CATEGORY:
Blog
[back]
TOPIC:
Towards the unification of the four fundamental forces by Tejinder Singh
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Blogger Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 10, 2020 @ 07:01 GMT
Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 10, 2020 @ 12:06 GMT
It is very interesting, we search to explain this QG, many have tried in this logic with the geometrodynamics ,or strings , Branes, Mtheory , superstrings. I recognise several interesting mathematical tools with these geometrical algebras of Lie and the strings to rank the fields, but a thing important for me is that even if all this is relevant for the fields of our standard model, we cannot...
view entire post
It is very interesting, we search to explain this QG, many have tried in this logic with the geometrodynamics ,or strings , Branes, Mtheory , superstrings. I recognise several interesting mathematical tools with these geometrical algebras of Lie and the strings to rank the fields, but a thing important for me is that even if all this is relevant for the fields of our standard model, we cannot affirm what is the main philosophical origin of our universe and what are these foundamental mathematical and physical objects.I like the idea of strings begining with a 1D main cosmic field and after the 1D stings at this planck scales and so the maths correlated to create our topologies, geometries and matters, fields and properties. That said we cannot be sure about this generality , I understand what they have made to unify this GR and the QM, the thinkers have considered an infinite heat before the BB and after photons oscillating and vibrating differently due to these strings inside. But for me it is not the truth, my model also is an assumption I recognise it with these 3 main finite series of coded spheres, the vacuum space coded energetical and these two fuels, the cold dark matter and the photons, these series have the dirac large number and imply a superfluid because the space disappears when we apply a specific serie of volumes from the central biggest one, we have so 3 aethers , and at this moment we just consider the luminiferous one , that is why we cannot explain this QG for me and the unknowns, like this DM , the DE and the antimatter more the hard problem of consciousness, we must in fact unify all , not only the GR and the QM, wiclzek has had a good idea with the noise of gravitons but we must recognise that it is just also an assumption, the gravitons don t seem to be the quanta of gravitational waves for me, they are different and linked with the antimatter and this cold dark matter. I beleive strongly that this GR and strings have created a prison and now all they trty with the fields to explain these unknowns in changing the oscillations and in working on phases, but that does not solve the problems . I respect of course these attempts but since that the best thinkers work on this road, nobody has found the unknowns, there are reasons, all has been made in maths in fact but nothing, we just fractalise and explain deeper the actual fields . This QG does not seem to be an electromagnetic emergent force you know, it is the opposite it seems, the electronagnetism is emergent due to main codes in this space and this gravitation like main chief orchestra, it is an opposite reasoning in fact, that implies when we consider the 3V main series of 3D coded spheres an explaination concrete of this QG respecting the newtonian mechanics in changing so the distances and also it implies a fith force farer than these nuclear forces, that solve also the glueballs problem and the gap mass. In fact the photons are just a fuel permitting to observe due to light, they imply the electromagntic forces of our standard model and the life death, but they are not the primordial essence, the cold DM balance this heat and electromagnetism and the DE balance all this like an anti gravitational system and fruthermore explain the evolution, it is themeaning iof my spherisation. We can even extrapolate the future by predictions due to this DE and DM . We are still youngs at this universal scale, we shall have a probable expansion towards the maximum spherical volumes with a decceleration even after a time in the future and after we shall have a probable contraction towards the points of equilibriumm. I explain the generality of my model of spherisation and 3D spheres, like this you can see the idea general. In all case the waves particles duality isnot a problem and the transformations matters energy also can be explained, they are in motions oscillations rotations these finite series in a superfluid.I liked your video , it is a beautiful general work Tejinder, congrats and thanks for sharing it on this wonderful platform, Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Member Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Oct. 10, 2020 @ 12:43 GMT
Thank you for your detailed response Steve. Regarding the main philosophical origin of the universe, as you rightly enquire - I do not know. But one thing I see, as we go to deeper layers of reality, physical universe and mathematical universe more and more become the same thing as each other.
Tejinder
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 10, 2020 @ 13:05 GMT
You are welcome, I recognise also that I am not sure and I don t know also the truth, I just consider these spheres because it seems to me that they are foundamental seeing the nature around us and the universe made of cosmological spheres, I have ranked a little bit of all, animals, vegetals, minerals, maths, physics, biology, chemistry and in a book of biology I saw the hominid brains on a page and I have had this humble eureka ,we see a relative spherisation of brains , but I don t affirm that these foundamental objects are 3D spheres, I just consider them, I liked your videao like I told, congrats still, maybe you could be interested to discuss with the team of Klee Irwin working on these octonions also , they are good. Friendly
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 12, 2020 @ 15:53 GMT
Singh’s quantum matter gravity (QMG) unification of gravity and charge is a very exciting development and is especially so for me since QMG has many of the same puzzle pieces as does my quantum matter action universe puzzle. Basically, QMG defines aikyon particles as the generic aether of the universe and so QMG builds electrons, protons, neutrons, and all else with either fermion or boson...
view entire post
Singh’s quantum matter gravity (QMG) unification of gravity and charge is a very exciting development and is especially so for me since QMG has many of the same puzzle pieces as does my quantum matter action universe puzzle. Basically, QMG defines aikyon particles as the generic aether of the universe and so QMG builds electrons, protons, neutrons, and all else with either fermion or boson aikyons. An 8-D octanion matrix represents each fermion and boson and has the correct quantum spin symmetry for both charge and gravity.
Then QMG uses Connes time, tau, and classical Euclidean or atomic time emerges from QMG. As a result, QMG defines a new constant of tau = 1.0e17 s or 3.2 Byrs, but in Connes time, not atomic time. Alain Connes proposed tau as thermodynamic time, i.e. entropy or temperature time, as have many others in the past. This is a universe or cosmic time that defines the evolution of the universe and so now QMG cosmic time is different from atomic time.
Another key to QMG is in continuous spontaneous localization, CSL, which is a very well know theory for the collapse of the quantum wavefunction conundrum. So CSL is how the reality of classical gravity relativity emerges from QMG. That is very fun…
The 1e-39th scaling between gravity and charge emerges from the ratio (L/Lp)^2, and both L and Lp are characteristic lengths that each come from known constants. The Planck length is Lp and QMG length L is hslash / (m c), a characteristic length that scales as 1 / mass times hslash / c.
Dark matter simply emerges as a vector gravity from QMG and does not therefore need a new particle at all. However, there are many pesky singularities with various aspects of QMG as Singh repeatedly notes, but QMG does manage to dodge the renormalization problem for gravity in quantum field theory.
Octonions are eight dimensional matrices that unify gravity and charge in a QMG 8-D space. Instead of atomic time, Singh uses thermodynamic or entropy time, tau, which was proposed by Alain Connes and so Singh calls tau Connes time, but many others have proposed entropy as the time arrow as well. Of course, the classical evolution of the universe is what drives thermodynamics and entropy and so Connes time is also equivalent to a universe cosmic time as well.
The deep dive of QMG into octonion algebra is quite complex and it is not yet clear if the really simple QMG assumptions really justifies the rabbit hole of octonionic complexification. A classical 4-D spacetime emerges from the QMG trace of just half of the 8-D octonion matrix and then quantum spin emerges from the other octonion 4-D half. The QMG introduces 4-D aikyons to represent fundamental octonion fermion and boson particles along with QMG length (L), gauge (alpha), and fermi matrices (beta1, beta2). Each 4-D fermion has progress variables that scale with QMG L, qF and fermion mass from momentum of velocity qdotF and each 4-D boson is on a path, qB with boson mass qdotB. The dot above the q is a single derivative in Coones time, which is velocity in 8-D QMG space and velocity is proportional to momentum and therefore mass. Likewise qddot is the double derivative, which is acceleration and proportional to 8-D force.
The next step is to renormalize qB and qF into q1 and q2 to make things pretty and avoid some ugly math...with an even deeper rabbit hole, so buckle up. The QMG aikyons are now either commutating bosons [qB,pB] from which classical gravity relativity emerges or noncommuting fermions {qF,pF} as quantum field theory emerges. The QMG paths q1 and q2 now have both symmetric and antisymmetric superpositions as well as momenta, from which mass emerges a la Higgs boson.
Now these renormalized paths and momenta show the classic quantum uncertainty noncommutation: [p,q] = -ihslash...so voilá! The Hamiltonian wave equation follows with frequency eigenvalues and quantum oscillating phase wavefunctions ...oops, QMG still has some convergence issues hiding here and there...and so there are many more papers to write…
The QMG goes down a very deep rabbit hole because multiplying 8-D matrices results in two 64-D matrices with a total of 128 matrix elements. Wow! This will be a lot of papers in the future...
Although QMG has many of the features of quantum gravity, it is not yet completely clear if the complexity of octonion algebra is really necessary for quantum gravity. After all, matter action has many of the same features, but only uses 3-D, not 8-D. However, the dimensions of matter, action, and quantum phase unite gravity and charge into a very nice quantum universe with a Lagrangian, density matrix, and creation/annihilation operators, and so on. The quantum matter action causal set has all of the properties such as a Lagrangian for action. Quantum matter action also shows that dark matter emerges as a vector gravity force, not a new particle.
