Search FQXi

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

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

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 9/1/09 at 11:05am UTC, wrote Hi all , It's difficult to admit what the nothing is foundamental . We...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/31/09 at 17:58pm UTC, wrote Lawrence , What about the Maxwellian distribution of Speeds and the...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 8/31/09 at 12:38pm UTC, wrote We might imagine the universe evolves from some initial state to a final...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/31/09 at 8:44am UTC, wrote Hi , Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,thanks ,yes indeed I must change my paranoia .My...

Jason Wolfe: on 8/31/09 at 4:13am UTC, wrote Lawrence, It's starting to sound like physics instability occured at the...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 8/30/09 at 19:33pm UTC, wrote I made type by saying the 25 dimensional bosonic string, when I meant to...

Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 8/30/09 at 19:04pm UTC, wrote ATTN: All, what do you think of the following please? What of the fact...

Ray Munroe: on 8/30/09 at 16:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Lawrence, Thank you for the recommendation. I ordered it online -...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jim Snowdon: "Hi Steve, Clearly we have motion in our Universe. It is not..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Steve Dufourny: "You are welcome, thanks too for your words. I have never lost the faith..." in The Present State of...

Stefan Weckbach: "Steve, thanks for reading my comment and for replying. Steve, thanks for..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "For completeness: Concerning The curved spacetime of GR. Alteration of the..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: "Spacetime has been postulated to account for individually differing..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Jim, it is a measurement for me in physics considering clocks , it is a..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you. Good luck." in The Nature of Time

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...

RECENT 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 BLOGS
September 16, 2021

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Out of Plato's Cave? [refresh]

Blogger William Orem wrote on Apr. 24, 2007 @ 19:37 GMT
It's becoming something of a trope in contemporary science fiction: the character who believes himself to be in the real world finds out, through a series of enlightenment-style experiences, that what he inhabits is not "ground level" reality but a virtual world of one sort or another. After the runaway success of The Matrix (despite its horrifically bad sequels) virtual realities have made their way from hard sci-fi and introductory philosophy courses into the standard guns-and-leather plots of the silver screen. This suspicion of reality goes back at least as far as Plato, though as a basic idea it is straightforward enough. Whether the technology of any given movie world is plausible or not, as a narrative, we get it: things ain't what they seem.

 image: Pathfinder Linden

A question, though, is raised by all this consciousness-raising: what constitutes ground level reality? Or, in a more positivist vein: what could, even in principle, determine whether any given level were ground?

An interesting recognition of the complexities appears in the 1999 movie The 13th Floor. The movie is a throw-away; I don't mean to recommend it as fine cinema. But the script contains the seed of a relevant epistemological knot. (BEWARE: SPOILERS FOLLOW)

In it, the creators of a virtual Los Angeles, indistinguishable to its cyber-based observers from the real world, find through a long series of adventures that they, themselves, are likewise living in a virtual city. Their lives, which they took to be at level A, were in fact always at A', while the virtual city they built and believed to be at A' was in fact at A''. When the hero emerges -- that enlightenment experience again -- into the actual A-level world, he finds it to be Los Angeles in the future.

 image: cogdogblog

Nice surprise. However, the script touches more or less accidentally on a profound problem. To stay within this scenario, how do observers in A know that they are at ground--that their level is, indeed, A? After all, observers in A' mistook themselves for A, as did observers in A''.

On cursory inspection one is tempted to conclude that there is no way to know, at any level, whether you are at A. All levels must make this pragmatic assumption, but any level could be wrong -- indeed, all could be wrong, if there is an infinite number of foundations. But is this so?

(Note also that this situation of ontological undecidability did not exist until the invention of the virtual city, the first Los Angeles A'. Until any version of A' is fabricated, the currently experienced reality has to be A; there are no other options. However, how can a stable A turn into an uncertain A merely by being the location of some new technology?)

Question, then: is it possible in principle to devise a test -- scientific, quantifiable -- to determine whether the given reality in which the test is run is foundational?

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

report post as inappropriate

Blogger William Orem wrote on May. 3, 2007 @ 19:30 GMT
On the subject of virtual worlds, it turns out that some are now using them to help study the real one (as the Real World is somewhat disparagingly known among the VR-savvy).

NOAA has this to say about their new Second Life Island:

NOAA's virtual world takes advantage of a platform known as "Second Life." This platform is a 3-D online world with a rapidly growing population from 100 countries around the globe. Residents themselves create and build everything from homes, vehicles, stores, and landscapes to educational areas like the map.

And why not? One of the shibboleths of the scientific enterprise is the GUT, a still-to-be-realized Grand Unified Theory that explains how everything fits together in one neat, mathematical package. No one has provided a definitive GUT yet, but many believe it is "out there" -- that is, whether humanity ever figures out how all the numbers crunch, they ultimately do crunch that way.

Underneath this assumption, I believe, lies a deeper one: that the crunching is such that, in some not-understood way, it moves from mathematics to ontology. The ultimate GUT, that is, will be self-subsistent, containing its own explanation (in a multiverse, of course, that ultimate GUT may be many levels of explanation away).

Take away that admittedly untestable meta-assumption and no one much notices, outside of a handful of philosophers of science. Take the lesser assumption away, however -- that nature is in some sense a mathematical phenomenon, or at least that there is a one-to-one correspondence between what numbers are and what phenomena do -- and the scientific approach itself wavers. This is largely because the assumption has borne such excellent fruit over the past few centuries, despite the persistent philosophical puzzle of why numbers should "link" to events at all.

Whatever the reason, it seems beyond question that, as Galileo famously put it, the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics. Numbers are either the way we're going to understand how all of nature works, or they are, in some sense, nature itself. (The same cannot be said of words, for example, as the insufficiency of systematic contenental philosophy shows.)

The connection to Second Life? If nature is numerical to her core, then a sufficiently detailed simulation of, say, a hurricane should in principle serve not merely as a representation but as an analytic tool; it should be possible using computation to come as close to a natural phenomenon as it is possible to come -- sans that mysterious link that equals actual existence. There may well come a time when modeling of nature in virtual space is the preferred method -- indeed, perhaps the best method -- for understanding phenomena in the poor old RW.

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

report post as inappropriate

Blogger William Orem wrote on May. 17, 2007 @ 18:44 GMT
Anthony ‚Äì Yes . . . like those moments in Hollywood where the main character realizes he is in a dream state because he is unable to read printed material (supposedly something we can‚Äôt do in dreams), or throws himself off a cliff to prove he‚Äôs not really there . . .

My personal favorite is the old Twilight Zone episode in which a man, convinced that he is hallucinating the existence of an entire turboprop airplane, fires up the rotors and then walks purposefully toward the spinning blade, saying ‚ÄúThis is not real . . . this is not real . . .‚Äù

But if the digital computer on which we are running the experiment is also simulation, then our conclusions about what is impossible to simulate are invalid, aren‚Äôt they? They will follow the rules of the simulation, but we still wouldn‚Äôt know whether those rules are Foundational.

I can imagine a program that is non-replicable, in the sense that it can‚Äôt be reproduced in simulation. But I can also imagine a simulation program with that property; if Foundational reality is A, the program could be run at A‚Äô but be unreproducible at A‚Äô‚Äô, A‚Äô‚Äô‚Äô, and so on. Even if we had such a program we still wouldn‚Äôt know whether we were at A.

What about this: is there a mathematical test that could demonstrate that we aren‚Äôt at A? Can we assume that math must be true outside any simulation? Say, if we find that a certain necessary axiom is contradicted by experiment, might that prove not that our math is wrong . . . but that our world is false?

(I dunno, like . . . if space at large enough scales seems to be non-Euclidean . . .? :)

report post as inappropriate

Hal wrote on May. 23, 2007 @ 06:20 GMT
As has been emphasized by Bruno Marchal, who posts here occasionally, in the context of multiverse theories this question is actually meaningless. There is no "fact of the matter" about whether we are in a simulation or in a base-level reality. We are in both; in fact we are in simulations nested N deep for every N. From the first-person perspective our seemingly singular consciousness is implemented identically multiple times throughout the multiverse.

I would emphasize the notion of "measure" as giving perspective to this problem. The idea is that different instantiations of conscious systems in the multiverse each contribute a certain amount to the total measure of the conscious experience. The variability of measure of different experiences is how we understand subjective probabilities.

In this framework, while we can't ask whether we are "really" in a simulation, we can ask how much measure we gain from various simulation scenarios vs from more traditional base realities. This would then correspond to the subjective probability that we are in a simulation.

report post as inappropriate

Count Iblis wrote on May. 23, 2007 @ 16:49 GMT
Actually, since our brains are simulating (or calculating) us, there is no question about us being in a simulation. I think it is wrong to identify ourselves with our brain. Instead we should identify ourselves with the computations the brain is performing. This seems to me to be more compatible with "Strong AI".

report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on May. 27, 2007 @ 00:33 GMT
One could only make a judgement if all possible levels are experienced?..thus starving the brain of oxygen till death for instance, would invoke a unreal experience, without any knowledge gain. One can, and should believe that the conscious brain, functions with the knowledge of a specific "level" of reality. All virtual or unreal events get logged into the fantasy, or "virtual" bracket?

Processing information in any arena, one can make decisive conclusions, a calculator, calculates?..but a calculator with "batteries not included" cannot process information, it cannot function, even though it still "exists"?

report post as inappropriate

Michael wrote on May. 28, 2007 @ 16:07 GMT
In any virtual world there would be things pop into existence as if by magic, created by beings from a more foundaitonal level. To those inside the virtual world this would appear to be a creative intelligence, or God if you prefer. So the proof that you're inside a virtual world is the proof that a creative intelligence is at work in it. In other words, if you can proof that the laws of thermodynamics are violated, then that would prove that you must be inside a virual world.

report post as inappropriate

Blogger William Orem wrote on Jun. 4, 2007 @ 16:52 GMT
I like this line of thought‚Äîthat confirmable violations in physical law would demonstrate that we were not at A, but some synthetic A‚Äô. Any ‚Äúbreak‚Äù in the rules could then be taken as evidence of a flaw in the system that reveals the existence of a system.

At some point, it must be possible to run down any simulation, or exhaust its processing capacity,...

view entire post

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

report post as inappropriate

Count Iblis wrote on Jun. 6, 2007 @ 22:45 GMT
So, perhaps quantum mechanics is a manifestation of the fact that we live in a simulation? I think we have to consider an ensemble of all possible simulations. Given all the information we have in our brain, there are an infinite number of simulations each implemented slightly differently that could have generated us. The maximum available information is thus not enough to be able to predict the outcome of experiments...

report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Jun. 10, 2007 @ 00:49 GMT
I think the level of questioning is very important, example:What is the ultimate reality? to whom the question is posed is vital!

Well if this is asked to an "ultimate computer"?..then I personally would expect the virtual computer to argue that my existence is just "functional", within a percived universe reality.

If this is how things are, then I would ask this to the computer:Show me the Universe without me inside it, infact I would insist on proof that I could be outside the Universe looking in !

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 25, 2009 @ 23:40 GMT
Regarding reality:

Consider, we are more like our experience in the dream; and yet there is (on balance) less total experience in the dream. Also, dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general; so, we may be held to be so "smart" that we are stupid in the dream.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on May. 28, 2009 @ 02:21 GMT
The reality of the observer is never foundational because the reality experienced is created by the observer from the input received. It is the observers subjective reality that is experienced. Objective external reality can not be known by an observer because to observe or comprehend that reality the input must be intercepted and processed by the brain to form information that is intelligible to the conscious mind.

Human sense organs or artificial receptors are at the Prime Reality Interface between these two separate aspects of reality.

The reality of experience is a biological simulation of external reality. That external reality could itself be "ground level" objective reality or a virtual reality simulation, providing input of sufficient quality to be indistinguishable from "ground level" reality, when processed by the organism into biological subjective reality. .

report post as inappropriate

MB wrote on May. 31, 2009 @ 00:35 GMT
Hello to all,

Georgina, since the only possible observable reality for each and every different observer is subjective, couldn't we rather qualify any perceived reality as being foundational...

If so, I would agree in the sense that I believe there does exist as many realities as there are human brains capable of experiencing them. In this case, other than being contacted by a Morpheus-like being, I'd go along the lines of William Orem and ask 'could we devise a test that proves we are NOT in an A reality ?'

Regards,

MB

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on May. 31, 2009 @ 07:09 GMT
Georgina you say:

The reality of the observer is never foundational because the reality experienced is created by the observer from the input received. It is the observers subjective reality that is experienced. Objective external reality can not be known by an observer because to observe or comprehend that reality the input must be intercepted and processed by the brain to form information that is intelligible to the conscious mind.

Human sense organs or artificial receptors are at the Prime Reality Interface between these two separate aspects of reality.

The reality of experience is a biological simulation of external reality. That external reality could itself be "ground level" objective reality or a virtual reality simulation, providing input of sufficient quality to be indistinguishable from "ground level" reality, when processed by the organism into biological subjective reality. .

-----------------------------------

I would not agree on that. In the process of observation of the universe it is rational analysis of the mind that makes experience indirect, temporal. Once observer is aware of mind elaboration he can enter direct, timeless experience of the universe.

Yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 31, 2009 @ 17:41 GMT
Consciousness and language involve the ability to represent, form, and experience comprehensive approximations of experience in general. It is because the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general that we are capable of growth and of becoming other than we are. Because dreams make sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism) more like thought, and in keeping with the fact that DREAMS ADD TO THE INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS OF BEING AND EXPERIENCE (including/along with thought), the dream is the ultimate significance (and significant manifestation) of the union of gravity and Maxwell's theory of light that is proven by the addition of a fourth dimension of space to Einstein's theory. Note that dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 31, 2009 @ 19:15 GMT
The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense. This is confirmed by/consistent with BOTH the experience of the dream AND the union of gravity and electromagnetism in a fourth spatial dimension.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jun. 1, 2009 @ 03:16 GMT
Amrit, you said, "Once observer is aware of mind elaboration he can enter direct, timeless experience of the universe." I accept that a different kind of perception can result from this awareness. (Due to a change in brain processing.) But the brain is still functioning to give that altered awareness.In a meditative state this will be in the absence of distracting external stimuli and quieting of the left brain chatter.It is not complete absence of brain function and is still experience.What is experienced is always a subjective reality.

MB, you said "since the only possible observable reality for each and every different observer is subjective, couldn't we rather qualify any perceived reality as being foundational..."

I would say no. This is because each subjective reality is an individual biological simulation. Numerous factors can affect that simulation, eg. tiredness or alertness, caffeine consumption, blood alcohol level, other drugs, neurotransmitter levels, diet, health (physical and mental), genetics, education, life experiences etc, etc. It is not possible to claim that any one or all off these subjective reality experiences are foundational reality.

The auditory and visual hallucinations of the schizophrenic or traumatised individual are absolutely real to that individual. Although obviously not real to an outside observer. Human beings are complex and diverse organisms with diverse experiences of the human condition. They can not be equated to simple AI and be expected to have one set (ie. a single and invariable) experience of reality as a machine might.

The objective physical reality external to the biological entities may be ground level objective reality or a complex simulation but the human subjective reality experience can not, in my opinion, be used to distinguish between them. This is because the subjective experience is itself a simulation and any anomaly may be attributed to the biological interception, processing and analysis of input, from the external physical reality (real or artificial, rather than to the external reality itself. Even truly astounding mass experience of aberrations could be more easily be attributed to interference with biological subjective reality simulation. For example, by poisoning or effects of electromagnetic radiation of certain strengths, duration (pulse)or frequency or other unknown factor rather than a glitch in an external foundational reality programme.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 24, 2009 @ 04:26 GMT
“is it possible in principle to devise a test to determine whether the given reality in which the test is run is foundational?” What a marvelous question. I strongly believe the answer is YES. Simply test for the existence of quantum entanglement, space time dimensionality, and for the presence of four interactions: electromagnetism, weak, strong, and gravity. If a TOE does exist, it should...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jul. 24, 2009 @ 13:31 GMT
Dear Florin,

Do you have references for Quantions? I am working on a TOE model based on Geometric Algebra that reproduces the features you are talking about. The only weird features are that I have an extra "force" related to the Weak force that gives right-handed interactions, and I have an extra "force" related to Gravity that seems to give tachyonic interactions.

Thank You!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 24, 2009 @ 17:03 GMT
Dear Ray,

Here are two books on it

l+Unification+of+Quantum+Mechanics+and+Relativity&printsec=f
rontcover&source=bl&ots=dcD3UErlUQ&sig=bUO1DqQgieSBkQK1x9lSa
1WMHpI&hl=en&ei=7eFpSqTFK8WttgeciMi5Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&c
t=result&resnum=1

http://www.amazon.com/Algebra-Quantions-Emi
le-Grgin/dp/1420840568

and here is an overvierw paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0332

You can also check the references within.

My quantionic understanding improved significantly since I published the overview paper, particularly in the area of noncommutative geometry and the uniqueness area, and the discussion section is rather obsolete by now. At that time I was not aware of geometric algebra either, and I am still reading David's books today. I would be very interested to see your results so far, do you have anything published yet? There are many open problems. It is not clear how to correctly introduce the Yang Mills local symmetry principle. I hope that geometric quantization might shed some light on that. Also it is not clear how to approach the problems of the Higgs mechanism or super symmetry using quantions.

Regards,

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 24, 2009 @ 18:18 GMT
A virtual reality Turing test is required We don't have the ability to emulate reality to the fine grained level we oberve reality, so virtual reality scenes are pretty easily detected. It will be some time before virtual reality gets good enough to fool people completely. Even then there will probably be tests one could perform. The random nature of water flow and other processes would be hard to generate in a way that fools observant people.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jul. 24, 2009 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Florin,

Thank you for the overview of Quantions. It is interesting and will take some time to understand. I used Quaternions and Octonions instead, and I have a few wierd imaginary results. Are these imaginary results correct, or is my mathematics defective? I will have to study it further.

I published some related ideas last year, but have not published my latest ideas. It is a work in progess.

Sincerely,

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 24, 2009 @ 20:26 GMT
Ray,

Space-time algebra is the even dimensional subalgebra of the Dirac algebra. For some links with the standard model, see:

htt
p://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/35/22/306

Quaternions are not very useful for describing quantum mechanics, except in second quantization. Octonions have major problems because they lack associativity and so far nobody could put them to good use for quantum mechanics. John Baez has a very nice paper on them though – I recommend reading it (see the reference in my paper).

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 25, 2009 @ 12:35 GMT
The Dirac algebra is the Clifford algebra CL_{3,1}(C) ~ CL_{3,1}(R)xC, which is the complexification of the spacetime algebra CL_{3,1}(R). It is not hard to see that since

{γ^a, γ^b} = γ^aγ^b + γ^bγ^a = 2g^{ab},

that if the representation of the Dirac matrices is specified only locally that differential ∂_aγ^b can be used to define connection coefficients in spacetime and general relativity. This may be extended further, such as the quaternionization of CL_{3,1}(H) ~ CL_{3,1}(R)xH, can be constructed,. Since the quaternions are pairs of complex variables this can be written as CL_{7,1}(R)., and this may be continued up to octonions to define CL_{3,1}(O) = CL_{3,1}(R)xO .~ CL_{15,1}(R). The sequency of indices 4, 8, 16, indicates the Cayley numbers.

Octonions are not understood physically very well. The nonassociative structure

(e_ie_j)e_k - e_i(e_je_k) = [e_i,e_j,e_k]

or

e_i(e_je_k) = (e_ie_j)e_k + C_{ijk}^le_l

indicates structure beyond a braid group realization. If we have an S matrix S(a,b,c,…d) then (non)commutative pertain to elements *--* as braid operations. Nonassociative structures involve *--*--* elements that associate nodes in the scattering matrix. This associator is an elementary I_2 element, and in 2 dimensions the associator is an I_2(5) element, which geometrically is a pentagon. If you go up a dimension it is something called the Stasheff polytope. These associator structures define a homotopy for these elements which are not defined by braid groups. So what is being generalized is the S-matrix, so that in each of the 168 multiplication tables with (ab)c = -a(bc) there is this associator structure. Physically I think this pertains to the a breakdown in completion of the S-matrix according to non-commutative structures. The S-matrix only vanishes when the propagator G(x-x’) vanishes as |x-x’| goes to infinity. Yet we know in general relativity horizons occur where across a finite interval which crosses this the G(x-x’) - -> 0. Hawking radiation occurs outside the horizon, but is connected to the quantum information inside the black hole. This is an aspect of the so called black hole information paradox. We know that the radiation is matter from within the BH, but we have a failure in understanding how this happens. It might be that nonassociative structures are involved with this process.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 26, 2009 @ 03:03 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

One thing I do not fully understand is why non-associativity is so undesirable in physics. Why the exceptional Jordan algebra of 3x3 self-adjoined octonionic matrices does not appear in Piron’s construction for example? I know that Gursay attempted to use it to (unsuccessfully) explain the strong force. One feature I think is that there are unobservable properties of the physical system, but I do not know the details. Do you know any good references on this subject in category theory?

On the other hand non-commutativity is not so bad. Think of complex numbers and the standard unitary group. Complex numbers are commutative, and the unitary groups are compact. The Lorenz group is not compact on the other hand and adding quantum mechanics on it results in faster than light speeds which can be explained by the Fock space and pair generation. There is only one non-unitary representation of quantum mechanics and this can happen only on a so(2,4) space. Still, one needs to complexify it and one bivector made out of a positive and a negative element will do the trick and generate the non-commutative quantionic algebra. Quantions are basically a complex Minkowski space. Without proof, I think this is deeply related to the Coleman Mandula theorem. Quantions are also a non division algebra. In general this is bad particularly since there are an infinite number of such algebras as opposed to the Hurwitz result which restricts the number of division algebras to only 4. But this is good for structural unification with relativity because in special relativity there are null space-time intervals which cannot have an inverse in the standard division algebra sense.

You also mention the Cayley construction. There is a similar construction for quantions but this time using 4 prior objects instead of 2 (2 reals make a complex number, two complex numbers make a quaternion, etc): 4 quantions make the next algebra, 16 quantions the following one and so on.

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 27, 2009 @ 03:36 GMT
I am not sure what quantions are. The problem with nondivision algebras is it is unclear how one would make any real calculation that means much.

Octonions are a mathematics which in a sense in search of physics. To define solutions or waves, consider the element Ψ that transforms according to G, so for any g \in G Ψ' = gΨ. Then consider the system on a lattice system L,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 27, 2009 @ 05:36 GMT
I have to say I am lost with your argument. First, the associator involves three arguments while the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula has only two. Also I do not understand the motivation of the tessalation of spacetime with the root vectors of a group. The Lorenz group follows from causality, and what does causality have to do with a group’s root vectors? Very odd.

Of curse octonions cannot lead to unitary groups, complex numbers do, but space time is fully compatible with unitarity via quantions. First, about their lack of division, this does not occur arbitrarily, but exactly in the points where one deforms the integration contour on the propagator for Feynman diagrams, and perturbation theory can be done using quantions. Second, in general in quantum mechanics, one does not divide wavefunctions directly: it is meaningless. In a particular case (divergenceless current probability), quantions lead back to the SU(4) unitary group and the Dirac equation (no wonder then why they are a Dirac subalgebra and that there is a mapping between quantions and spinors). On the other hand, the quantions are related to SO(2,4) which corresponds to the conformal compactification of the Minkowski space. So there you have it, the link between orthogonal and unitary groups via the algebra of quantions. Alternatively and more general, the spin group is the double cover of the orthogonal group in even dimensions, and the spinors act as the middleman between orthogonal groups (relativity) and unitary groups (quantum mechanics).

Still my original question remains: why in Piron’s construction of the Hilbert space via orthocomplemented lattices one can use reals, complex, or quaternionic numbers, but not the octonions? Octonions can still create a Jordan algebra, and this is the only Jordan algebra with no quantum mechanics applications.

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 27, 2009 @ 12:55 GMT
I was afraid it might be a bit complicated. The details require a bit of work. If you have the group element A, B an C with A = exp(ia), B = exp(ib) and C = exp(ic) then one can use the BCH on this. When associated, such as (AB)C one just uses BCH in an associated fashion. In this case B is the lattice translation operation and A = B^dagger and the rest amounts to turning the crank.

The 120-cell, or H_4, tesselates a hyperbolic four space, such as AdS spacetime. This is the reason for the tessellation I mention, Further H_4 constructs the Weyl group for E_8. The elements of H_4, which are root vectors or quaternions, then form a lattice discrete system that tiles the spacetime. The H_4 is in Coxeter-Dynkin representation

o---o--o--o

where the longer line is a "5." This is then a tesselation of the shorter

o--o--o ~ S(6) =~ SU(4)

The additional "5" is an I_2(5) associator between elements of the SO(4,2), which is the AdS.

I will try to write a note on J^3(O) later today.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 27, 2009 @ 22:35 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thanks for the clarifications. I found this tessellation idea fascinating. I know that octonions are intimately linked with string theory. To what degree is the tessellation research linked with string theory?

I also have some high level questions: 1. You mention that tessellation works for AdS , but nature have a positive cosmological constant, and would the tessellation idea work on a deSitter universe?, and 2. A related question is how would the presence of matter affect the tessellation; would not this in fact make the job impossible due to curvature?

Maybe those are just naïve questions, but they are the first that came to my mind as potential showstoppers, so please forgive my ignorance in this area.

Thanks,

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 27, 2009 @ 23:06 GMT
I am not sure how much to belabor the structure of Jordan algebras, for I am not sure how familiar you are with them. But I will try to give a few salient points on them. If we have the octonion O in 8 dimensions, then connection coefficients of the E_8 (frames, bundles etc) over the 9-space plus time are defined on a light cone coordinate in the addition 1+1 "spacetime" light cones by J^2(O)...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 27, 2009 @ 23:52 GMT
Florin,

The H-4 is a sort of broken E_8, or that this composes the W(E_8) = diag{H_4, H_4] + permutation stuff. The H_4 is an SU(4) with an I_2(5) associator structure underneath. There is an underlying quantum homotopy at work here. I can later go on with greater detail there, but the I_2(5) defines a quantum effect which is hidden on the homology level or Ψ \in ker(Q)/im(Q). So on this level of a tessellation of AdS by H_4 octonionic quantum field effects are "weak." Octonionic quantum field theory requires the full Leech lattice Λ_{24}.

A note of physics is in order here, What I see as the full system is the Leech lattice which occurs on a scale of ~ 2.2L_p, compared to the Hagedorn limit or string length L = sqrt{8π)L_p. The "perfect symmetry" or Λ_{24} breaks down into the E_8xE_8 on H_4, with a weak octonionic behavior due to I_2(5). The corresponding de Sitter spacetime becomes locally flat and so its structure in quantum gravity is the 24-cell or F_4, and this eventually on larger scales becomes string theory on flat spacetime background. The important thing here is to understand how things unravel or break down into the universe we see at low energy, such as the standard model.

I tried to attach this earlier but failed. I attach an image of how the octahedron tessellates three dimensional space. H_4 tessellates hyperbolic 4-space in the same way. The H_4 (120-cell) decomoses into SU(4) as the I_2(5) 5-fold structure is lost at lower energy, which recovers AdS without an internal quantum homotopy involved with nonassociativity.

Lawrence B. Crowell

attachments: Hyperbolic_orthogonal_dodecahedral_honeycomb.JPG

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 28, 2009 @ 05:46 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for the replies. I am not a string theory expert, but I have a decent understanding of octonions. Your math is extremely interesting, but I am still a skeptic from the physics point of view.

First, if I understand your arguments correctly, you found some mathematical structure that resembles the AdS/CFT and lacks unitarity due to non-associativity. This is kind of odd, since CFT is typically used to prove there is no information loss in a black hole, and this goes against the lack of unitarity from octonions. It is possible I am misunderstanding your ideas, but if the AdS/CFT duality is what you ultimately have in mind, you cannot have it both ways in terms of having and not having unitarity. What happens when there is no acceleration and the Unruh effect does not apply?

Second, you have to explain why your tessellation is distinguished from other tessellations. What is wrong with a very simple tessellation using cubes for example?

Third, how does a positive cosmological constant affect your tessellation? Does it still work? Also from my earlier question, AdS is about the vacuum solution. How is your tessellation affected by matter distributions?

Now do not let my skepticism discourage you. Do you have a paper explaining your ideas I can read? I have to give you a disclaimer that I am very skeptical of string theory as well. My basic premise is that the universe is unique and one can actually prove this uniqueness. This is not just wishful thinking; there are actual mathematical results about it. I have an entry to the current essay contest (Heuristic rule for constructing physics axiomatization), and I encourage you and everyone else to read it and criticize my ideas. (If I am right, the bulk of the conceptual problems in physics are solved.)

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 28, 2009 @ 10:15 GMT
Hi Lawrence and Florin,

Dear Florin,

You say

My basic premise is that the universe is unique and one can actually prove this uniqueness. This is not just wishful thinking; there are actual mathematical results about it.

It's important this uniqueness.

About the tesselation,this add of geometric systems to build an other form needs limits and foundamenatls .

It's like we create an tori with small sqares and more fractals and that and that .

If the foundamenatls aren't inserted with pragamatism ,it's impossible to well extrapolate .

Our physical Universe needs limits even with imaginaries ,hypecomplexs...

It's the same with a fractal ,a fractal can be mathematical and used like a tool ,on the other side ,if a fractal is foundamenatl ,we see it in the physical dynamic .

Thus if a tesselation is correct ,it must be correlated with physical foundamenatls .

Thus a sphere ,smaller spheres .....quantum spheres .A specific entanglement of spheres .If a tesselation is adapted ,it must be in this optic I think .

The numbers of spheres is important ,centers of galaxies ,stars ,planets ,moons .Furthermore their volumes ,nature ,mass...are specifics too .

In a physical tesselation ,the evolution of complexification must be inserted too,the time and space .

The entanglement of spheres is specific in the quantum architecture and its fields and towards the cosmological dimension.

Sometimes I find what the infinite physical extrapolations decreases the research of physical truth ,just because some not necessaries tools are used ,thus implying the confusion about the physical foundamental.

The cosmological constants were ,are and shall be .

A mathematical model must have these balances to be in correlation with the physic .It's important .

What I find sometimes incredible ,is what ,some foundamenatls aren't never inserted ,like the mass ,the energy ,the gravity ,the rotations ,the spheres .

It's our physical universe .Rotatings spheres in evolution...implying mass and comportment of polarizations ...gravity .The rotation of quantum spheres and cosmological spheres are linked by so many constants .

The mass is foundamenatl I think .

An other point is what the walls aren't considered ,the limits aren't inserted and the confusion about math unknew entropy and phys are evidently there .

The uniqueness in evolution has its foundamenatls where the math and physics must be balanced .Without that ,it's imaginaries .These imagiaries tools are ineteresting computing but don't explain the quantum dynamic and the cosmological spherization.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 28, 2009 @ 13:00 GMT
The Maldacena AdS/CFT result indicates that fields are equivalent to the conformal boundary of the AdS. Banados, Teitelboim, Zanelli, (BTZ) Vafa, Susskind and others found that if a black hole is placed in the AdS spacetime that the confinement properties of the AdS keeps the BH stationary and thus quantum information is preserved. This is a major result. There is one little rub though. It does...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 28, 2009 @ 19:37 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Well… it looks like your ideas are crazy enough and it might work. If you can unlock the mechanism of information preserving, even in a particular case, it is a major accomplishment. I found your time essay paper, and although I read in the past all entries to that contest, I did not notice it before. I feel that you paper was just not clear enough in its message and got lost in the crowd. This time around though, there are so few entries so far and you’ll have a better chance. But an archive paper detailing your ideas and motivation would be even better.

The one thing I like about string theory is its explanation of the black hole singularity, and no other attempts match that so far. However, I feel that there is something conceptually profoundly wrong with string theory because it predicts extra dimensions. Is it the sl(2,O) ~ so(9,1) isomorphism at the root of it all? The landscape does not give me any reassurances either, and the anthropic principle is just plain wrong. However, the AdS/CFT is a very valuable insight and other good things came out of string theory that helped our understanding.

I am in the process of developing an intuition on quantum gravity, but I strongly believe quantions are on the right track. It will be very odd that structural unification of quantum mechanics and relativity can only happen in a four dimensional space-time, and this would not play a critical role in quantum gravity as well. Although I study quantions and the gauge theory of gravity is based on them, I am worried about their frame dragging predictions and I feel that the whole approach is a bit too naïve. Time will tell. On Wikipedia there is a claim that the gauge theory of gravity recovers most of the general relativity predictions, but I found that unsubstantiated by the arXiv record.

In the end I think SO(2,4), SU(2,2), SU(4), twistors, spinnors, and quantions will become the bread and butter of quantum gravity. Do we have room for octonions as well? If they unlock the secret of information preserving, welcome aboard.

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 28, 2009 @ 19:47 GMT
Steve,

I am having a bit of a hard time trying to figure out what you are driving at here. These spheres, or 3-balls, might be units of Planck volume or some such thing. Each one is a place holder for a quantum bit or "letter" in some quantum code.

There is a bit of a controversy with some other people over the nature of the entropy of the early universe. If the universe started...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 28, 2009 @ 21:27 GMT
Dear Steve,

Please read my essay entry: “Heuristic rule for constructing physics axiomatization” and comment on it. The answers to most of the foundational question in physics are really simple. Quantum mechanics should also be intuitive (and it is from the right point of view).

The fundamental philosophical question is: why is there something rather than nothing? The answer, is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jul. 28, 2009 @ 21:59 GMT
Dear Lawrence and Florin,

We seem to be hung up on whether we are using pure Quaternions, pure Octonions and/or pure Quantions. Must it be an "either/or" type of question? These are all related - introduce complex numbers to a quaternion and you have an octonion. I imagine a Universe where Quantum Gravity arises from the union of a Quaternion (Spacetime) and an Octonion (containing the Einstein Field Equations of GR). The real components (quantions or fractional quaternions/octonions?) yield Gravity. The complex components yield a related force that I call WIMP-Gravity. And yes, I think WIMP-Gravity has some pure imaginary components. I think this is part of the mathematics that Steve dislikes in my theory. Sorry Steve - it is what it is...

Section 5.5 of my book explains these ideas.

I'm not entering a paper in this competition. My current paper is 33 pages long, and it is driving me crazy that I can't finish it.

Dear Steve,

I think I see connections between spheres and many of these Geometrically-based algebras. I think I also see connections between fractal spheres and E-infinity. I know that you don't believe in that stuff, and so you don't take the connections seriously. The messier the mathematics gets, the less "foundational" it seems. And yet the Universe may be a little "messy". I understand your paradox.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 00:42 GMT
There are a couple of things which Florin wrote which are similar to ideas I have. The first is with Godels theorem. I think there is some sort of hierarchy of structure, strings --> sporadic M_{24} theories --> Monster physics --> Moonshine physics ---> ... . Monster physics is with the Fischer Griess (monster) group and Moonshine physics involves underlying number theory to the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 01:51 GMT
Florin,

My paper did sort of get buried a bit. Unfortunately I wrote it in three days before the deadline and tried to intuit some of the results, or force them. There are a few problems there. I originally thought the paper was due at the end of December, but it was end of November. I have an idea for a paper with respect to the next contest, but I have not started anything yet. I am not sure how we have been discussing here fits into the theme.

The existence of 10 and 11 dimensions can be understood with no reference to strings, but instead the Jordan J^3(O). The 27 dimensional Jordan algebra with a constraint on the z_i’s, 0 = z_0^2 – z_1^2 - z^2 (lightcone condition) reduces the number of free parameters to 26 - -> the bosonic string. The bosonic string has a spectrum that is SO(24), which is related to SO(8)xSO(8)xSO(8), which connects to octonions. The bosonic string is sort of the cornerstone in a way. I have been working on this with connection to the Leech lattice, but I will send that personally, for things get pretty long and dense.

The biggest problem with string theory is it fails to be constrained. There may be a “landscape,” but the problem is that things go off into various speculations about multiple universes and the like. I think these may correspond to amplitudes for cosmologies, but I think the observed universe is the one which assumed what I call classicality. The other were not selected. The other problem has been that string theory imposes a curvature deviation on a flat metric, which has all the problems of bimetric theories of general relativity. Of course this is a part of a whole series in the string α, which on a smaller scale gives departures from GR. However, if the background is something which is determined, eg the AdS, then this is less of a problem.

Twistors are clever, but it seems they have fallen into disuse of late. They are a sort of sheaf theory of spinor pairs. The constraint on the J^3(O) could be a basis for a generalizion into a twistor system of octonions.

Cheers,

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 03:10 GMT
Hello Ray,

My motivation to study all those number systems stems from physics, not from math. Case in point: complex numbers. Complex numbers are more than just a pair of real numbers. Real numbers are related to orthogonal groups, classical local reality, and classical mechanics. Complex numbers are related to unitary groups, and non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Bohmian quantum mechanics can be very simply derived from decomposing the wavefunction in the real and imaginary parts, but it gives the wrong picture of reality when relativity is included. Why? Because Bohmian approach does not handle well the spin and any statistical theory based on Kolmogorov’s axioms does not violate Bell’s inequalities. Even without relativity, Bohmian’s picture of reality is bizarre. Take the hydrogen atom. If the electron has a definite position and momentum, it cannot orbit the proton because it will radiate energy. In Bohmian quantum mechanics, the proton and electron in a hydrogen atom are not moving despite their electromagnetic attraction.

So now we have all those mathematical objects like Lie groups, Lie algebras, and number systems and we need to understand them all. What does this mean? In general we encounter division, commutativity, associativity, orientability, and the square root of minus one. What is the physical significance of those properties? Finding the answer to those questions is essential to understand how the puzzle pieces are put together by Nature who seems to have no problem reconciling quantum mechanics with relativity.

Force the pieces together in the wrong sequence an one obtains string’s landscape, or LQG’s Lorenz violations, or non-commutative geometry incorrect prediction of Higgs’s mass.

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 04:30 GMT
Lawrence,

Al least you were able to write the paper, I discovered the contest in December and it was too late for me. I still think you can write a paper for this contest and say something like: it is ultimately possible to explicitly show how Hawking’s radiation is not thermal. Then present some math that is either easy to understand, or easy to check in literature and explain how it...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 09:16 GMT
Hi all ,

Lawrence ,

I understand your point of vue and I can understand the fact what some people must rest in their optic because it exists a team ,a business or a critical professionality .

The problem is other .

I am very sad to see so many big minds and big intelligences focus on these exeptional silly things.

The physic is not a play of notoriety or a play...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 15:10 GMT
I had some advices and I must improve the name of my theory ,

Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,

What is the best name ,The theory of spherization and sphericalization and the sphericity and the rotations of spheres .All must be present .I don't know .In French "Sphérisation" is good but not in English ,I needs a good name .

The aim is to find the best adapted name .Or the theory of spheres and sphericalization .Could you help me ?

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 15:13 GMT
Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics proved to be useful for me in some work on quantum chaos about 20 years ago. The beable particle in its classical(like) motion exhibit Lyapunov exponents for chaotic nonlinear systems. Yet I think it is of limited utility, and I think that many Bohmist's take the particle ontology too literally. Quantum mechanics is funny when it comes to ontology, and quantum wave functions are more epistemic than ontic IMO.

The H-atom in Bohm's theory is odd, for the elctron-beable just sits still in space relative to the proton, where the quantum potential counters the Coulombic force. I one might get the electron moving in the cartoon version of the solar system-like atom. Some work with the EM field might find the Brehmmstralung radiation (or beable photons) emitted and reabsorbed by the electron-beable. However, all of that appears to be a nightmare of frustrating work.

As a rule I find it best to consider the maths we use as model systems. I don't worry excessively over whether i = sqrt(-1) has some physical meaning, or whether this or that quantum interpretation is right or wrong. Even with all of this prospect for octonionic QFT, it really amounts to a model system which might tell us about something we might observe in the universe. We of course like to think that the theoretical constructions we derive are in some way or the other real, but there is some sort of strange ontological relativity between what is real and what is epistemology.

These things are interesting to ponder at times, so long as one does not get lost in these concerns. They are fun to consider in conversations over Scotch and cigars. :-)

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 17:03 GMT
Steve Dufourny wrote: Why we are on Earth simply?

I am not a partisan of the strong anthropic principle. So I can't say what our purpose is or why we are on Earth. I can however give a partial answer to what function we may serve, that some will not like. On balance consider what we generate collectively, or what we end up producing. The almost unavoidable conclusion is that we make garbage. It appears that our role on this planet is to tear everything down as rapidly as we can to convert it all into trash. We appear to be engineering the next mass extinction of the planetary biome or biosphere.

Of course we create things that exist in what some call the noosphere (noesphere?), which is the domain of our conscious existence. Trying to figure out the foundations of the universe is a part of that. Yet all of that is internal to ourselves. When it comes to anything external to ourslves we appear to just largely be making one hell of a mess.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 18:13 GMT
I had thought of a topic involving whether we can apply the Born rule to cosmology for this essay contest. So far I have done nothing along these lines. With respect to what we are talking about I suppose maybe something involving the Jordan matrices and a quantum error correction code might work. The question might be posed on whether we can teleport states through a black hole, "Can a black hole act as a quantum communication channel?", or some such thing.

I read Rovelli's paper. He argues that time does not exist. I will say that it is interesting there is no time operator particularly. There have been proposals for this, but as yet a time operator appears elusive. There is no underlying classical Poisson bracket structure between time and the Hamiltonian. So time does appear to be a manifestation of measurement, or due to a coarse grained observation of a system. A clock is after all an observation producing machine, such as detecting quantum oscillations of Ce atoms. This does not mean that there is not some dimension along which our time measurements correspond.

Rovelli is a loop variablist and is a Wheeler deWitt equation maven. The AdM constraint NH = 0 translates into the Schrodinger-like equation HΨ = 0, where time is absent. ADM relativity and its WDW canonical quantization define constraints, which are part of the Lagrangian on the bare action S_b = ∫π^{ij}dg_{ij}. Time might sort of mysteriously produce energy with dg_{ij} = (dg_{ij}/dt)dt, where the “time” here is some arbitrary parameter, indeed is best chosen as the proper time. Indeed if reduced to a flat space situation for a single particle π^{ij}dg_{ij} = mcds, and this reproduces the geodesic equation.

Your description of the quantion and state vectors appears similar to my approach with the S-matrix. I too am going to have to get back to other work here.

Cheers,

LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Likewise, we convert "useful energy" into "garbage energy" because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Is there any chance that we might be able to use the AdS Universe on the M2-brane to cheat the Second Law?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 19:44 GMT
If there are solutions it will not come from exotic physics particularly. As this M2-brane has physics that parallels graphene, I do think graphene may prove to be a cheap solar PV system. There are other alternative energy approaches as well. In a more general setting it might come down to what a doctor recommends to a person who is 150lbs overweight: Curb your eating behavior!

Much of our future may depend upon some shift in how we see ourselves, how we treat each other, how we see ourselves in the universe, and our relationship with other living things and the planet as a whole. The hypercommercalized consumer based world we have built up is simply not sustainable. We will either exhaust the energy and material resources it requires or we will drown in our own wastes --- maybe both.

That last part is the hard part IMO. This is particularly the case for Americans who see themselves as some exceptional society with a mandate for hyperconsumerism. Some of the recent economic problems and political debates may be indicators of some fault lines developing in the so called "American way of life." Fuel prices are being pressured upwards on average as the petroleum resource extraction rate of growth has slowed, but we are competing with rising Asian nations.

cheers,

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 22:36 GMT
Lawrence,

I did not have this much fun discussing physics in a long time. And you can potentially make a string convert out of me. I kept an eye on string theory over time, but I did not feel any real excitement about it. However, your posts are bringing out the spark again.

Regarding Rovelli, he has a landmark paper with Connes (I cite it in my essay) and that basically solves the problem of time in the LQG framework. There are thinks I like, dislike, or disagree with LQG. First, the Wheeler de Witt equation is conceptually flawed. There is no such thing as the wavefunction of the universe, and I think that by now nobody should take the Born rule seriously in cosmology. (Its generalization to relativistic quantum mechanics is called the Zovko rule.) Actually last weak there was a paper on the archive about this, called “Born again” if I am not mistaken. Lorentz violations are also something I do not like. But there is an old paper which shows how LQG can arise from SO(2,4). And this is where I worry, since this can lead to the Einstein-Cartan gravity unified with electromagnetism in the quantionic approach, a potential dead end.

Back to Rovelli and Connes, the problem with Connes’ results in general is that they are too mathematical and have only a primitive physics intuition on the surface. I did not understand for a very long time what he does in his geometry (and I actively asked around for people who could explain it to me, but found none) until quantions led me straight into it and suddenly it all makes perfect sense. His area is also very hard from the mathematical point of view and I am still learning it right now.

I agree Bohm’s interpretation proved valuable, particularly because it led Bell to discover his inequalities, but by now it is time to move on. If this is not a lost cause in physics, I do not know what is. But still, this begs the question, why sqrt(-1) and complex numbers appear in quantum mechanics? When you understand the answer, quantum mechanics becomes suddenly very intuitive. This is good for ontological sanity and for selecting the right problems to work on. And the discussion is fun not only over Scotch and cigars, but in essay contests as well ;)

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 23:15 GMT
I have a rule about string theory: There is lots of good structure there, it is too good to be completely false, but ... never believe in it. This holds in a way with theory in general. String/M theory is more of a framework (metatheory) than a theory. It has some problems with how it treats general relativity, which I think might mean it is not general enough. Conversely it fails to constrain at low energy, which is where loop variables, twistors, causal nets, and the like might come to the rescue to make string theory a working theory that tells us something about local physics.

BTW loop quantum gravity is plagued by its own demons as well. I wonder at times if the anomalies or problems in strings and LQG in some ways cancel each other.

More later tonight (my time)

cheers,

LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 23:36 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I plan on finishing version 3.1 of my paper tomorrow - I'll send it and a pdf of my book to you as soon as I finish (the paper corrects a couple of ideas in the book - I paid closer attention to symmetries and sub-symmetries this year). I agree that M-Theory has good structure. You will see that I approached the problem from a very different perspective, and yet still end up with M-Theory-like structure. As you say, though, it is only a framework. I think Gravity arises from the real part of the union of a Quaternion and an Octonion, but there are details to work out - it might actually involve a Quantion.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 30, 2009 @ 02:05 GMT
Florin,

I have a couple of books on noncommutative geometry, including Connes' book. They are pretty mathematical. Noncommutative geometry is an aspect of both string theory and LQG. I think that the I_2(5) might have something to do with inducing noncommutative coordinates on the AdS, but I am not sure about that right now. There is some sort of tunnelling from S^3, with dodecahedral tiling to R^3, and the I_2(5) might be some sort of quantum geometry.

A noncommutative geometry is a sort of wave function of the universe. By noncommutative geometry I mean where [x_i, x_j] = Għ/c^3δ_{ij}δ(x_i – x_j), or related result. The wave functional of Hawking and Hartle is suggestive, but a path integral of the form

|Ψ> = ∫δ[g]δ[φ]exp[i(G_{ijkl}π^{ij}π
;^{ij} + V[g]) + iS(φ)]|0>,

is difficult to interpret. This is a summation over 3-spatial geometries, but it is not clear what this means as a foliation of such geometries into paths. Hawking & Hartle did compute a transition probability from a flat or FRW spacetime to a deSitter spacetime with this. Yet to me it is unclear how this tells us the transition occurs in an evolutionary sense. The Wheeler DeWitt equation is after all a constraint equation. There is no dynamics in it. I’d be interested in the paper which derives LQG from AdS group, and I wonder if the addition of the I_2(5) would result in spin network structure.

Cheers,

LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 30, 2009 @ 02:09 GMT
RAy,

I would be interested in seeing what you have to say about this E_{12}. This looks related to my H_4xE_8, but with more structure. I too have a paper of notes (nothing in publishable form) on strings, black holes and the N@-brane as the singularity, which I can send in its raw form.

cheers,

LC

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 30, 2009 @ 03:42 GMT
About causal nets, the results are rather weak. The strength of a theorem is inverse proportional with the number of its assumptions, and causal nets assume rather too much from the beginning. I very much doubt LQG is going to solve string theory’s problems and the other way around. LQG has a lot of trouble with the coefficient in front of the black hole entropy formula, and you need to basically fix it by hand and this is indicative of missing of a(n unknown) basic ingredient. Compared with strings, LQG appears rather naïve and overly simplistic. On the other hand, I think Ashtekar’s variables are a huge step forward.

Strings have many good accomplishments, but their aspiration to become the TOE is grotesquely exaggerated. There is a huge energy gap between weak force and gravity, and we have many very interesting unsolved problems with the standard model and whatever good ideas we have in one domain must have almost no relevance in the other. Think of the differences between the physics of the weak interaction and the physical laws at our macroscopic level. How much do they have in common?

Strings predict extra dimensions. Where are those dimensions exactly, why we do not see them? Why only 3 spatial directions are large? How about the positive cosmological constant? Etc, etc. Strings explain more, but have bigger problems. And when so many bright people worked in the area for decades with not much to show in terms of concrete predictions, something is fundamentally wrong at play here. I feel that those extra dimensions are basically internal degrees of freedom casted as dimensions in a language of math we do not fully understand yet. String research is basically math research but with a twist: with an inherited monopoly on fundamental research funding from the era when theoretical physics was validated and its excesses were kept in check by experiments. (The bootstrap and parton mistakes were eventually corrected by experiments)

One thing I am amazed is how people working in the 2 camps are making lemonade out of lemons. Lorenz violations are now becoming experimental predictions in an area where experiments are hard to come by, and the landscape is just giving us a chance to exist and think about strings.

About non-commutative geometry you say it is a sort of a wavefunction of the universe. Yes and no. Yes, it is a relativistic QM “wavefunction”, but this has not very much in common with a Hilbert space. The state “space” of quantions does not have the Hausdorff’s property and while it has N^3 degrees of freedom it does not have N^3 dimensions. The very idea of a distance is meaningless here. The relevant math here is category theory and Hopf algebras. Grgin’s composability principle for example is very close to the basic category concept.

About the link between SO(2, 4) and LQG, here are two results:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v75/i11/p2074_1

htt
p://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v51/i4/p1674_1

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 30, 2009 @ 12:57 GMT
It's interesting all that .

I think some synergies can be inserted with the correlation with fields ,spherical fields for me ,if the strings can help ,it's there for the fields ,but some foundamenatls must be correlazted ,I repeat for me ,with the rotating quantum spheres which implies the rest thus mass ,gravity ,fields .

I think what if the spherical laws are inserted ,the results can be very intersting ,but gauges are essentials .

The singularity thus the main coded spheres and its informations .The quantum architecture and its spheres in rotations implying fields.

There the waves are in a specific dynamic where all is linked by these rotations .The strings in a closed spherical membran is logic ,in all spherical comportments in fact .The waves ,the fields ,the gravity ,the mass ,the energy can be linked too .Thus with these foundamentals and good mathematical real extrapolations ,the momentum,thus the velocity of rotations can be found .The volume is important too .

If we consider the entanglement with a specific quantum architure and its billions billons billions spheres in rotations ,thus we have indeed a space between ,I can understand the notion of special spaces different than the dark matter there between quantum spheres .Personnally the entanglement of spheres in maximum contact is the best system for the rotations .These space are for me a kind of wall and we can extrapolate them but we can't see them ,and that never I think .These spaces well thought by the ultim equation are there for these quantum spheres and for the rotations to become what they must become .

Never these spaces shall permit an other thing I think .

But the quantum fiel theory is interesting when all is linked by the foundamenatls .

A space is a pure physical reality with a specific rule .It's more interesting to focus on the space what we have around us .The walls always the wals in fact .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 30, 2009 @ 14:46 GMT
I too doubt that LQG will solve problems in string theory.

The connection between AdS group and Astekar variables might be worth something. The SU(2,2), or its Euclideanized version SU(4), embeds the the symplectic group Sp(4),. With ADM relativity this symplectic group might identify

{π^{ij}(x), g_{kl}(y)} = δ^i_kδ^j_kδ(x – y),

for g_{ij} the 2-dim metric element. We might then go to spinors with π^{ij} = σ^ip^j g_{kl} = σ_ke_j and the symplectic group is over the conjugate variables (p, e). So this might form the basis of 2+1 gravity or quantum gravity.

I am a bit tied up today, but I will try to get back later this evening.

Cheers,

LC

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 30, 2009 @ 17:06 GMT
The time like a singularity too ,hum hum .

The new appraochs by Astekar and these new variables .

What I find interesting is the space like an kind os particle .

In my model ,this space is a quantum architecture of spheres without rotations .

The equations of Dewitt and Wheeler weren't finish .

The general relativity and the the gravity always and the gauge .

The QLG don't solve the uification ,the rotations of spheres I think are more logics .

Dear Lawrene ,can I have your point of vue about the entropy of a black Hole for exemple ,I think really it exists foundamental reasons to all ,the computing is different than our physical Universe .The time evolution and the complexification must be inserted with the informations too .

The methodology can have an harmony between mathematical equations and the physical dynamic .

The Plack lenght needs some new appraochs it seems me .The aim is to find a concrete method.

The Lagrange method more spheres in rotations can be insert with pragamatism .

A big question form me is the invariances ,how can we adapt the time evolution and the increase of mass .

Let's take the gravity which is different in all point of the Earth ,on the surface ,due to the differences of h.

It's indeed logic to have this weak changement ,an other point important is these increasings of mass by evolution of complexification ,a very very weak .

increasing all times .

Thus the gravity changes in Time and Space .The invariances without the time is impossible because the time is a piece of the building .

The invariances are there but needs improvements and adaptations.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 31, 2009 @ 08:56 GMT
Hi all ,

It's nice dear Ray ,

I like this name what I chose ,The theory of spherization and sphericalization,a Grand Unified Theory of Spheres .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 3, 2009 @ 03:06 GMT
Hi Steve,

Sphericalisation is too long and a difficult combination of sounds to say easily, in my opinion. Spherization and spherification are equally easy to say and could both equally mean to make into spheres.

Spherization with z is more like American English with s like UK English. Spherification is used currently to describe liquid made into spheres in food preparation but could be used for any object or material.

Sphereoidation could also be used. I.e. to make into something sphere-like. Sphere is a nice word that is easy to say, so a combination using this word as in you last suggestion is also good.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 3, 2009 @ 12:03 GMT
Hi Georgina,

It's nice ,thank you very much .

Your explainations permit me to understand better the whole .

What do you think about "The Theory of Spherisation and spherification,a Grand Unified Theory of Spheres ".

Kind Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 3, 2009 @ 20:27 GMT
Hi Steve,

I think that spherisation and spherification are essentially expressing the same meaning, so both together are unnecessary. Either one would convey the meaning adequately. My personal opinion is that spherification has a slightly softer and more natural sound whereas spherization or spherisation sounds slightly harder and more mechanistic. The difference is very subtle though and does not alter the actual meaning conveyed, which is a process that makes something into spheres.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 4, 2009 @ 18:52 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I am not good to find the best name lol

Thus The Theory of Spherification,a GUT of Spheres .

You know der Georgina ,don't hesitate to tell me the most appropriated for you .

In all case ,it's very nice ,thanks .

Kind Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 4, 2009 @ 20:24 GMT
It has a good sound Steve.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 5, 2009 @ 08:47 GMT
Thanks .

OK I take this one .In English "The Theory of Spherification ,a GUT of spheres ."

And In French "La théorie de la Sphérisation,Une Théorie unifiée des sphères ."

Kinds Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 6, 2009 @ 10:58 GMT
Hi all ,

I think a lot about the best dynamic four our Universal building .

if the expansion is a balance between a specific Anti de Siterr space and pseudosphere and that with a closed Universe .

We can thus extrapolate with cosmological spheres too with volume and mass without forget the increase of mass .

The unknew is the dynamic with these accelerations and decelerations ,the different steps oof our dynamics if specific like an harmonical sequence .

If the space ,the dark matter is quanrum spheres without rotations it's relevant about the contraction .

If the singularity of begining is the center ,the geometrical form with the time space dynamic of polarizations isspecific too .

Thus new parameters ,variables are necesery when we analyzes the Universe .

In logic the nearest are .....it's there that the relativity is important to analyzes these cosmological datas .

The expansion is spherical and closed .

Thus a maximum volume with a maximum distance between mass is relevant .

It's possible to see some symetries about accelerations and decelerations and that to fin and extrapolate this maximum volume ,If the space becomes mass ,the contraction appears and the mass and the gravity increases .The mass systems complexificate themselves towards the universal center .

It's there what the physical limits are essential .

The mass implies curves and the mass increases in this spherization logic .

The rotations and the mass are directly linked like a new universal constant .

In this logic the Univeral sphere don't turn and has the maximum mass in the unification .The dark matter are particles ,quantum spheres in wait I think .What I find interesting it's the possibility to have some exponentials due to this contraction .Personally I don't what is our actual dynamic ,accelerations,decelerations ,expansions ,contractions ??? Logiclly if the contraction is already there ,we should see these effects even in our solar system by a very very very weak approachment near cenetrs thus the Sun .It's the same with the mass ,it increase too but theses electromagnetic interactions are very very weak thus difficult to find .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Rick Lockyer wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 00:53 GMT
For some meat-and-potato Electrodynamics cast in octonion algebra, look here:

www.octospace.com

Interesting math has actually found Physics. There is an additional central force beyond the charge-electric field force. Gravity?

Rick Lockyer

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 01:54 GMT
Hi Rick, Thank you. Link like this Ricks paper Just found how to do that recently myself.

Interesting to see your proposal for an alternative explanation for the 2 different components of EM waves.If there were not so much correspondence of my own model with existing physics as well as self consistency and ability to answer so many of the fundamental questions I would be more enthusiastic about this alternative.

I think that light and therefore all EM consists of waves travelling through an unknown medium. Two different wave components are identified. One changing position along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension, the other changing position across 3D space. There is a property of that unknown medium that fixes the propagation ratio at which the EM changes spatial position through 3D space and 4th dimension of space. So the 2 are inseparable being manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon. This is within a quaternion geometric structure with the same orientation of dimensions as space-time but the material universe is changing position along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension toward the centre of the hypersphere.

Please excuse my nativity if I ask ignorant questions.Did you try the same thing with quaternion algebra first? Would a spatial dimension at 90 degrees to the space along which the three vector dimensions progress be something that quaternion algebra could be used to model? Could it be done as a series of static geometries through which the EM then travels, just as a representative model? Yes or no and why would suffice. I ask because that is part of the model that I believe needs construction. I have been told that it can't be done but I am convinced that it can and must be done (sooner or later).What is your opinion please?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 02:23 GMT
Rick, Thanks for the link. I will look at this. I have worked on string-gauge theory with exceptional and octonionic algebras.

Cheers, LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 03:17 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Yes. All four of Maxwell's Equations of Electromagnetism can be cast as one elegant (but difficult to use) quaternionic equation. I think I have that in my class notes from graduate school (buried in the garage). I realized how important the Clifford divisor algebras were after I saw that application.

I know you are proposing a "prime quaternion" model. Quaternions are four-dimensional and decompose as 1 scalar, 4 polar vectors, 6 anti-symmetric tensors, 4 axial vectors, and 1 pseudo-scalar. My only emphasis here is that quaternionic "vectors" are 4-plets.

I an working with a quaternion and octonion that mix via Clifford bivector interactions. Octonions are eight-dimensional and decompose as 1 scalar, 5 polar vectors, 10 symmetric tensors, 10 anti-symmetric tensors, 5 axial vectors, and 1 pseudo-scalar. As such, my model is 12 dimensional and yields a 4 dimensional Spacetime (the quaternion) plus an (unusual) 8 dimensional Hyperspace (the octonion).

Lawrence is working with a 27 dimensional union of three octonionic E8's times a J^3(O) that may decompose into something similar to my model at intermediate scales.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 09:35 GMT
Jason,

I think I'll forgive him. Appears to me to be a classic case of narcissistic personality disorder.Bully online link

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 09:42 GMT
Jason, that last post was in reply to your much appreciated support over on "Is the world made of wave vectors." It probably is just as well that I posted it here by error.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 10:15 GMT
Georgina,

I read several of his posts. I really want to be diplomatic in my commentary. There are some people in this world who enjoy the flow of articulate sounding words, but are not too interested in its content or meaning. If the author sounds excited about what he's writing, he draws a crowd of such people. It's like listening to music. Most lyrics don't tell a story or have any content. The words just sound good.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 10:56 GMT
Ray,

I've lost where you replied to my question to Rick, because you have just dropped off the side bar.I've had a search but can't find you again! Wanted to say thanks Ray, much appreciated. Wish I could reciprocate but I am aware of my own limitations. Does one wave travel the scalar dimension and the other through vector space? Incidentally the Prime means primary, as in foundational, not prime as in prime number.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 11:02 GMT
Ray, silly me you were here all the time.

Jason, you have made a very wise, and diplomatic, assessment of the situation in my opinion.I agree.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 13:05 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Primary Quaternion sounds good as well.

As I understand the scalars, they are dot products, contractions, or gradient products of vectors that result in a simple scalar. A simple example is Gauss's Law: (Grad)(dot)(E) = rho/epsilon, where Grad is a vector derivative, E is the electric field vector, dot is the dot product of two vectors yeilding a scalar, and rho/epsilon is the charge content (a scalar).

If you want to separate Space and Time, I think you need Pauli matrix algebra, which is a complex 2+2 dimensional space with the same order as Quaternions, but contains 3-vectors, not 4-vectors. The symmetries of this algebra break into (1 scalar, 3 polar vectors, 3 axial vectors, 1 pseudo-scalar) x 2.

Think of it this way: complex 2-D Vectors (the Pauli Matrices) is approximately equivalent to a real 4-D Quaternion, complex 4-D Quaternions is approximately equivalent to a real 8-D Octonion, etc.

I was trying to be diplomatic and funny with Frank. I would leave this site if a grudge match started and people stopped respecting others. He is an educated and intelligent man, and very insistent about his position, but we all have different backgrounds and scientific qualifications.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 14:07 GMT
Hello ,

It's not serious ,let's go dear friends ,a little hand in the hand of the other and it's ok to discuss again with pragmatism .

Dr Ray It's well said that ,me too I don't like certain things .I have always gone to the more quiet garden where the respect is there ,the critic catalyzes but not the non respect .We are all differents ideas and the sharing of knowledge is better than a lost of times indeed .

I am sure they are going to make the peace between them because they are intelligents in fact .I am right no ? Frank and Georgina ,be coooooooool we are not here in an enterprize but on a forum .Like say Ray ,have fun .

Let's take a drink hihihi

In fact hihihi I have personally a bad character ,I am arrogant sometimes ,but the respect is important ,the humor too ,thus I am not well placed to say that lolhihihi but I evolve and learn all days ,after all it's the most important .The most of times ,interesting minds ,and scholars or intelligents have a big default ,their vanity ,and be sure I am the first to be like that ,is important.Even sometimes ,people forget all with their models ,only that is important ,it's sad in fact ,we lost times ,simply .

Hope the interactions between both of you shall be better to catalyze the discussions ,and continue the roads of synergies .

Let's continue dear friends on the roads of phyysiccccssssss and TRUTH.

Take care sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 14:07 GMT
Quaterions are Clifford algebraic elements, such as the Dirac matrics are Cl_{3,1}(R), and the N = 8 supersymmetry is defined on CL_{7,1}(R) with 2^N = 256 elements. The system is associative, even if over an octonionic basis. With appropriate Cartesian products Clifford algebras may be extended to larger algebras, such as tensor products with quaternions.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Lawrence and Georgina,

Yes, Dirac's Gamma Matrices are a representation of Quaternionic Algebra. There are five gamma matrices, but the first four:

$\gamma^{0}, \gamma^{1}, \gamma^{2}, and \gamma^{3}$

perform the purpose of 4-vectors, and the fifth gamma matrix:

$\gamma^{5}$

is the psuedo-scalar. If Georgina identifies gamma(5) as time, then she has ignored one of the 4-vectors. This is why I think her approach with 3-D Space and a scalar time requires the Pauli Spin Matrices.

Georgina, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_matrices and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_matrices for more details.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 17:25 GMT
The fifth gamma iγ_0γ_1γ_2γ_3 = γ_5 is an orientation. It defines a chirality. I never have heard it considered as associated with time.

Of course one can use the spinor approach to Fermi-Dirac quantum fields, but one has left and right versions, which implicitely define pairs that are quaternions.

Cheers,

LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 19:46 GMT
Certainly Dirac's Gamma matrices fall directly out of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, and the interpretation is that these matrices represent spinors.

These Dirac matrices are the four-dimensional generalization of two-dimensional Pauli matrices, and we can build Dirac spinors out of twistors, or pairs of Pauli spinors. The necessity for pairs is due to the fact that a real Quaternion (4-D, order 16) is twice the size of a real Vector (2-D, order 8),

and this is what Nature demands to properly represent intrinsic spin.

Georgina - Is this an idea, or have you built the mathematical framework? If you framed the mathematics in Quaternions, then I am suggesting that you might want to look at Pauli matrices instead.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 22:09 GMT
Ray,

Thanks for your ideas. The quaternion geometric structure already exists. I do not want to separate space and time. I want the same structure but inseparable space-space not space-time. No,there is no time so I do not want that 5th gamma and I don't want 4 vectors. 4 vectors of space doesn't work. Just wondered if the EM quaternion calculations further corroborated this model.They should.

You are correct about the name perhaps Primary would be better. However I chose it before I realising the ambiguity.

Social intelligence is of impotence as well as intellectual intelligence. There is a difference between constructive criticism, which can be countered with reasoned argument or logical debate, and personal insult.Normal adult social intelligence allows one to comprehend the difference and respond appropriately. I have already said to Frank that I have no more questions or comments to make to him.There is no grudge.I understand his personality and the communication difficulties this causes him.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 22, 2009 @ 05:54 GMT
Oops, that should have said "importance" not "impotence"!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 22, 2009 @ 10:38 GMT
Still a new thing for me ,the spinor approach to Fermi-Dirac quantum fields,thanks Lawrence

Georgina,

I understand !

,about your space space not fourth vector.....It is a good idea when you develop some ideas and that to help to encircle the whole ,we understand better your spatio energeyic model without time .

Like say Ray ,we must all know more about time ,it's a beautiful parameter of evolution and we bad understand it,the past is the past but the present and future are relevant indeed .

Hope we encircle more than a simple constant of evolution ,two roads thus ....personnally I don't see an other rule for time ,but perhaps some proofs shall show us an evolution about datas .At this moment it's a constant of evolution .If the times permits to check the space and movement ,there it's relevant indeed ....but how do ,all is there ?

Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,

could you tell me more about Dirac Spinor ,are there some links with the Fermi works.What are the essentials ? a kind of conclusion .

I d like insert some equations for the changements of senses of rotation of my quantum spheres and the spherical wave and their input and output .Like an universal heart ,theses waves and theses changements of rotations are correlated in this logic in my opinion ?

An incredible music of oscillations ,an ultim frequence with so many frequences and all linked by many news constants of rotations of spheres .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Rick Lockyer wrote on Aug. 22, 2009 @ 16:31 GMT
Georgina,

I saw no advantage to using quatenions over the standard 4D tensorial approach of going up in tensor rank to mathematically cover the fundamental intrinsic differences between the E and B fields. I have always thought the proper dimension count was 8.

Looking at the unlike vector component products of E (polar) and B (axial) in terms of their signs after xyz inversion, axial component multiplication is a closed set, i.e. unlike axial * axial is axial type. But unlike polar * polar is axial type, and unlike axial * polar is polar type. To represent this fundamentally with an algebra, the multiplication rules for the basis elements must show this. Looking at the rules for octonions, there is a perfect fit.

This can not be done in the algebra of quaternions, for there is only a closed set rule. This prevents quaternions from spanning the required vector space without some formalism such as presented by rank 2 tensor.

As for a required medium for transport of energy, I do not see it in the octonion representation any more than my having any issues with the historic arguments against I have shown the form for the Octonion Poynting vector demonstrating the notion of energy flux with no connection to any medium. As for geometric representation, some connection may be there which may help in visualization, but my thoughts seldom go there now.

Rick Lockyer

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 22, 2009 @ 20:23 GMT
Thanks Rick,

Sorry if I sounded too dismissive of your work. It is fascinating when things appear to fit so well.You have noticed something interesting.It appears to fit with currently accepted opinion, that space is an empty void (onto which dimensions can attributed by the mind to permit comprehension)within which fields exist without any medium of transmission. Thank you for sharing it with us.I am sure you will lots of interest in your work here. However it doesn't "work" for me for the reasons I outlined.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 23, 2009 @ 02:43 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I apologize, but my notes from graduate school are buried. I took those notes in 1992, finished my doctorate in 1996, moved three times since, and it is probably packed in one of many plastic storage tubs in my garage. Sorry!

On Wikipedia, I found a page that gets us about 75% of the way to a single Quaternionic equation for all four of Maxwell's Equations of Electromagnetism. Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor

Pleas
e note all of the 4-vectors: 4-vector derivative, 4-vector potential "A" (which includes voltage), and the 4-vector current "J" (which includes charge).

Rick is correct that axial vectors and polar vectors are important. In Quaternion algebra, these are both 4-vectors. I think Rick is overlooking the six antisymmetric tensor components that also exist in Quaternion algebra. These tensor components play a very important role as the Electromagnetic Field Tensor.

Certainly Time has different conversion factors than Space does and raises interesting questions about Time's role, but Time consistently enters as part of a 4-vector. As I said earlier, if you want to separate Space and Time into a 3-vector and a scalar (if that is even physically relevant), then you must use pairs of Pauli matrices in a creative way (that I haven't pulled together into mathematics) and this approach might not even include Electromagnetism.

For my own theories, I like a 12-D union of a Quaternion and an Octonion. The Quaternion represents Spacetime. Electromagnetism can be cast into one Quaternion equation. The Octonion contains 10 symmetric tensors and 10 anti-symmetric tensors. As such, the Octonion is large enough to contain Einstein's 10 Tensor Field Equations of General Relativity. Octonions contain 5-vectors, and thus justify the 5-brane of String Theory. Uniting the 4-D Quaternion with the 8-D Octonion (into 12-D) yields enough structure to contain both of these theories.

Certainly the Scientific Method is challenged when we have too many theories that cannot be proven or dis-proven by experiment. Even common sense is questionable when we push these limits too far. With language, we can make nearly any argument sound plausible.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 23, 2009 @ 03:50 GMT
Ray, Thank you for the link

I'll put it here again in case it gets deleted Wiki Quaternion electromagnetic equation

Ray, you may well be correct in that I am striving to show a single simple mechanism that will bring everything together and perhaps it can not be done with the mathematics I think should work. Mathematics is not my preferred language for thinking.

Are the extra dimensions that you are working with, above the quaternion 4, representing dimensions that imply ontological structure or just extra degrees of freedom within the mathematics? Describing perhaps the freedom gained by having access to afore and aft space (behind and further along 4th dimension than moving 3D vector space position of the observable space) but described from a three dimensional vector space perspective?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 23, 2009 @ 14:19 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I wish I understood these extra dimensions. Dimensions 5 and 6 seem to be the AdS group on an M2-brane. I think Lawrence understands these dimensions better than I.

At least I think I understand the brane structures of these extra dimensions and the forces that are contained by these branes. And I have a geometric structure to represent the first 12 dimensions. But I don't understand how to apply these ideas towards something useful such as Jason's ideas of Spacetime travel. The AdS is hyperbolic in nature and contains tachyons and anyons. If we could get into that M2-brane, we might be able to manipulate travel throughout Spacetime.

Sometimes math is difficult even for those of us trained in it. Einstein was a great idea man, but struggled some with the math. Dirac was great at ideas and math. I have always admired Dirac. He taught at my Alma mater (Florida State), and is buried within 50 meters of my grandparents - I visit his grave on occasion.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 23, 2009 @ 14:31 GMT
Dear Steve,

One strength of a spherical model is that intrinsic spin is more intuitive than in a string model. Pauli matrices yield intrinsic spin in 3 dimensions, and Dirac matrices yield intrinsic spin and Matter/ anti-matter in 4 dimensions. Please see the following links:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrices_de_Pauli

http://f
r.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrice_de_Dirac

http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Gamma_matrices

I gave both the French and English links for the Dirac matrices because the French link defines Dirac matrices in terms of Pauli matrices (a correct, but more mathematically advanced way of defining Dirac matrices) whereas the English link also gives specific 4-D representations of the Dirac matrices.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 23, 2009 @ 16:49 GMT
Ray,

The closest I've been able to come to an ontological description of how the laws of physics are implemented is as follows. Space itself is a boiling pot of virtual photons and quantum particles that spring into existence and are very soon after detected in a random event, all in observance of the Uncertainty Principle. Virtual photons implement electromagnetism, Maxwell's equations. I believe that the very existence of a 3D spatial + ct space-time is due to the properties of a constant exchange of conserved quantities of these virtual photons. That is why we are told that nothing can travel faster than the speed, because if it did, the virtual photons would not be able to exchange momentum/coordinate information between the two reference frames. As it is, if the objects move by each other at a fraction of the speed of light, the virtual photons that are trying to pass position/momentum information back and forth are having their photons depleted of energy and frequency. The virtual photon that jumped from one frame to the other (going at 0.8c in the other direction), it had to give up quite a bit of frequency (energy) just to make the jump. Efforts to accellerate even faster will require virtual photons to leap between reference frames; with less and less available energy, until the virtual photons are redshifted down to zero energy. By the way, these photons will obey whatever mathematics they are instructed to obey.

Gravity, IMO, works differently. Tachyonic gravitons emit in all directions according to the localized mass density. They move too quickly to be able to collide with matter (mass + imaginary mass cannot collide). However, they can accelerate mass (Newtonian gravity). In the same way that quantum wave amplitudes have their position smeared out accross a region of space, gravitons smear their collision with matter across space as well - that is observed as acceleration.

In E&M, like charges repel. In Newtonian gravity, like mass charges attract. Let's say you were shooting pool. Suppose some sneaky person replaced the 8 ball with a negative mass 8 ball, and placed it at the corner pocket. All the other balls are sunk. When you go to sink the last ball, the 8 ball with negative mass (and a mysterious glow just for the 'effect'), the cue ball would smack it, and the 8 ball would come flying back at you, giving you such a fright! Why would it do that? It's momentum would have reflected off of the side of the pocket if you hit it too hard, anyway (like I do sometimes). But its momentum was already reflected by its negative mass. Just remember, it was just a stupid quantum wave, anyway. When have waves ever behaved rationally? They just act like waves, they don't know any better.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 23, 2009 @ 16:52 GMT
Georgina,

Is there any chance that your fourth spatio-energetic dimension of the same or similar to a double layered p-brane (d-brane) across which superstrings are stretched (allowing them to exist in our universe)? Something like a conduction band?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 00:52 GMT
There are two places where tachyons go. In the early universe they flew off to infinity. Remember that that tachyon is at rest in no frame. This may be associated with some topology change. A virtual three-sphere interior to a virtual wormhole inflates by beng punctured and tunnels into a R^3 space. The point removed is associated with the singularity. Tachyon states, two state configurations of the 26 dimensional bosonic string, are carried off by this point at infinity. The other place is interior to black holes. Closed string which fall into a black hole are transformed into open strungs near the interior and graviton modes vanish. In their place are tachyon modes which form into a condensate. The faster than light strngeness of tachyons is lost as they pack into an energy surface, or 2-brane, of constant energy. This is the quantum singularity in the BH.

In either case, these would be awfully hard to get. M2-brane which results is similar to graphene in a number of respects. The quantum fields on this brane obey anyonic quantum statistics. There are further quantum Hall types of physics which is established. The fields on the M2-brane exhibit a quantum cirtical point, which cuts-off at the Planck energy. The rest of the field theoretic information 11-2 = 9 exhibits a duality where there is also a quantum phase transition.

This connects to the cosmological constant loosely because the tachyons which "go to infinity" are associated with the topology change in the 3-sphere interior to a wormhole. These tachyons determine an identical quantum crticial phase structure, which cancels out the expected huge cosmological constant.

Ray's discussion about quaterions is reasonable. The unification of quaterions and octonions comes with extensions of the Jordan exceptional algebra. The 27 elements are made complex, quaterionic or octonionic, so the quaternionic-octonions are on the E_6.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 06:43 GMT
Jason,

firstly I must say that I have neither the mathematical training nor the natural ability to understand the mathematics of M theory. So I do not know whether the following will answer your question, not knowing the details of the mathematics that you are asking me to compare.

However rising to the challenge. All objects observed within 3D vector space have thickness along the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Rick Lockyer wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 14:55 GMT
Ray,

The six anti-symmetric terms you thought I might have missed are within the same second rank tensor I mentioned was required for proper cover of E and B using quaternions or not if the dimension count is 4. When the octonions are used, no such rank change is required since separate mathematical slots, if you will, for each are naturally available in the octonion field vector.

Jason,

The fact that like charges repel and like mass attracts is also naturally covered by the octonion representation. The double cover of the familiar xyz space by closed set basis multiplication rules defined by quaternion subalgebra (e1,e2,e3) cyclic permutation and open set basis multiplication rules for the basis triplet {e5,e6,e7} using cyclic permutation multiplication rules {e7,e6,e1) (e5,e7,e2) and (e6,e5,e3) are covering xyz with opposite handedness for any valid octonion algebra.

The gravitational field members are the irrotational members of fields in e1,e2 and e3. The electric field members are the irrotational members of e5,e6 and e7. The oriented 3D xyz closed surface normal vectors always point in opposite directions for the above mentioned double cover of xyz. Therefore the field vectors point in opposite directions for like signed source within the enclosed volume, and Green function formalism will indicate the desired like-charge like-mass force difference.

I know this is not where this thread was going, so I will stop budding in.

Rick Lockyer

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear Rick,

These threads often diverge from the original topic.

And certainly, there are many slots to put things into Octonions. Is it a problem that the E and B fields become 5-vectors in an Octonion representation? I would really like to see Einstein's Field Equations in an Octonion representation, but that's too much mathematics for my liking.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 19:06 GMT
Georgina,

It almost sounds as if your model is describing kinetic and potential energy as movement along an additional dimension.

Rick,

In a similar fashion, your description of charges is also described as positions within a "dimension".

That's probably a perfectly good way to set up a physics problem. I find that when I try to describe a hyper-drive physics, I come into conflict with the laws of motion. Any time I try to accelerate a mass, I bump into General Relativity.

It almost seems necessary that a hyper-drive physics is going to require its own set of laws motion. I hope you won't mind if I think out loud.

A frame of reference (e.g. a spaceship with FTL capability) is going to need to move back and forth between real space and hyperspace.

-I define hyperspace as the region, H, between two inertial reference frames, A and B, such that their relative velocity is greater than the speed of light.

Next, let's define the term, 'relativistic space'. In 'relativistic space', any pair of points, E and F, will always exist within a spherical wavefront traveling at the speed of light, c.

-'Relativistic space-time' is defined as a 'relativistic space' where any two points, E and F, will always exist within a spherical wavefront traveling at the the speed of light, AND within a duration of time delta t.

I want to play around with the following idea. Let's consider a very long tube that is completely isolated from any other relativistic space-time. It's lenght is many light years long. I want to consider two objects, each at the center of their own relativistic space-times regions a1 and a2. Both objects are falling within it and have some separation between them. I want to see if there can exist two points within the union of the two regions that are NOT within a relativistic space-time...

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 20:20 GMT
Jason,

Kinetic and potential energy are not describing motion along "another" dimension. The 4 spatio-energetic dimensions are only 4.The same 4 forming the quaternion geometric structure. They each give both an energetic value and a spatial co-ordinate.The scalar dimension is a scale of potential energy. The vector dimensions relate to kinetic energy.

Spatial position along the 4th (scalar) dimension relates directly to potential energy level because there is an absolute frame of reference. That being the exterior and interior of the Megauniverse hypersphere.The vector dimensions are not direct scales of kinetic energy because there is no absolute frame of reference for them. Increase in kinetic energy however is increase in change of position within vector space.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 22:25 GMT
Georgina,

I am studying your post, and this is what I get out of the quaternion model.

1. 4th scalar relates to potential energy.

2. "...being the exterior and interior of the Megauniverse hypersphere..." it sounds interesting, but I don't know what it means.

To be honest, I really need an example and a figure. I guess this comes out of E8xE8 mathematics which requires more mathematics prep than I have. You said that the force of gravity becomes simple in this model. Can you demonstrate that with an example?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 22:40 GMT
Don't worry about general relativity so much. Consider the prospect that the exceptional algebra or Jordan matrix is the foundation of M-theory. The supergravity Lagrangian contains elements which are subject to K-theory of topology under a pullback to a CS form. The resulting Lagrangian then can have a form similar to the Born-Infeld Lagrangian.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 23:20 GMT
Jason,

The 3 vector dimension relate to observable space. However there is another dimension that is at 90 degrees to that space. Giving a quaternion arrangement. The 4th dimension is scalar from the 3D space perspective because it is not possible for us to give it a single direction from that space. Think of the representations of Einstein's space-time, in which to visualise it the 3...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 22:28 GMT
Does this help? The 3D vector space can compressed to a 2D plane, to aid visualisation, a number of points can be drawn on that plane representing the position of objects in the vector space. Now a line can be drawn at 90 degrees to that plane to show the path that will be taken along the 4th dimension by each object as it progresses along the 4th dimension from higher to lower potential energy. 90 degrees to the plane. If the flat 2D plane representing 3D vector space is now curved and formed into a sphere, all of the lines representing the 4th dimension will come together into the centre of that sphere. Which is actually a hypersphere because it has a 3 dimensional surface (imaginary numbers) and a 4th dimension running from exterior to interior(real numbers).

If the lines at 90 degrees to the plane are extended through the plane so that they penetrate into the space above it, this is into aft space. It is not part of the 2D plane that represents all of the 3D space of the universe.

Being a strange 4 dimensional object, I think that it may be that the lines that appear to terminate at the interior of the hypersphere at some 4th dimensional co-ordinate in aft space forming the exterior limit of the hypersphere are actually joined. Making it "water snake- toy like", not in looks but in that exterior and interior are continuous and it is "motion" or rather change in 4th dimensional position, that makes the one become the other. This would allow continuous recycling of the universe (and instantaneous inflation) rather than big bang through 3D vector space.It does overcome the difficulty of explaining the rapid inflation of the universe at the hypothetical big bang which would appear to contradict the Laws of physics.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 09:27 GMT
Georgina,

What you are describing sounds an awful lot like how I visual space-time as the 2D surface of an expaning 3D balloon. Anything inside of the balloon is referred to as 'afore' (before) space. Anything on the outside is 'aft' (after). I think I've got it. You are correct, the universe certainly is a strange 4D hypersphere of an object.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 11:32 GMT
Jason, and what about the explanation of gravity? A few posts back. Does that reply answer your questions fully. Is it a comprehensible and self consistent explanation? Can you see any reason why it need be considered an unacceptable solution?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 11:37 GMT
Georgina ,

The mass ,the gravity is proportional with the velocity of rotations of spheres around themselves .It's only simple like that .

A big velocity implies a weak mass ....An universal link exists between quantum and cosmological rotations thus spheres .

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 12:52 GMT
Steve,

I gave a mechanism for why gravity is experienced in vector space a few posts back, it was shortened but can be expanded to read the explanation. Briefly it is due to change in 4th dimensional spatial position but is not observed as a change in position in vector space but as gravitational force.Explained both in terms of matter in space and energy.I tried to explain how to visualise this in the quaternion spatial structure.

In my opinion. The force of gravity is proportional to mass. The mass energy of a body is due primarily to its change in position along the 4th dimension not rotation, in my opinion. Even a stationary object will have mass. A moving object will have both mass energy due to change in position along the 4th dimension as well additional mass due to its momentum in vector space. As all objects that appear stationary may be moving in another reference frame, mass energy will be the sum of all motion energy within all 4 dimensions of space. Loss of potential energy ie. promotional energy and kinetic energy within vector space. Although I will admit that rotations are important, the asymmetric continuous motion of all matter along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension can not be left out.It is the most important missing factor from modern theory that causes all of the so called "unanswered questions."

The grandfather paradox is solved. The arrow of time, gravity, mass energy, inertia and more can all be explained by taking into account the continuous change in 4th dimensional spatio-energetic change in position. That seems just too many good reasons to discount this model. (There is plenty of room in it for your spheres too.)

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 15:47 GMT
hihihihih,

Well well well ,interestings all that .

I am happy you understand the rule of rotations .All rotates, all are spheres and let's go to the ultim sphere .

There is a place for your model in my spherisation if of course the general relativity and the restricted relativity are balanced .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 16:54 GMT
Georgina you say ,

"The force of gravity is proportional to mass. The mass energy of a body is due primarily to its change in position along the 4th dimension not rotation, in my opinion. Even a stationary object will have mass"

It's a little difficult to admit ,but I try you know to be convinced .

The rotations around themselves can be stationaries No ???

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 18:19 GMT
Georgina,

So the exterior space around an object is moving towards the afore position; this is identical to gravity. I can see what your looking at. I can also see how gravity and time are closely related.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 20:46 GMT
Steve, perhaps I should not have said "your spheres" but spheres, of which you have such fondness.

I'm not sure I understand the question.When I mention a stationary object I was talking about an object perceived to be stationary at the macroscopic scale in vector space by a human observer.

If talking about astronomical observation, one body may orbit another giving combined kinetic and promotional energy (loss of PE.) in the system. The rotation in 3D vector space is not producing the force of gravity in my opinion. The additional unobserved motion along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension is responsible.The rotation of the attracting body will cause disturbance of the unknown medium of space that surrounds it, and that motion transmits a force to the attracted body causing an orbit. However it is only if that motion is combined with change in position along the 4th dimension that the vortex like "gravity well" is generated.If you dislike the whole ideas of a medium of transmission it could be described in terms of variation in the energy within the gravitational field, because in the model I am proposing energy change and spatial change of position are different descriptions of the same thing.

Kinetic energy and spatial change within 3D vector space are the same thing described differently. An object will posses kinetic energy as heat even if it is not observed to be moving. All matter will also be continuously changing position along the 4th spatio energetic dimension, but this is not observed as motion in vector space. Nothing is stationary. No particle and no mass is ever stationary even if it is unable to move in 3D vector space due to energetic or material restraint. A free particle will oscillate along the 4th dimension and a mass must continuously move afore along the 4th dimension, in my opinion.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 20:56 GMT
Oh it's nice dear ,

Your english is perfect ,unfortunally I don't speak english like you ,it's easier to explain in his main language .

I see a fondness for a space space dimension .

Let's be pragmatic and objective .

Your model is not coherent ,sorry but it's like that .

Forget the business please and the fact to sell a book .

You don't use any mathematical development and objectivity .

You say to Frank to apply the objectivity ,and you don't act like that .

Incredible .But Your philosophy is interesting ,not your model but your philosophy ,I invite you to use more physical laws and more mathematical tools and reals please not imaginaries .

Your spatio energetic model is not coherent in the whole but you can improve it .Thus don't stop your extrapolaions .

The mass ,hihihihi I am laughing really .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 21:10 GMT
You know Georgina ,Me too I evolve and complete MY theory of SPHERES (yes it's my theory hihihih)

I am going to improve it all my life in complemenatrity .

For exemple here on FQXi I learn all days with Ray and Lawrence .Because the foundamental are the foundamenatls .

If a theory can't be improved ,thus it's an individualism of business and the sciences haven't any place .

What I say is simple ,all ideas evolve simply and need optimization.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 22:25 GMT
Steve,

I am sorry that you have found the model I have presented incoherent.I have tried my hardest to explain it.

I certainly did not come to this site to sell books and certainly feel rather insulted that you should think that.I wished only to obtain constructive feedback on my ideas from intelligent and scientifically minded people.So that I could identify the logical and scientific errors and improve it where necessary. As well as demonstrate its capabilities in resolving the foundational questions.I have had limited success on both counts and it certainly has not been a wise investment of my time.

There have been a number of interesting and incidental conversations along the way and I have tried to present some other ideas that I have found interesting concerning the comprehension and development of science and mathematics. Perhaps the model does need to evolve and be optimised as you say. I will have to reflect on what that means since there has been a lack of constructive and specific criticism, which I sought for improvement of the model.I am aware that I need to go back to my work and ensure that it is as sound as possible.

Where questions have arisen or disagreements over mechanisms I have just tried to explain how this model would answer those questions.The language barriers have made that difficult at times.

Good luck in all of your endeavours. Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 22:46 GMT
Jason, I am glad that you can see how I have visualised the gravity and its connection to time. I was not actually saying that space external to the object was travelling afore but the outermost region of the object. Never mind, I am happy that I have at least managed to convey some of what I intended. It is best if I leave it at that and get back to real work.

Look after yourself. Good luck with your endeavours, wherever they take you.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 23:16 GMT
One way of treating gravitation is to separate space and time so space is a dynamical entity. In effect the evolution of the spatial manifold foliates out spacetime. There are some other funny elements to this, but that is it in a nutshell. For a central gravity field the evolution of the spatial surface can be thought as points of space which move in to the central body. If the gravitating body is rotating there is a frame dragging effect which spins points around as well.

cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 01:32 GMT
Hi Steve. Balance and completeness go hand-in-hand. "Ground level reality" is the fact that the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general. The union of gravity and electromagnetism/light in dreams is comprehensively indicated in dreams -- and not only in relation to vision. It is because the integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand that the self necessarily represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general.

If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are. See the aspects of continuity and transcendency operating at once?

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 02:00 GMT
FQXi members/Lawrence, gravity and electromagnetism/light are united when scale is balanced, in keeping with both gravity and electromagnetism/light being repulsive AND attractive. The space is both LARGER (or additive) and SMALLER (relative to waking experience/space) at once; and this is in keeping with the space being both invisible and visible (at once). This is the dream.

THE DREAM FYNDAMENTALLY BALANCES AND UNIFIES GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM

You think that the union between gravity and electromagnetism/light -- that is indicated by the addition of a fourth spatial dimension -- is not plainly and significantly obvious in our experience? Talk about no common sense! Admit the truth/facts.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 08:21 GMT
Georgina ,

I don't say what all is not coherent ,just some things like the mass for exemple .

You know Georgina ,all models has non coherences ,in mine too I improve it all times.

In fact your are so creative like many here ,and when the mind works like that it's logic to have foundamentals and incoherences but the most important is to have more coherences than non coherences .

I like your model and the link with Einstein ,be sure .But like all things ,it must be improved .I think really still what the complemenatrity is essential .With Lawrence ,Ray and Jason ...your model will be better .It is well and it can be better simply .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 08:24 GMT
Georgina,

I have been thinking about your model. Forgive me if you've already covered this. The best way I can interpret your model is by imagining that the universe can be compared to a balloon. The 2D rubber surface represents (1) 3D space and (2) a p or d-brane with superstrings representing particles. The balloon happens to be expanding because of the cosmological constant. Afore space is the past (inside of the balloon); btw, time travel is impossible because there is nothing left of our physical universe in the past. Aft is outside of the balloon (the future). From a 3D perspective, the outermost region is traveling towards the center with the flow of time...

I only partly understand it; but as near as I can tell, it represents gravity and time pretty well. I'm left thinking there is some kind of potential energy that could be seen as either (1) temporal potential energy or (2) gravitational potential energy.

Question 1: do large clumps of gravitationally relavent mass (planets, stars, etc...) resist the flow in the aft direction, leading to the appearance of gravity?

Question 2: The cosmological constant appears to drive the expansion of 3D space in the aft direction. Does the cosmological constant partially (or completely) direct the flow of time?

Question 3: When I imagine a rubber balloon expanding, I'm left with the impression that the gravitational constant of the universe really depends upon the properties of the rubber balloon (or rather, the properties of the p/d-brane); did you come to a similar conclusion?

Question 4: Can the 4D potential energy that drives time forward be compared to the different in the Cosmological pressure between aft and afore?

If I can take a tiny patch of p/d-brane and expand it into a tiny balloon with it's own cosmological pressure, I might be able to slide across the aft/afore surface without GR limiting my velocity. This approach my come in useful.

I like your approach; I think it restates GR very well. When you explain the Quaternion model to others, please consider these suggestions: (1) collapse a 3D shape into a 2D plane; (2) consider using the balloon metaphor; (3) explain that afore refers to where the universe was before (the past) and aft refers to where the universe will be after some time has passed. I'll take another look at how the 4D potential energy flows through space, from the outer surface to the inner core, to make sure I have a reasonably good understanding of your model.

Don't let anybody give you a bad time about your model. Their just jealous they didn't think of it first!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 08:29 GMT
You know Georgina,

All days I find non coherences in my model ,and there I try to improve it with fundamental equations because the proofs are essentials in my opinion.

Thus don't stop ,it's on the good road it seems to me .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 08:34 GMT
Frank,

Forgive me, I can't resist the urge to comment.

I now understand how you've unified gravity, electromagnetism, and dreams. You are lying in bed, sleeping, dreaming. The alarm clock goes off. You turn on the light (electromagnetism). You are trying to wake up, your consciousness is shifting between the dream state, sensory, feelings. You try to jump out of bed, but gravity holds you down.

Gravity and electromagnetism are unified with the dream state, feelings and sensory experience when you have to get up early in the morning. Frank, I understand. I too hate getting up early in the morning.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 08:36 GMT
Hope I don't have a team against me because the jealousy is human ,

the spherization by spheres towards spheres ...well well well .

Sorry to have found that really .Sorry to have searched during many years and have this conclusion which unify all .

Anybody will destabilize me and still less MY theory .

If the jealousy is there ,It's normal when a revolutionary model arrives ....

Thus friends don't be jealous ,I wan't that simply .Let's be pragamatic ,

Jason ,when you are one thing to say to an other person ,it's better to say him simply and not in allusions to sattisfy your vanity .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 08:40 GMT
Json ,

We are youngs ,and me too I urge sometimes to answer ....it's not the good solution ,it's better to analyze before .

And that to be in the integrity .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 09:04 GMT
Jason ,

Ask your boss to wake up sooner ...hihihihihi and you will have a good job and a economic stability .All people can play with words and allusions ,it's the easier way of confusion .This kind of words ,I can give you many ,so many .

Thus don't forget that .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 09:14 GMT
FQXi participants. I'm not finished with your lessons.

Francis Bacon says: "...the spirit of man, being of an equal and uniform substance,...."

and

"...so differing an harmony there is between the spirit of man and the spirit of nature."

At the mid-range of feeling between thought and sensory experience in general, it is there that one finds the union of gravity and electromagnetism/light.

The uniformity and harmony of man, substance, and nature is attained to in dreams. No fatigue, CONSTANT energy, no tiredness, proper lighting, no temperature (no hot or cold), etc.

One of the greatest truths that I will teach you all is that the ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light).

This is clear folks; and it is simple as well.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 09:24 GMT
Hi frank and all ,

Before I read many books and the book of Freud about the interpretation of dreams makes me consious of some reality .

The dreams are a big dynamic ,neurological dynamic and indeed it's a captor our brain.

Now how can we adapt the strong interactons ,the gravity ,the weak interactions and the electromagnetism .It's possible with some mathemaical and reals extrapolations .Between your conclusion ,there are many systems between electromagnetism and strong forces ...thus if you unify all by dreams thus you must develop the links between these strong and weak interactioons more the light too .

In all case your spirituality is super and you catalyzes like many people here the research of Truth .It's the most important .Like all you can improve your model .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 10:07 GMT
From the depths of reality, to assist with right and proper thinking:

"Memory and attention are relatively disintegrated in conjunction with experience that is more transient and less extensive. Attention is relatively impaired when it is shifting, variable, and narrow, and these are attributes of memory as well. However, the ideal (or highest) form of genius is able to achieve a superior integration, familiarity, and extensiveness of experience (and thought) in conjunction with (and as the basis for) attention that is not only sustained and consistent, but also shifting, variable, and narrow. In the ideal case of genius, memory adds to the familiarity and integrated extensiveness of experience (and thought) in the form of what can be; since memory integrates experience; and memory, genius, and the dream make experience more extensive. Therefore, when examining dreams, ordinary consciousness, and the experience of genius, it is clear that man has increasingly extensive experience and variety (or range) of habitat because he is capable of greater understanding."

Note that the natural and integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 10:31 GMT
I am happy to see this kind of universality ,indeed we learn by our past genius .

We are all linked by that the knowledges ,the big thinkers shall rest .....

The genius increases by this simple fact ,the sharing of knowledges and the informations .

We are more intelligent due to these persons ....Gallileo ,Newton,Copernic,Einstein,Dirac,Descartes,Fourier,Ostrograds
ki,Euler,the greek philosophes,and many others ,....we continue all these foundamenatls works .

If all people could understand that ,That will be better for all but unfortunally we are youngs ,us the Earthians,and we continue to evolve ....

We become genius by the learning of these past works .....all people can do that ,learn and always learn to find the truths and the truth .

Thanks for sharing this universality dear Frank .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 18:48 GMT
Steve,

I'm a little surprised that my Integrity has been questioned. I've been up front and honest about my motivations the entire time I've been blogging on this website. It must be the language translator that is at fault.

When it comes to hyperdrive physics, I had no idea how resistant the universe is to such things. I am left to wonder if this universe is more like a cosmic fish tank. Humanity is essentially restricted from deep space-travel for a while because the technology required is just too advanced. The walls of the fish tank are the laws of physics, themselves.

This blog is specifically created for discussing Foundation questions such as, How does the universe operate? What is ultimately possible? Is the universe built out of spheres, hyperspheres and superspheres? Is the universe built out of superstrings and branes?

Believe me, even some of the crazy ideas I have come up with have required an enormous amount of thought and contemplation.

If you feel sleighted because some of my comments to Georgina were indirect, then let me be direct with you. I don't understand what part of physics your ideas of Spheres is describing. Is it meant to describe quantum particles? I wish that I could think of a way that rotating spheres equates to mass. You are much better at accounting for spin and angular momentum than I am. I will give you that.

As for Frank and his Unification using dreams, his ideas are even crazier than mine are. Frank's ideas make yours and mine look like common sense.

There you go. I've been honest and forthright with both of you. And Steve, in a competition with the skilled and clever use of words between you and I, the translator would make us both sound like idiots.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 19:15 GMT
Jason ,

All is said ,One thing still ,nothing to do for me .The busine nothing to do ,the silly things ,nothing to do ,the notoriety ,nothing to do ,the media,nothing to do ,....In fact I fuck the system Jason .Ok

I am nice but I dislike allusions and business ,don't forget that and stop the allusions ,my english is not my primary language and it's easy to write with special english words to say some specific things .Thus it's a lack of respect .

If you don't understand my theory ,thus don't speak about it .

You want the direct ....rest with georgina and the super mega top extra hypersphere and its business.....and your books shall be well for a specific buyers .

You think what my friend ,you are still a young man ,I am a man Jason due to my difficult life .

I don't see any things interestings in your ideas ,any universal correlations ,any coherences ,any invariances .....thus I invite you to study more and after we shall discuss perhaps with rationality ,pragamatism and realism .

Yes Jason a big pasta and super megatop string hyperspheres and after what ???

It s finish for string ,still some years and it's finish ,like some others silly things .

There is a difference between the extrapolations and an extrapolation .

The only strings I see ,it's when I play guitar ,do you know Led zep ,Muse ,CCR,Jeff airplane ,janis ,jimmy ...I am a rocker my friend and nothing to do to be polite .

I am strong my friend ,don't forget that .And my theory is all my life ,I am not a pseudo theorist like many .All my life I was in the street with my friends ....nothing to do my friend .Nothing will stop me even dead .

If you understand that ,you are a man .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 19:33 GMT
For the contemplations,I have some ideas for you .

Work the ground and plant flowers .

An other solution too is to buy this book by Victor Hugo ,it's my prefered like I am a poet too .The name of this book is The Contemplations ,an other very intersting is this one ,The autom flowers.

An other idea ,my two favorites books ,the first by Kalhil Gibran ,the Prophet

and the other by Herman Hesse "Siddartha"

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 19:38 GMT
You see Jason ,it's easy to be arrogant ,very easy .

Thus now let's return to physics and the rule of these threads thus catalyze the truth .

I stop now

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 20:29 GMT
Dear Friends,

Steve - Your ideas may be more foundational than Jason's. I think I understand how parts of it may work very well, but either something is missing regarding length and mass scales or I simply do not understand it all yet.

Regarding the "fame and fortune" of theoretical physics, that Lottery payout is the myth that draws intelligent people into this field, but only a handful are ever really that successful. I have a Doctorate in High Energy Physics, but I do not think it means anything to the others. They are busy trying to scramble to the top - survival of the fittest at its ugliest! I published my book last year. To this date, I have bought most of the copies sold. I laugh at the money - it is pocket-change! I have repeatedly had my papers-to-be turned down by Journals with no explaination and no opportunity to try to appeal to the Editor's taste. El Naschie liked my work, but his publications on "E12" zipped through the process and were published in CS&F within two months, whereas my CS&F publications on "my E12 idea" were buried for a year - it made my work seem less timely.

We are all better off if we admit that we do this because we love it, and not for the money.

Jason - You are an interesting mixture of Theorist and Engineer. Your goals seem to be different, and yet you are asking many interesting foundational questions while trying to reach those goals. Keep on trying. As we unlock more of the mysteries of modern physics, we will need people who understand how to apply those ideas to better our lives. You might be the next Bill Gates, or you might go bust. In the long run, we all do this because we love it.

Have Fun, my friends!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 22:11 GMT
Hi Steve and FQXi participants.

Steve, I just posted at "Our Human Shaped..." Can you please reply there when you get a chance? Thanks.

I offer you the following, since the value of understanding the basics, and of understanding the whole and the "big picture" is not to be underestimated:

The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 22:19 GMT
"Consciousness involves the extent to which the experience and expressiveness of the self comprehensively approximate to reality." -- F.M.D.

Here is some very valuable information regarding vision and the understanding:

"Visually, the universal experience of the body is one of visual transparency (i.e., invisibility). Accordingly, when our bodies are visually distinguishable (or...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 07:54 GMT
Hi all ,

I know Ray I am nice ,too nice and I have had many problems due to this too nice comportment ,I must be more strong I have lost all here in Belgium due to that ,but like all things I have my limits ,I read since several weeks and really ,it's time to put some limits .It's logic in fact and simple ,it's necessery.I dislike the allusions in a primary language .You know me too in French I write differently ,I am writer too Ray ,I have many poems and theaters pieces ,several classic pieces on Piano and guitar too .I don't use that with my friends ,why to show this ,it'snot necessary .I can accept many things but I have my limits .I respect people ,I am arrogant but I respect and love all people ,even these persons who have made me many bad things .All is there ,I am a real christian Ray ,I have many defaults ,too arrogant ,vanitious too ,my hormons probably ,...but I love them .

This night I didn't sleep due to these words with Jason ,he is very intelligent and I have been too strong with him .After reflexions ,it was necessary .

When this International Humanistic Sciences Center will be created ,his spirituality will be welcome and his intelligence too .

In fact he made me thought about me several years ago .He searches still his road in fact .He will arrive .I am persuaded because he is on the good road .All we learn all days ,me too .

With love ,simply and universality

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 09:29 GMT
Steve,

I am shocked that you are attacking me for using 'allusions'. This is what you said:

"All is said ,One thing still ,nothing to do for me .The busine nothing to do ,the silly things ,nothing to do ,the notoriety ,nothing to do ,the media,nothing to do ,....In fact I fuck the system Jason .Ok"

Then, you said, "I am nice but I dislike allusions and business ,don't forget that and stop the allusions ,my english is not my primary language and it's easy to write with special english words to say some specific things .Thus it's a lack of respect ."

Are you proud of what you have written to another blogger in front of the whole FXQI community?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 09:46 GMT
Jason ,

Don't be shocked ,it's not necessary ,Jason ,yes I am proud like many ,but me I recognize that .The shorter distance between two points is the .....

I prefer when you are direct .It's well .Continue to be honnest and direct .

In this crazzy world ,there a difference with the humility with our creator and the humility with humans .At this moment even with a humility with our FATHER ,I must be direct and put on practice some limits .I am not here to read some indirects things .All is there Jason .

Now if you are a real universalist and I think what yes .Thus you shall evolve and shall accept some evidences about adapted comporments .

I have been patient No ???

I dislike the individualism ,I prefer the complementarity but some people don't like that it seems to me .

You can choose many words about me ,it has any importance for me ,

Now hope we are going to speak about physics and nothing other.

Thanks to understand what FQXi is about physics .And don't forget never be in the bad feelings ,always love his fellow man even the people who attac you ,all is there ,still to be or not to be .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 14:36 GMT
Steve,

I read this blog to talk about physics ideas, not to hear you rant and use crass language. Furthermore if you don't like what I have to say, then click on "report post as innapropriate".

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 14:42 GMT
Ray,

Yes physics is tough to work through. One can get a doctorate, get published, and so forth and at the end of the day find you are not very far. The big money in physics lies in solid state physics and laser optics. Most everything else drops off into chump change.

I do think that in the mix of things going on in this world working or thinking about these things does elevate one's existence above complete absurdism. Most of what goes on around us is a lot of silliness of people harranguing each other, lots of noise and fear mongering, puerile media nonsense and so forth. At the same time humanity seems hell bent on turning everything possible into garbage --- which sums up to the whole planet. So anything to raise one's mind above the gutter, whether that be music or math-physics, must be worth something.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 14:48 GMT
Forget me ,thanks and I repeat nothing to do and it's not crass .And I repeat I fuck the system ,yes it's crass that .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 15:05 GMT
Still one thing ,personnaly I don't wait nothing from FQXi ,because I don't need to proof my credibility ,I know what my theory is foundamental and what many want to copy ,it's too late ...all is said since many years everywhere .

It's important to say that for me because this kind of theory is revolutionary and nothing can change that .Sorry to be arrogant but it's necessary and that for what the people see my developments .Only the transparence and the skills are important but be prudent all ,the monney is the sister of the evil thus ....

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 15:30 GMT
Lawrence,

I hope you don't mind, but string theory, M-theory, and braneworlds can be stimulating to the imagination. I'm sure that string theorists work very hard to make sure that these topics in physics don't become too stimulating to the imagination.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 15:34 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for your encouragement and observations. I am simply frustrated with Physics at times. My latest paper was a nine month labor-of-love. I finally found a friend who would endorse me for arxiv. I submitted it, but had it rejected as "inappropriate" in 76 minutes. You have read that paper. It is impossible to read that paper with comprehension in 76 minutes. Someone probably saw Garrett Lisi's name in my abstract and threw it in the garbage with no thought whatsoever. I think we both agree that Lisi's idea may be a flawed start in the right direction.

I understand that I touched on some controversial ideas and some people may disagree, but I used logical extrapolations that should include all of known physics (and then some - that's a huge part of the bias against my work). I found Lisi's approach inspirational, but I disagreed with him. I took the time to read his paper several times and submitted most of my critiques on his work to him privately (and some critiques here on fqxi). Why can't we throw reasonable ideas into the forum for discussion or debate? Instead, some ideas get "censored" because a small number of people with great power say so. This entire process has wasted so much of my time, that I may not be able to finish a "What is Ultimately Possible" paper before the October deadline. I cannot submit this current paper - it is probably 4 times too long. If I condense it into the appropriate size, then I will have to omit so much that it won't make sense.

Sorry - I'm just frustrated. Maybe I'll feel better after a week in Vegas.

Dear Steve,

I understand that English is your third language, and people often learn the curse words in a foreign language first. The "f-word" is not used in polite company, which I consider this forum and my friends to be. We all get frustrated, but you are intelligent enough to find better analogies.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 15:35 GMT
Jason ,Georgina,

Let's go for a drink and a hand in hand ,lt's go I am nice you know ,arrogant but I like people ,I habe been too far with you .Let's go please ,hand in hand OK or no ? I promise what one day ,I will see you probably and promise I offer a drink and if you are musicians ,we will play together ,What do you think ?

SINCERELY

Steve the crazzy spheric man

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 15:43 GMT
OOPS Sorry in french ,this word is always used ,sorry thus .I didn't think it was so crass in English .

Dear Dr Cosmic ,NO NON NO Don't go to Vegas ,it's a bizare town where the bad is ,please don't play with monney .Never it's the evil Ray .

Take care and sorry for the crass word ,in French many people use this word to qualify the system ,the artists in fact hihihihi heuu ok heuuu sorry heu I regret thus ,I am not crass ,only in English hihiihihi

Fortunally you are here on FQXI ,it's the reason why I rest in fact ,You and Lawrence since several months are incredible in your knowledges ,I regret too Mr Butler and his faith too .

Take care and dontttttttttt go at Vegas hihihihiihi corruptions ,mafias ,monneys....evil .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 16:03 GMT
Ray,

It stinks that they rejected your paper in 76 minutes; they're just jerks. For years I've been finding physics both fascinating and annoying. It's like the laws of physics are a fish tank or an aquarium that we are trapped inside of. We're the lizards that can't get out. You're right, Ray, it is their personal biases; they don't know everything. They're just lizards in a tank, with big scaly heads!

Steve,

When I served in the US regular army so many years ago, my language got really bad. I was such a potty mouth. It's taken years to change those bad habits. Believe me, when I get angry about something, I can still let loose some bad words. As I've gotten older, I've learned to express some of my ill feelings in more subtle ways like sarcasm and innuendo. I have to be indirect because I can lose my job or scare people away if I tell them what I really think.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 18:09 GMT
Jason ,

I understand ,thanks for this little development .Don't forget one day I offer a drink and Georgina too 2 drinks hihihi .

Take care dear friends ,really ,you are supers and so creatives .

Sorry for my crass f....word ,really I didn't know this importance in English .

You know Jason ,in fact in French I use the same kind of words with sarcasm and ironic words ....if you read my texts in French sometimes you should laugh .Sometimes I agree it's sad too ouinnnnnnnnnnn snif ....no .

...laugh !!!

I have created alittle group on XING,Libres Ecrits ,free writings in English .We are a little group of poets and crazzy writers and we laugh a lot ,it's important too .

Sometimes I regret what my English is my fourth language(indeed here in Belgium we speak French and Dutch and after the spanish is easier for a french thus english is my fourth ) sure our discussions shall be better but it's like that .

Sometimes I try to understand all but it's not easy ,Lawrence and Georgina write with a kind which is difficult for me .In the same time I evolve in English but really language is not my force .I have a friend ,Dr Naima Benali,physician and medecine ,and you know what she speaks 14 languages and well ,incredible .A beautiful mind Naima ,perhaps she will come on FQXi one day .She is super too.

"They're just lizards in a tank, with big scaly heads!" yes well said Jason hihihih

Dr cosmic Ray ,

Your paper is too high for them ,76 minutes and after what between two cups of coffee .....forget them and let's continue all .Let's go to the reasonable revolution in complemenatrity .

Take care all

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 18:42 GMT
Steve,

We are all lizards trapped in the fish tank of General Relativitiy. But I have plan on how to escape. It's similar to an Alcubierre drive. The plan is to create a d-brane hyperballoon. We're going to fill it up with Cosmological gas. Then, we're going to strap a lizard to it, and let the Cosmological gas escape from the release valve. If we do it right, the hyperballoon will rise out of the GR fish tank. If we do it wrong, we'll shoot the lizard right out of the tank and into hyperspace.

Any volunteers?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 18:51 GMT
hihihi let's go and change of galaxy ,

many volunters want escape ....hope it's better there .And if A Las Vegas exists there too ...thus we change still ...

What is an Alcubier drive Jason in fact ,I see you use this world but I don't know .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 19:43 GMT
Steve,

The Alcubierre drive is the actual relativistic hyperdrive model that was used on Star Trek.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9trique_d%27Alcubier
re

It takes more energy than is available in the entire universe. It also relies on exotic quantum particles. Since we can't meet the energy requirements of an Alcubierre drive, I recommend that we (Lawrence and Ray) construct a D-brane 4D hypersphere with a Cosmological gas pump. The idea is to withdraw from standard space-time and use a Cosmological gas emission to acellerate us along in hyperspace (outside of regular space). A tachyon condensate would hopefully keep us tethered to regular space.

It's just a thought.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 20:07 GMT
Dear Jason,

I'm not sure what we can accomplish with tachyons. It would be cool if we could confine them with electromagnetic fields so that they don't immediately zip off to infinity.

I suspect that any serious disturbances in the Spacetime continuum would be quickly "washed away" by the Dirac Sea, but that doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of riding on the wave of a disturbance.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 20:37 GMT
Hi Ray,

I'm using the idea that the physical universe is a D-brane and that quantum particles are superstrings on that brane. I'm also using the idea that the expansion of the universe is caused by a Cosmological pressure that pushes the universe outwards. I'm using a balloon as an analogy. The rubber 2D surface of the balloon represents our 3D space. It also represents the idea of a the brane that contains all of the particles in the universe. The Cosmological pressure is causing the balloon to expand.

I want to create a tiny bubble on that brane, a tiny-brane. Lawrence has mentioned tachyon condensates as being something that fine-tunes the Cosmological constant (don't ask me how, I have no idea). I also read something about tachyon condensation and their relationship to d-branes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon_condensation

Fi
rst challenge: how do we create a tiny-brane? I don't know yet.

Second challenge: where do we get tachyons from and how do we store them? We need a 4D box.

Third challenge: how do we store Cosmological gas? Uh, I need time to think about it.

Fourth challenge: what kind of pump will blow "Cosmological gas"? A four dimensional pump; one of those dimensions is along the temporal axis. Since time travel does not exist, we can use that temporal axis like a spatial axis with the right kind of brane.

From what I could gather from the quaternion model, the Cosmological pressure drives the universe through time. In spatial areas with high energy-mass density, that part of the brane lags behind and causes the brane to stretch which also causes gravity. The gravitational constant, G, is determined by the properties of the brane.

Yes, I know. I have some technical issues to work out.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 20:38 GMT
Ray,

I must confess in reading your paper I found myself scratching my head a bit over the representation you proposed. However, I got the general idea of there being self-similar copies of various blocks in SU(n) or E_8 groups. We might try to get back to this. I think the most important thing is to illustrate how block in the "E_{12}" or K_{12} contain spin(16) data pretinant to grand unification or E_8xE_8.

Anyway, getting theoretical work noticed is tough. If you are in a diminished capacity, which can include being an assistant professor at a small institution, you are handicapped. You have to come up with something which really makes people's heads turn.

I submitted my paper to this essay contest. I imagine it will show up next week.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 20:44 GMT
I'm not sure if this is humor or plausible. To store tachyons (complex mass), we need a box made out of tachyons with complex mass. Why would they ever congregate on anything (a box)? Maybe if we had a mechanism that could make their mass real, just for a picosecond, we might be able to hold it in place. Maybe the strong force (color force) can offer an idea. Are we allowed to have tachyonic mesons with a tachyon on one side and a real charged particle on the other?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 20:51 GMT
Lawrence B. Crowell,

I am happy to hear that you have submitted a paper. You are very knowledgeable, but, even more important, you are very generous in sharing your expertise with others. I know that your essay will be excellent. I think that the subject of this contest favors someone like yourself winning. I look forward to reading it.

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 20:51 GMT
What "stores" tachyons are they enter into a condensate state which changes their dynamics. The condensate means that as strings they are "nailed down" on a p-brane collectively.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 21:07 GMT
Lawrence,

That is beautiful! So a p-brane (3-brane for our physical universe) will store tachyons. When they get "nailed down", do they lose their tachyonic properties and acquire real mass?

If p(odd)/d(even)-branes are made out of superstrings themselves, do you have any ideas on how to construct a brane?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 21:09 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Yes, I was an Assistant Professor at a small institution ten years ago, taught part-time at a Community College up until 6 years ago, but have been out of the professional world of Physics since then. I am certainly out of touch.

If you have suggestions for improving the paper, I'm ceratinly willing to listen (although I will be very busy next week in Vegas).

Dear Jason,

If E12 is correct, these tachyons will have electric charge with no intrinsic spin observable in the first four dimensions. Tachyonic "leptons" would have an electric charge of +/- 1/2, while tachyonic "baryons" would have electric charges of +/- (1/2 or 1/6), and tachyionic "mesons" would have electric charges of +/- 1/3 or neutral. Tachyons from the Big Bang most likely zipped off to infinity and don't hang out here anymore. Could we capture tachyons from a Supernova star using electromagnetic storage rings? Could we manufacture our own tachyons via particle/ anti-particle pair production? I'm not sure...

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 21:15 GMT
Also Lawrence,

Good Luck! I read the early version of your "Jordan" paper. It looked pretty good to me. I'm sorry I didn't give any helpful suggestions. You are the General Relativity specialist, not me!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 21:26 GMT
Ray,

An E12 (brane???) includes a (3D+1) space and an (E7+1???), is that correct? I like the idea of electrically charged tachyonic mesons and leptons. I wonder if we can get them to interact via the strong force? They make me think of someone with ADHD.

I've been reading about the M2 brane and it's magnetic dual, M5. I wonder if they work anything like the NS5 brane which will display a magnetic charge in the presense of a magnetic field.

If these branes don't exist in nature, maybe they can be fabricated.

Keep working on this stuff, Ray. Also, have a blast in Vegas!!! Shoot some craps for me!

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 21:51 GMT
Dear Jason,

If my analysis is correct, the 12 dimensions are the union of an 8-D Octonion and a 4-D Quaternion. These 12 dimensions first split into 4 + 8.

The 4 dimensions become three space (a visible 3-brane?) plus one time (a percieved 1-D string?). The 8 dimensions first become an M2-brane, an M5-brane, and another wierd 1-D string (I'm not sure if this is a "two-timed" model, at this point I have simply associated this dimension with Gravity). The M5-brane further breaks down into another 3-brane and 2-brane.

I equate broken symmetries with dimensional collapse, and suspect that these dimensions must not have inflated as much as Spacetime - so they are too small to measure with our Supercollider energy scales. I realize that I just swept the dust under the rug, but these dimensions are not observed, and any extra-dimensional model MUST explain why we can't see these extra dimensions. The real question is "Can we access these extra dimensions? If so, what energy scale is required?"

Have Fun! I plan to...

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 22:24 GMT
There can't be an E_{12} brane. These extended structure can only exist according to a 3 to 1 map from the Jordan matrix. The J^3(O) matrix is of the form

|z_0 O_0 O_2|

|O_0 z_1 O_1|

|O_2 O_1 z_2|

where coms conjugations are ignored. There are three octonions here, each with dim = 8. There are also three scalars z_i which total to dim = 3. So this gives a total of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 29, 2009 @ 09:22 GMT
Hi all ,

Indeed Lawrence your mathematical method is incredible ,it's always an Ocean of Knowledges .

Lawrence you speak about this 10^120...is it a relation with Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker ,Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and the Planck oscillators .I suppose what yes but could you explain me if it's the limit for theses ratios .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 29, 2009 @ 12:23 GMT
My paper on this has been submitted. I presume it will end up here and I will have a little blog site to dicuss it. The adjustment of the cosmological constant is based on a quantum critical point for a phase transition on "braney" dynamics.

What I indicate in post above is just an outline of some of these things.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 29, 2009 @ 22:14 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for the observations. You have obviously put a great deal of thought into our two approaches. I will print your analysis off and reread it several times on my trip.

I understand that there is a nomenclature problem with "E12". I extrapolated it out of the G2, F4, E8 pattern; but it isn't one of the classic Exceptional Groups, even though it is related to E8 x H4. To add to the confusion, there is also a Kac-Moody "E12". My "E12" is also related to the Coxeter-Todd K12 lattice, although I think these "E12" symmetries are more relevant to the problem at hand than K12. So should we call it E12, K12', or L12? I really don't mind what we call it as long as people recognize that it might be relevant to a geometrical approach towards a TOE.

I envision a Universe that began as your 27-dimensional model. Then an E8 fractured into an H4 x H4. The 12-mensional E12 ~ E8 x H4 is a wierd transient solution that may have existed for just a fraction of a second, so a 12-brane was extremely unstable, but it reflects relevant symmetries. Obviously, the multitude of dimensions collapsed so that we only observe 4.

Dear Jason,

I forgot to respond about tachyonic quarks. My model predicts them, but we have never observed free quarks, so the expectation is that these would be created as tachyonic mesons or baryons. If tachyonic free quarks exist, they might be captured by an unstable meson, but I think electromagnetic storage rings would work better.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 01:59 GMT
Steve,

Something for you.

Size Matters: Cornell Researcher Finds Evidence Of Fourth Spatial Dimension In Plant World

Best regards, Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 02:16 GMT
Some important facts/truth regarding time:

Time is ultimately dependent upon the integrated extensiveness of being, experience (and space), and thought. You can see how this applies to photons in relation to time -- consider how the words "integrated extensiveness" apply.

Dreams improve upon memory and understanding by increasing (or adding to) the integrated extensiveness of being...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 04:54 GMT
Ray,

I think I'm getting into trouble with my p3-brane and the idea of a cosmological pressure that causes expansion of the universe. I was trying to build on my understanding of the quaternion model, but something has gone awry. Let's say that the Cosmological pressure is pushing against the p3-brane of our universe and causing it to expand. So what causes gravitational attraction? Does the movement of the p3-brane along the 4th dimension cause gravity because aft space is constantly moving towards the center of each object? I don't think so. I have an interpretation, but it's very strange. What if the cosmological potential energy causes virtual photons to spring up on the p3-brane? Virtual photon emission and absorption produce the flow of time by allowing the transmission of momentum and location information to be constantly updated by the flow of virtual photons. But what if, in a region of very high mass-energy density, there are not enough virtual photon emissions from the cosmological pressure? Then time in that region runs slow.

I dunno. I'm hoping Georgina can correct my interpretation of the Quaternion model, now that I've broken it. I thought perhaps that large mass-energy densities cause that region of space to fall behind in the expansion of the universe. That would explain gravity fields. But then the p3-brane would start to stretch and I have no idea what that means.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 05:50 GMT
Jason ,

I'm trying to make some thinking time to improve my ideas and ensure that I am being logical, objective and precise. That I don't still have space time ideas muddled in and unnecessary speculation that may be erroneous and detract from the core ideas which I think are sound.

Unfortunately the Prime Quaternion Model does require abandonment of the concept of universal expansion and the cosmological constant, which is currently fixed to give that expansion in the space-time model (in keeping with observation). Although this may be difficult to accept it is in keeping with other conflicting observations of gravity and creation.

According to this model gravity occurs because of unidirectional change of position of matter along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension, causing matter to come together in 3D space. So building structures, which can be observed as growth out into 3D space. Only this unidirectional scalar spatial change in position of matter will cause gravity and combined with motion within 3D space give fractal like creation as observed, in my opinion. Therefore the material universe is contracting due to this 4th dimensional change in position, but not directly in 3D space. Although observation of EM image (not the matter itself) causes the impression of expansion of 3D space.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 08:44 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Georgina,

Thank you very much ,it's very relevant this article and the website too .

The sharing of knowledge permits for all to evolve in the truth in fact .With the complementarity we can make many things on Earth .With all your ideas to all ,FQXi members ,I can improve my models on ground in ecology and inventions for our fellow man .....because alone we are nothing in fact .....

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 10:27 GMT
Incredible ,I see on this website ,many copies of my ideas ,about the symmetric forms from Princeton ,it's too late my friends but it's normal ,it's the human nature ......

I am laughing ,and now they are going to publish books ,and after what they want prizes too ....My team know me since many years ....all is said .

Thanks georgina to say me this link .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 11:06 GMT
After reflexion ,it's like that ,if my theory helps ,it's the most important.

I am parano hihihi ,logic with my past I lost all due to the system ,you know here in Belgium ,it's bizzare for the entrepreneurial mind ,I have had many against me ,in fact they didn't want what I create my enterprize ,it's logic I am vegetal multiplicator too and an association between many exporters of Flowers with Holland help me to fall down .You know how I win per months now with all that ,don't be surprised ,it's the reality ,650 euros /months ....but I am stronger now and I don't say my last word ......the human nature is very sad ,I have many difficulties to understand that ,why people thinks like that ,it's the monney the problem ,the desire to win monney is more imprtant than the universality ,I pray for them ,what do i do in fact ,continue to study and work hard ,it's the only reason to evolve after all ....

Sometimes I am very tired with all ...

Sincerely

Steve

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 15:23 GMT
Dear Jason,

I'm sorry, but my model can't help a pure Quaternion model. Remember that I joined a quaternion and an octonion. Gravity is caused by the seventh dimension, and this accounts for our misunderstanding of Gravity, because we don't see the seventh dimension.

Regarding Inflation, read Section 5.4 of Ray's Book. And Section 6.2 addresses Dark Energy.

Dear Steve,

Do not quit. Princeton would be afraid to touch my ideas - my ideas are too radical. I am certain you are clever enough to find a twist that they did not consider. I think you are stronger when you focus on your Science rather than your paranoia.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 15:43 GMT
The Leech lattice Λ_{24} structure, or the Mathieu group M_{24}, is extremely transient. It may reflect the foundations of the universe in the first 10^n, n ~ 1 to 5 Planck units of time T_p = 10^{-43}sec. This may have then decomposed into (E_8xH_4)^2 after then where the H_4 is a tessellation or discrete structure on AdS_4. This may have held up for 10^n T_p, n ~ 10, beyond then until the AdS assumes a near continuum structure. At this point more standard stringy-braney structure appears at the N - -> infinity limit in lower energy AdS/CFT correspondence. Then forwards to the inflationary phase, 10^{-10} sec to SM model (TeV) symmetry breaking, QED phase of charged particle Compton scattering physics, radiation dominated phase, matter phase, dark matter and the dark-energy stellar phase of the universe we find ourselves in.

Beyond the Λ_{24} might lie the monster group. The M_{24} is the automorphism over the monster. The 196560 roots of M_{24} for most of the lattice in 196884 dimensions, from which comes the Fischer-Griess group. This huge group has connections to the 26-dimensional Lorentzian lattice, which takes us back to the good ole 25 dimensional bosonic string. This might actually be the ultimate theory of physics, though I am not taking things there. The extension to the foundations of physics and cosmology to the monster group very close to the Planck scale is probably work for the mid to late 21st century.

The book by Conway and Sloane “Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups” has chapter 17 written by Borcherd’s, which discusses some aspects of decompositions of the 24-dimensional lattice. The decomposition with even unimodular lattices is Λ_{24} - -> E_8\otimes D_16. Now D_16 corresponds to SO(32), which is dual to E_8xE_8. So it is not hard to see how one could get the decomposition with H_4 since diag[H_4,H_4} defines the Weyl group for E_8.

I would advise getting the Conway & Sloane book. It encapsulates an enormous body of mathematical research on sporadic groups and lattices.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for the recommendation. I ordered it online - maybe it will be here when I get back home next week.

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 19:04 GMT
ATTN: All, what do you think of the following please?

What of the fact that astronomical observations may necessarily be reducing/isolating/narrowing our capacity for understanding due the fact that they are similar to thought -- in other words, they are interactive creations of thought, to a significant extent. Does this not result in inconsistency, narrowness, and unpredictabiity...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 19:33 GMT
I made type by saying the 25 dimensional bosonic string, when I meant to say 26.

The monster group is the largest and the last of the sporadic groups with prime decomposition order

2^{46}*3^{20}*5^9*7^6*11^2*13^3*17*19*23*29*31*41*47*59
*71

= 808017424794512875886459904961710757005754368000000000

~= 8x10^{53}.

That's huge. This might represent the end of what is knowable about physics. As yet we are nowhere near being able to use this in any physical model. Working with E_8's or Λ_{24} is tough enough. New methods will have to come to the floor in order to work with physical models which employ this.

Beyond this we simply run out of mathematics. Of course there might be more beyond this, but that is an unknown frontier. It could represent a barrier to what is knowable. So for physics on some scale smaller L_p + ε, for ε small where a monster theory might apply, complete chaos might rule. Maybe it is self-referential chaos or noise.

Cheers, LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 04:13 GMT
Lawrence,

It's starting to sound like physics instability occured at the earliest moments of the Big Bang. I'm guessing that is due to temperature and not the small size of the universe.

Ray,

I wish I had a better idea of how the 7th dimension is implementing gravity. I am hoping that the Cosmological pressure can be an indirect cause of space-time curvature (therefore gravity). If not, maybe there is another way to artificially create it.

Georgina,

I totally understand. I need to think about this stuff some more as well. I'm going to try creating three interconnecting branes: one that intersects this physical universe, one aft and one afore. I want to see if it might be possible to curve space by regulating the pressure of each of these branes. Maybe I can get my hyperdrive space ship to slide in space by curving it.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 08:44 GMT
Hi ,

Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,thanks ,yes indeed I must change my paranoia .My most dangerous thing for me is me hihihihi .Sometimes I say me ,steve you are crazzy .Fortunaly I have my friends .They help me to evolve and be more rational .

Lawrence ,excellent ,I understand now the chaos theory too and a limit .

If the rotations are linked ......

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 12:38 GMT
We might imagine the universe evolves from some initial state to a final state according to a unitary or quantum information preserving process. The final state might be an empty Minkowski spacetime, which is the quantum decay of the de Sitter spacetime. This is a result of Hawking-Gibbon radiation which quantum decays the cosmological horizon and sends it receeding off to infinity. The initial state is some vacuum structure which has an instability. This vacuum is some 11-dimensional supergravity configuration, maybe some high energy braney dynamics ... . Under the process of evolving from |0>_i to |0>_f one form of nothing is transformed into another form of nothing. The initial and final states may ultimately just be the same state under some holographic gauge-like change in the projective bundle on the states.

The universe might just be a way that nothingness readjusts itself into a holographically into another form of nothingness.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 17:58 GMT
Lawrence ,

What about the Maxwellian distribution of Speeds and the distribution of molecular or atom velocities ?

If we imagine the Universe like a sphere with x y z coordonates and the spherical shell.We can consider a velocity space with w+dw.....w²x +w²y+w²z....constant .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 11:05 GMT
Hi all ,

It's difficult to admit what the nothing is foundamental .

We are not on this Earth for that .It has no sense .Our Universe builds itself and it's well like that .

All is coded and have an aim of complemenatrity.

We are not fate ,all our evolution since the beginning shows us this evidence .

The infinity in the physicallity has no sense too for the laws .The laws are the laws and nothing can change that .

The holographic principle is just a relativistic perception where there too the thermodynamics rest and where the imaginaries maths haven't any place .

I repeat but our Universe is not a computer .

If the Universe is nothing thus us too we are nothing .

What I say is very simple ,there is an ultim aim of synergies between spheres mass .All extrapolations need limits of rationality,pragmatism ,logic .

The sciences aren't there to create human inventions where the laws change but to harmonize the tools around us towards this unification.

I know you aren't a partisan of this entropy behind walls but relly Lawrence it's important to encircle what there is something behind because all is coded and have a rule .The uinersality is important and it's totally diffrent than a religion and its power of checking .

The universlity and its building shows us this energy ,unlimited and unknew where our physical laws don't exist because it's the eternity .Our aim is not to understand this entropy but the enropy in evolution in our physical world .

It ' s important I think to well extrapolated .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate