Sydney

Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 14:19 GMT
Dear Sydney,

I first read the article “Empiricism and empirical information”. Our views are very close. I believe that the main thoughts that need to be emphasized and adopted (in bold):

"Parmenides used other terms to describe the existence of set C. Like other philosophers - Leucippus and Democritus - probably meant that the underlying creating reality must have a universal non-destructive structure. "Aristotle made a remarkable contribution because he stated that the underlying reality is in rest and all the observable changes in the sky - the celestial universe - are synchronized (the unmoved mover)."

Then I read your article "The uniform structure of space and time."

I believe that we must, at the first stage, to find mutual understanding, using the sharp "Occam's razor" decisively "cut off" time, since it is necessary to consider, like the ancient Greeks, the eternal Universe (Cosmos). Therefore, we should consider only the concepts of "SPACE", "in-FORMA-tion" and from physics - "MATTER", but in the spirit of integrality and generation (Plato) - this is what ALL FORMS ARE BORN from. Since the times of the Platonic Academy, FORMA is the first entity. Therefore, from the conclusion “Space is composed by spatial units with identical properties”, I would first take only the first part: “Space is composed by spatial units ...”

The question remains of how many units? Recall the Pythagoreans, whose first number is "three". Why "three"? Here the idea is generated.

Dialectics ... Dialectics ...

Further is not yet obvious and we must find common support with you for “grasping” the structure of space. What structure? ... "Universal non-destructive structure" ... And that means ONTOLOGICAL ...

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 15:29 GMT
Dear Sydney,

For a deeper discussion, please see my essay for a comparison of our approaches.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author S.E. Grimm replied on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 19:54 GMT
Dear Vladimir Regozhin,

The relevance of science is the meaning of its results for society. That’s why I suppose that concepts – and the terms we use for the concepts – have to be simple. Otherwise the majority of the public isn’t interested in understanding science. That is why one of the main problems in science is the confusion we create by using terms that have a lot of different meanings. One of the advantages of physics is the possibility to use a limited number of terms without creating voids in the description of reality. In philosophy many philosophers have coined their own names for slightly different abstract concepts in relation to the concepts their colleges uses. That is why I don’t like it to “write like a philosopher”. For example, what is ontology? Actually it is the universe. A volume that envelopes everything like a box without walls. In other words, in science we are not only trying to understand reality, we have to force our abstract concepts into simple concepts that represent the “bare” conceptual frame work.

I have read your essay and I understand and subscribe to your arguments. Moreover, it is really interesting to read about the basic thoughts of so many Russian scientists. Mostly in West Europe we are not fully aware of all the Russian science, partly because of the Russian language. I hope that your essay corresponds with the interests of the panel of FQXi-members who rate the essays (because your approach is founded on philosophical insights).

With kind regards, Sydney

Bookmark and Share


Michael muteru wrote on May. 1, 2020 @ 04:44 GMT
Hello grim. I reckon with you to quite a high degree that the volume and size of everything is caused by a scalar mechanisms, very nice,your work definitely earns my votes,very nice diagrams to deliver the message.i too have questions on these scalar quantities(dimensionless values) I tried to retrace how they may have originated. Are they a product of Human cognitive Bias? it's here -https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.i would love your word on that. All the best in the essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 11, 2020 @ 18:18 GMT
Remarkable...

Good exposition of a lovely ab initio model that succeeds in explaining a lot without assuming much. I could make similar comments about causal dynamical triangulations or energetic causal sets, and nobody doubts the integrity of Loll and Ambjorn or of Smolin. So I am not sure why your rating is so low. I thought you did very well, although as you commented it was not a purpose-driven paper, and this explains why it does not more explicitly link back to the essay question.

The linkage is obvious to a more informed reader, however.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 12, 2020 @ 20:47 GMT
After reading your comment on my page...

It's worth checking out what they are doing. I have had the great pleasure to actually meet Renate Loll, Jan Ambjörn, and Lee Smolin. There was an entire breakout session devoted to causal structure theories at GR21, as part of the quantum gravity series. Over 700 scientists in NYC in 2016. I didn't make it to GR22, but had the extreme good fortune to have my work presented anyway.

Yours is definitely an approach worth pursuing. Good luck finding appropriate materials to read, to see what others are doing in this area. I can recommend some sources to seek out. You might enjoy the sampler in “Approaches to Quantum Gravity” ed. D. Oriti, Cambridge Univ. Press. The chapter on CDT is also at arXiv:hep-th/0604212.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author S.E. Grimm replied on May. 13, 2020 @ 10:16 GMT
Dear Jonathan Dickau,

Thanks for all the information! I have already read a number of papers and have watched a presentation of Renate Loll.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRyo_ee2r0U).

Gravity as a 1-dimensional phenomenon - see the video - is experimentally confirmed.

Louis Rancourt and Philip J. Tattersall (2015)."Further Experiments Demonstrating the Effect of Light on Gravitation". Applied Physics Research; Vol. 7, No. 4; 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n4p4

Nevertheless, I am a bit disappointed by the mathematics behind Causal Dynamical Triangulations. Mathematics cannot be used at a tool at the lowest level of reality. I am glad I wasn't present at the symposium - I live in the Netherlands - because I know I cannot hide my frustrations about the subject if I react.

Well, now I will "jump" to the causal set theory! ;-)

With kind regards, Sydney

Bookmark and Share

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on May. 15, 2020 @ 14:05 GMT
For what it is worth...

In response to your comment on my page; I think you can have the best of both worlds. This is a poem or aphorism that sums that up, which I wrote years ago and is now published as 'octonion poetry.'

One, open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation, and knows all as self.

In other examples the 'nothingness' phase becomes fractal. The idea is there is a far shore of chaos rather than it being only an endpoint. Order creates chaos, of course, because of geometric frustration; but once things are entirely random, the only progression possible is to add order or to find the hidden order in the apparently random patterns. See Briggs and Peat "Turbulent Mirror" for insights on this.

Insofar as you are exploring the theories I mentioned above. You should check out Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler "Gravitation" chap 44, sections 4 and 5 (starting at page 1203 in my copy) that talk about pregeometry. This work is the basis or inspiration for a lot of the theories that explore causal structure. I warn you; it's heavy reading. But it should be worth the effort to visit and compare notes. Things have moved forward a lot since then, and several directions have been fleshed out.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author S.E. Grimm replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 14:43 GMT
Dear Jonathan Dicklau,

Thanks for the information! I have already found your paper "Unity, Oneness & Numbers: Octonion Poetry" and I will search for the other documents.

I hope everything is o.k. because it shows that COVID is becoming a serious problem for nearly everyone in the world. Infected and not infected.

All the best and good luck!

With kind regards, Sydney

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 10:51 GMT
Dear Sydney,

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

"To understand quantized space we must change our phenomenological point of view for the all-inclusive point of view".

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author S.E. Grimm replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 14:54 GMT
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov,

I haven't yet read your essay but I saw that you are interested in gravitational waves. Unfortunately, there is a conceptional problem with gravitational waves.

Everyone is convinced that the model of curved spacetime describes Newtonian gravity. But there are experiments that show that gravity is a push force (vector force). That means that gravitational waves are waves within the electric field because the waves have about the speed of light.

See these papers:

Louis Rancourt and Philip J. Tattersall (2015), "Further Experiments Demonstrating the Effect of Light on Gravitation". Applied Physics Research; Vol. 7, No. 4; 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n4p4

Chungpin Hovering Liao (2019), “Microwave-caused influence on gravitational constant G in Newton’s gravitational law”.

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15509.37600

With kind regards, Sydney

Bookmark and Share


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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