The matter action photon is the basic dipole exchange particle for charge and the universe biphoton is the basic quadrupole exchange particle for gravity. Just like the QMG aikyon, matter action has a pervasive aether particle that makes up the whole universe. Matter action aether particle comes from the universe pulse time, tau. Instead of using the dimensionless QMG L / Lp for gravity scaling and QMG Connes time, tau, matter action uses the dimensionless scaling of the universe radius over the Bohr radius, Ru / Rb. Thus, instead of an arbitrary QMG L, matter action defines the universe radius.
Connes or entropy time represents the primary QMG quantum time dimension, tau = 1e17 s or 3.2 Byrs. Matter action universe time is tau = 1.2e-17 s, but comes from the time pulse of the universe size, Ru. Atomic time emerges from both QMG and matter action as the classical time of gravity relativity, and so the second primary dimension of universe time plays a key role in quantum gravity relativity.
Finally, the QMG length L is inversely proportional to particle mass and so for hydrogen, L = 2.2e-16 m, which turns out to be too small for CSL hydrogen. Matter action defines the characteristic CSL length as 7.0e-8 m, which is the radius at which hydrogen dipole-induced dipole attraction, which goes as 1/R^-6, equals hydrogen-hydrogen gravity attraction, which goes as 1/R^-2. Thus matter action completely agrees with CSL while QMG L for hydrogen CSL seems to be a billion times too small.
Finally, Science has a truly significant unification with Singh's QMG. It is very pleasing to finally see this happen, but Science will now fight the QMG revolution fiercely as well it should...eventually, Science will accept something simpler than QMG to finally show unification at last...
view post as summary
attachments:
MatterActionCSL.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 12, 2020 @ 18:04 GMT
Hi Steve, I liked your general analysis, you could be also interested in the works of the team of Klee Irwin with Ray ascheim, Fang Fang , David Chester,Gareth Lisi,.....In discussing with David he told me that Connes had forgotten to consider the non associativity , I beleive that all could converge in trying to find a conjecture about the particles like main essence or the fields , so the 3D spheres or the points of strings and these lie groups, there is something I beleive to consider. I liked also the works of Tejinder, it is a beautiful general idea .
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 12, 2020 @ 18:55 GMT
I d like to repeat what I explained , we cannot affirm that the quantum gravity has something to do with the gravitational waves, if these gravitons are not the quanta of gravitational waves , so there is a small problem in all these works , I don t want to disturb or change the lines of reasoning of people, I just tell my point of vue and I beleive humbly that it can be true also , the real problem is to consider only these photons and their oscillations and this GR and try to unify this GR and QM just ith these parameters. I repeat but since that all the thinkers try on this road, nobody has renormalised and quantified this QG. Why also to consider that our reality and its topologies, geometries, matters, fields, properties come from the fields and their frequences, pahses, oscillations, vibrations, at my knowledge it is just an assumption , so why it is just the only one road taken into account, I have difficulties to undertand this in fact. I like these strings and I have learnt a lot of maths with these works but we cannot confound the maths about the fields and the fact that these strings are foundamental, we must admit that they are just an assumption like the points and the geometrodynamics, all this becomes very philosophical and there also we must admit that we don t know nor these foundamental objects nor the main primordial origin of this universe. I just tell all this to give food for thoughts. We muts doubt after all or prove our assumtions, and at this moment we have no proof unfortunally about these deep unknowns.
report post as inappropriate
Member Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 04:32 GMT
Dear Steve [Agnew],
Thanks so much for your very kind remarks, aand your critical analysis. I have enjoyed reading your write-up. I also visited your blog :-) I Hope to catch up with your work soon.
Best wishes,
Tejinder
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 07:43 GMT
Hi all, Steve Agnew has well generalised indeed these octonions and the different problems to renormalise, the QFT is probably more complex and need to consider these new superimposings like I told, you spoke about the ether dear steve, we return still about this philosophical origin of our universe and the primordial essence , we cannot be sure like I told, maybe it is the main problem for the renormalisation quantization. But I like the works of Tejinder, I just explain that we are still very limited in knowledges , we have just evolved a little bit about our standard model and this GR.
Continue to develop these octonions Tejinder, Jonathan, Steve , it is a cool reading this discussion, these octonions have something to do universally it seems.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 08:04 GMT
If I can here is some ideas about these octonions, first you could utilise two E8 in your logic of photons and QFT , one for a kind of cosmic strings and one for the quantum mechanics with strings or points and a kind of geometrodynamics, that could be relevant with E8XE8. My idea like I told is different , I want to consider 3 E8 in replacing the points or strings with these finite series of 3D spheres and this dirac large number the same I have calculated than the cosmological finite number of Spheres. So 3 E8, E8XE8XE8 , one for the space vacuum energetical of this DE and the main codes and the two fuels, the photons and the cold dark matter. That could be relevant to consider the matters energy actions like told Steve . So we have in fact 3 ethers and the relevance is that we can explain our unknowns more the concept of evolution wich is essential for me.Imagine the combinations and the possibilities for the emergent topologies, properties, matters, fields.The interesting thing also is to consider a kind of ricci flow intrinsic in the main codes to correlate with the deformations of spheres. An other thing is to consider the hopf fibrations on surfaces of these spheres to rank the quasi particles , the anti matter is explained with the DM cold simply and probably a different sense of rotation but I am not sure. My equation intuitive also can be considered but it is an assumption of course. I just tell all this to give food for thoughts and try to go deeper than just a luminiferous etehr and photons and to analyse deeper this QFT considering the gravitational fields. We can also consider sub groups to these E8 and consider the non associativity with this non commutativity .
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 08:19 GMT
other things can be made also with the MTheory, superstrings and branes and these octonions and the non associative, non commutative algebras and you try to consider several aethers, in taking the actual main one, thae minkowski vaccuum if I can say and try to superimpose the others. The groups of automorphisms can appear , an other tool intersting to consioder is these synplectomorphisms. Th grassman alg like you told so can be ranked in considering this quantum gravitation but with the reasoning that I explained permitting to balance the electromagnetism.See that the spinors can be better understood. The hidden variables and degreess of freedom so can appear generally. I am persuaded that we have not just thjis relativistic reasoning, we need a balance , now the strings can converge with the 3D coded spheres of these 3 main series because they are closed these spheres and are in motions, rotations oscillations and deformations but where is the stable and deformed spheres, for me it is difficult this to see. A conjecture can appear between these strings and the 3D spheres.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 09:28 GMT
an important thing at my humble opinion is this planck scale where in logic this quantum gravity appears, but is it really the road with this scale and the QFT and this relativity, the real question is there to renormalise it , and if we take the superstrings and the coupling at this scale to create the topologies geometries, we cannot be sure that these strings are the foundamental objects, we return always at this philosophical interpretation , and for me it is a trap, a prison all this but it is just my opinion of course. There are problems so to unify the GR and the QM , because if the planck scale is not the secret and that the GR and photons also,so we turn in round. It comes from this philosophy , an infinite heat and this BB also and the fact to consider photons only and strings inside them at this planck scale in 1D, we don t know in fact, why we focus on this inside the theoretical sciences community ? I beleive it is a fashion or it was the only one relevant general interpretation, I know that I can irritate with these 3D spheres coded and the fact that all is made of particles.But between us, it can be true also like general idea and the most important that can converge with these strings for the ranking of these fields and important also we can complete this QFT , in considering these gravitational fields mainly and even with my reasoning a fith force appearing also. It is like if this gravitation was the main chief orchestra and encircled the standard model more the main codes of this space vacuum DE.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 09:58 GMT
I beleive that the problem is there about the relativity and this planck scale and the heisenberg uncertainty .....we need a kind of bridge and other foundamental objects , it is not it seems to me the fact to unify the GR and the QM so the goal, but go deeper and better understand the foundamentals and this bridge beyond the relativity
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 10:12 GMT
the non renormalisability is there, we see well that we have a problem at this scale and considering the QFT, if we break this relativistic bridge, the forces can be unified , in fact I have remarked in my model that all the forces were unified gravitationally because the quantum gravitation is not an emergent electromagnetic force but it is the opposite , the electromagnetism is emergent from the main cheif orchestra the gravitation.So I repeat , it is not the GR wich must be unified with this QM at this scale but the gravitation like main chief orchestra with the 2 other ethers that I explained , the p adic analysis have been considered also in my model and that converges.We needed a new theory of this quantum gravitation and we was obliged to think beyond the box with deeper variables.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 14:41 GMT
The QMG approach gives action as the integral of the trace of a product of Fermi and Boson velocities as dq/dtau in 8-D octonian space. This is equivalent to a product of Fermion and Boson mass path products over cosmic time to derive action, which is then a unifying equation of motion (EOM).
S=∫dτTrace[m]
However, QMG assumes continuous paths in octanion space with continuous cosmic time, tau. an aikyon or aether causal sea from which all paths in space and time emerge. As a result, it is equally valid to simply integrate mass over cosmic time since all path changes are equivalent to relativistic mass changes. Instead of an EOM having kinetic and potential energies, this QMG EOM can use kinetic and potential masses. Thus, the action integral,
S=∫dτTrace[m]
is a particularly simple statement of QMG unification of gravity and charge action. Of course, now there are just 2x2 Fermi spin matrices and no need for the 8-D octanion matrices of aikyon algebra. Thus, both action and matter are operators that have amplitude and quantum phase and the differential of cosmic time is directly proportional to the differential of quantum aether particle decoherence with the constant 1/mdot, and mdot is the decay of the universe that drives all force.
Action and matter form a much simpler SO(3) Hilbert space with the quadratic Hamiltonian shown attached along with the matter time Hamilton Jacobi. The combination of a Hamiltonian for quantum charge and a Hamiltonian-Jacobi for gravity relativity means that the pieces are in place for unification...
attachments:
quadraticHamiltonian.JPG,
MatterTimeHamiltonJacobi.JPG
report post as inappropriate
Member Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 16:11 GMT
Thank you Steve, for your new idea. Indeed it will be great if you can relate your action as well to the standard model. I was wondering if you have looked also at the Horwitz-Stueckelberg approach to relativistic quantum mechanics? And if your formulation bears a similarity to theirs?
Best wishes,
Tejinder
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 16:31 GMT
well the thinkers, the action is from waht like cause ? explain us steve waht are for your so the foundamental objects , so if I understand well you consider like points and geonetrodynamics and if yes, what is the cause of these actions at this quantum scale and at this cosmological scale , do you begion in 1D and after you consider the octonions and the non commutativity and after you create the topologiesm geometries ... that needs details , and why do you consider that The combination of a Hamiltonian for quantum charge and a Hamiltonian-Jacobi for gravity relativity means that the pieces are in place for unification... why that unifies the GR and QM in fact, that does not unify , it lacks things , I don t see a renormalisation of this quantum weakest force and a quantization in fact . What is your quantum aether particles also ? are they so points like I said and if yes, why , and how can you prove they are points , if they are strings at this planck scale, why also.
Tejinder, you can answer also about the points or strings and explain why, I d like to have also your philosophical point of vue , you consider so that all is fron fields, and if yes, why and how can you prove this ? without these explainations, we cannot really go deeper about our unknowns, the fields only for me cannot explain this quantum gravitation. This weakest quantum force does not seem electromagnetic, so the fields and octonions cannot reach it , even in considering subgroups, the team of Klee
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 16:34 GMT
sorry, I said the team of Klee Irwin has all tried and have not successed, like many others with these octonions, it lacks many things to superimpose and the aether is not only luminiferous , why the thinkers consider that we have only photons and that all come from oscillating photons and fields philosophically speaking in fact??? I don t understand in fact, is it a fashion and a competition inside the sciences community with this E8 and the strings ???
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 16:39 GMT
well, you shall go deeper with this, consider the finite series that I explained having the dirac large number and where the space disappears of 3D spheres, and consider 3 main aethers, and after superimpose 3 E8 , E8XE8XE8 and after play with them and have fun, you shall explain many things , the origin of our universe seems made of coded particles and different systems , 3 , the photons for the electromnagntism, the cold dark matter for the balance and gravitation and the main codes in this space vacuum energetical DE wich balance being antigravitational , and now see the combinations when they merge. 3 E8 instead of 1 and instead of points or strings, these finite series of 3D spheres, see well that all can be ranked. not need of 1D or 11D or others, the universe is a pure 3D at all scales and is simple, more the time for the motions and evolution, the universe is very simple generally, the complexity is in the details.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 17:03 GMT
see that if you make subalgebras alternative , so with a non commutativity and non associativity with these 3 E8 superimposed for the interactions , that becomes relevant to rank the properties of particles and the distributions of forces gravitational and electronmagnetic like thermodynamical due to these two fuels merging with the main codes of the vacuum space DE antigravitational. see that even the evolution can be explained and that all is balanced, the standard model withn this cold and that explains also the antiparticles, and see that all this is gravitational and is balanced by this anti gravitation of this DE ,
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 18:33 GMT
it is this that I try to formalise correctly , the 3 main finite series of 3D spheres having the same finite number than our cosmological finite serie sent from the central cosmological sphere, where a kind of super matter energy sends the informations and it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation, the optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere , E=m(c^2+Xl^2)+Y , with X a parameter correlated with the cold of this DM, and l their velocity and Y a parameter correlated with this antigravitational DE, see that we have a balance for the electromagnetism and see that this DE is also a balance and furthermore we can insert the evolution , the unknowns can be explained . In considering these series finite , 3 and the lie groups and subalgebras in replacing the points or strings by these series and in considering 3 E8 E8XE8XE8, that becomes relevant for many things.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 20, 2020 @ 10:13 GMT
On the blog of John Baez, here is a relevant thing about these octonions, like you work on this , I share it ,
https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2014/11/integral_octoni
ons_part_9.html?fbclid=IwAR0ZzI15MIjfcF-yeXXRIIUhyAix_scDn9y
Qr8tl0ieZTXKGMXCe6o_Ay0M
regards
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 02:04 GMT
Greetings Professor Tejinder Singh,
I needed to do some research in addition to skimming your recent papers, but it is remarkable how much agreement I find with my recent body of work - since GR21 and in my lecture at FFP15 in Orihuela. What you call Connes time, and others refer to as Connes' "intrinsic time" I have treated as evolutive properties of non-commutative and non-associative algebras. I have been quoting Connes' statement "Noncommutative measure spaces evolve with time!" and other related comments for a while now.
So I think that your explanation of early universe dynamics is brilliant. And assuming the octonionic framework to explain Yang-Mills dynamics is likewise the right answer and a great insight. I think in the arena of Planck scale dynamics and Quantum Gravity, using the octonions is the only way to get past the obstruction. Nice though that you invoke the sedenions in order to obtain triality for 3 particle families. The sedenion sphere S15 fibrates uniquely yielding S7, S3, and S1 so it maps to the O, H, and C algebras. This makes decomposition almost automatic, along the lines you describe.
My findings relate to the Mandelbrot Set in the quaternion and octonion domain. There is an explicit representation of Cartan's G2 analogy in the form of M, when it is extended into higher dimensions. So my model implies a sort of modified DGP gravity cosmological scenario, with a 5-d --> 4-d transition, or perhaps more like cascading gravity - because the universe's origin or precursor state is higher-dimensional. How does your work treat the cosmological evolution of the universe, and the transition to the current era, given that you employ a similar set of assumptions?
Warm Regards,
Jonathan
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 02:06 GMT
I should note here...
It is my conjecture that the Mandelbrot-G2 connection is non-trivial.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Member Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 04:49 GMT
Dear Jonathan,
Greetings and many thanks. I would like to know more about your work! Could you kindly point me to some references? Thanks.
It is thrilling to know that you also refer to Connes [intrinsic] time. So we are in perfect agreement then there is a 4+1 d spacetime, with the Connes time in the background. For me the Connes time is still there in today's universe, as if to say that the observed universe is a bubble which resulted from spontaneous localisation in a much larger aikyon `sea' and is now expanding back. Connes time belongs to the aikyon sea and hence is applicable to the expanding bubble also - it is perhaps the cosmological time.
I am still trying to sort out the cosmology - Dirac's large number hypothesis is all over the place! In his post above, Steve Agnew already foresees some of the things I was planning to say about length scales and Planck length.
Thanks for your interesting remarks about sedenions. The original idea for sedenions and triality and three fermion generations is due to Gillard and Gresnigt. Also, the connection with F4 and the exceptional Jordan algebra is fascinating. And now you mention the G2 - Mandelbrot connection! Amazing. I will look this up. You would also already know that G2 is related to spaces that have a 2-plectic geometry: I am exploring this in the context of my Lagrangian.
Once again, thanks for your insightful comments, and I look forward to knowing more about your work.
Tejinder
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 15:28 GMT
Thanks so much Tejinder...
If the observed universe is a bubble; what if it is a ball rolling on the surface of a larger ball - which is the aikyon sea? This makes our universe the rolling ball in Cartan's G2 analogy, and this is the cosmology the Mandelbrot Set appears to suggest. Specifically; the cardioid portion of M relates to early universe dynamics, and the part showing features of present day Physics is the circular region centered at (-1, 0i), which is spherical in higher dimensions.
I have attached a diagram illustrating this idea. The associated cosmology is fascinating. The territory explored by Dvali, Gabadadze, and Porrati and the 5-d black hole to 4-d white hole model of Pourhasan, Afshordi, and Mann relate strongly to Cartan's rolling ball analogy for G2 - in my opinion. So I think there is perhaps a cosmological transition with your theory too. This could be ongoing as you say. The bubble we are in is unfolding by rolling across the aikyon 'sea.'
The key is understanding how localization enters the picture. I know about CSL but I use the metaphor of condensation in my work. This builds on a large body of work where gravitational horizons are like BEC formation. The model of Dvali and Gomez is a good example, but a very large number of researchers are exploring related territory. However; I also link this up to what happens at the high end of the dimensionality spectrum, because the octonions contain the quaternions, which contain the complex numbers, and the reals are a subset.
My
most recent FQXi essay explores this angle in some detail.
More later,
Jonathan
attachments:
G2MandelEversion.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Member Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear Jonathan,
Nice! I hsd a look at the ball rolling on ball figure you attached, and then browsed through your essay. Especially the part on octonions. I am so happy we are probing similar territory. Regarding doing cosmology with this aikyon theory, I would like to approach the problem little slowly after developing some methodology. The exact equations of motion for s single aikyon are already there, and they are very simple matrix equations. But how that translates into interactions, collisions, remains to be developed. Also the connection with M and cartan's G2 analogy is fascinating. These days I am trying to understand if fermion masses can be derived in the aikyon theory, from first principles.
But I can share with you the following cosmological aspect which is in all likelihood true in the aikyon theory. The octonionic universe is expanding also in the other four non-space-time directions, but at a rate a^1/3, if a is the expansion factor in the spacetime direction! This implies, assuming everything started at Planck length, that the other four directions have thickness typical of quantum scales. There is a noncommuattive grometry at nuclear scales, as you note in yor conversation with Tevian.
I will be in touch,
Tejinder
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 16:25 GMT
Relating to early universe dynamics...
The appearance of particles and voids allows associativity to be well-defined because interiority/exteriority is set by topological boundaries. But only when volumetric spaces sufficient to allow relative motion emerge is the commutative principle physically defined. We are used to living in a world of things inhabiting spaces, but that condition had...
view entire post
Relating to early universe dynamics...
The appearance of particles and voids allows associativity to be well-defined because interiority/exteriority is set by topological boundaries. But only when volumetric spaces sufficient to allow relative motion emerge is the commutative principle physically defined. We are used to living in a world of things inhabiting spaces, but that condition had to arise from a soup where those attributes were blended. And you call this the aikyon sea. Since the familiar properties of commutativity and associativity were lacking a basis early on; it is crucial to use Connes time as an evolutive basis.
We think of things changing, but QM forces us to think in terms of changes 'thinging' (from Kodish and Kodish) and this is precisely what CSL is all about, and my 'condensation of algebras' notion too. I think it traces back to Phil Pearle's statevector reduction. In his 'gambler's ruin' model; one player always ends up with all of the chips at the end. So the condensation of a large superposed set reduces into a single outcome. Then CSL via Ghirardi, Remini, and Weber includes the idea that gravity forces the wavefunction to spontaneously decohere through localization.
In my model; attributes emerge through condensation, where the cosmos and cosmology is like fractional distillation. This yields not only forms but the natural forces as well, which are seen to condense out of a unified field. The unified field includes all of Mathematics, including what we haven't discovered yet, and Physics is a result of Mathematics telling us which pieces are the most relevant. A lot of physicists, I think even Max Tegmark, are too timid about it in wanting the Physics to drive. Rick Lockyer has repeatedly said that the octonions want to be the driver, directing the evolution of form, and I agree.
The attached image graphically depicts the moment of particle and void formation in the Mandelbrot Butterfly figure centered at (-0.125, 0.75i). I've published several short papers lately. I'll discern what is most relevant to your work and forward it.
That's all for now,
Jonathan
view post as summary
attachments:
NurseryBubble.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 16:40 GMT
Thank you again Tejinder,
Indeed Tevian affirmed my thinking that geometry becomes first non-commutative and then non-associative as we approach the Planck scale, and my lament that most physicists either don't know of the complication, or if they do know can't grapple with that yet. I'm glad there is someone with your skill rising to the challenge. I applaud that you were able to derive the Lagrangian using your method. I have more reading to do, and then I'll have much to ask about or discuss.
Warm regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 17:11 GMT
lol an expanding bubble for Tejinder and Sx sphere for Jonathan, it begins to be interesting all this :=) the next step for you is to generalise the scales in considering so the 3D quantum and cosmological spheres more the spheres of fields and hop hocus pocus more the universal sphere in evolution, that begins to be general and interesting all this :) let s go dear thinkers, you can do it, think beyond the box and forget these fields like main origin and this GR like the only one piece and all will be easier :) :) they turn so they are you know like our vanity in our head lol
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 17:46 GMT
Jonathan , like I said to the others, th team of Klee irwin with Lisi, Asheim, fang fang, David chester work on this E8 , david told me that Connes had forgotten the non associativity and that my spheres were relevant, they have considered subgroups and subsets with the non associativity , they are good,you could like their works, it is the quantum gravity research group , friendly
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 18:09 GMT
I know of that group Steve...
Carlos Castro Perelman also worked with them. I see Tejinder's paper cites his work. And Ray Aschheim was a participant in past FQXi contests. A few people associated with that group had discussions with Tony Smith shortly before his demise, and Tony always had a lot to say about division algebras and spheres. Ah yes the spheres and E8, octonions and sedenions, but wait there's more! Unfortunate that he won't be having more to say, but that means now we must rise to the occasion. So it's good that Tejinder keeps that thread going.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 18:24 GMT
ok thanks for telling , they are good , great that all you work on this road, friendly
report post as inappropriate
Alaya Kouki replied on Dec. 10, 2020 @ 14:52 GMT
All those questions of unification are resolved in my article in https://vixra.org/abs/2012.0008.
I had explained what does it mean Dark energy & dark matter, the scale invariance gauge....etc.
Gravitational field & electromagnetic field are unified by the equivalence between the position of a corpuscle and the potential vector via a new universal constant and a conversion factor.
In my theory of vacuum, all interactions are unified in one classical-quantum potential:
-For n=0, we get the Yukawa potential
-For n=infinite we get Newton potential
-For n
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 10:18 GMT
ps Tejinder I have shared it in facebook
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 16:24 GMT
I'm back for more Professor Singh...
I think it is delightful, and as I read more I am learning, that your approach is informed by a methodology that I began formulating about 20 years ago, and continued to sharpen since then. The idea is to look at the totality of all Maths with the Calculus of Variations as a guide. From this view; the maximal, minimal, and optimal cases all have a...
view entire post
I'm back for more Professor Singh...
I think it is delightful, and as I read more I am learning, that your approach is informed by a methodology that I began formulating about 20 years ago, and continued to sharpen since then. The idea is to look at the totality of all Maths with the Calculus of Variations as a guide. From this view; the maximal, minimal, and optimal cases all have a special significance. That statement is in accord with what Mary Boas said in her delightful book about Mathematical Methods for Physics. But seen in a larger context where the Maths drive and the Physics follows; this notion takes on a much greater significance.
This makes the exceptional Lie groups (E8, E7, E6, F4 & G2), the normed division algebras (Octonions, Quaternions, Complex numbers, and Reals), and structures like the Mandelbrot Set jump out as significant. If we examine the spheres in all dimensions; we find maxima of (hyper-) volume and (hyper-) surface area, as well as a minimum. And Maryna Viazovska and colleagues showed that E8 close packing is the tightest arrangement obtainable. And Giulio Tiozzo finished some of the last work of William Thurston by showing how the Mandelbrot Set maps the behavior of the quadratic function to all orders. So the whole landscape of Math is seen to be interconnected.
This results in a view of Physics where the core behavior of these Maths, like Alain Connes' view of Intrinsic Time as a feature of some higher-order algebras. Most people would not make the leap that working in octonionic space implies that we must use what you call Connes time to describe the evolution of the early universe - so I commend you and your colleagues for this insight. But it seems a lot of your program falls directly out of the Maths, if we take the view that Math came first, and that Physics was only possible because the Maths provided a road to the evolution of physical form and a pattern of regularities in its internal structure, when viewed as a whole.
Bravo!
Jonathan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 16:30 GMT
A little too long to show it all...
But the above missive shares a view that your Aikyon theory, professor Singh, appears to be the product of a kind of constructivist hyper-Platonism which I favor. That would be looking at the Totality of Maths through a Calculus of Variations perspective, informed by Philip Gibbs' Theory of Theories, to formulate a version of Tegmark's Mathematical Universe on steroids, such that the Maths set the tone, and the Physics is only possible because Mathematics as a whole has a congruent message.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 16:35 GMT
Whoops I meant to say...
This results in a view of Physics where the core behavior of these Maths, like Alain Connes' view of Intrinsic Time as a feature of some higher-order algebras becomes a driver of cosmological evolution.
More later,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 16:44 GMT
Hi Jonathan, like I told , I love these geometrical alg of Lie and specially this E8 , I consider even them in my theory, but if I can , what if the fields and strings or points oscillating giving the topologies and geometries are not the primordial essence and that we have not only photons and this GR to unify the whole to reach this quantum gravitation, this tool is a good tool to better understand the fields of our standard model but that is all, what is all is just not true generally speaking about the main essence of feilds and that we have coded particles in a superfluidity and with 3 aethers superimposed, so that means that all the persons searching to explain this QG looses their time ? how are they going to accept this the thinkers ? hope their vanity can be humble if I am true , if not there is a big problem inside the sciences community. For the maths, we must be prudent we know that with the maths like main tool we can have odd extrapolations, the physics seems the main chief orchestra, the maths are a tool wich must be well utilised to help this physics for me,regards, bravo , cool to see french language
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 21:19 GMT
Connes is a remarkable Frenchman...
The idea of Connes time is subtle. How can a measure space evolve with time? What property might provide this perspective? Non-commutativity is the answer. Imagine yourself in a spacesuit near the International Space Station floating in the void. If you are not spinning; it's easy to triangulate your position relative to the Earth and the ISS, and to roughly gauge the distance if you know the size of both objects.
If I give you a spin around your waist like a skater on the ice, then start you spinning end to end (head over heels) and then side to side (like in Leonardo's famous drawing of a man in a wheel), what happens to our ability to measure? We find that our own rolling motions (rolling, pitching and yawing to be precise) are the predominant input and they vary in cycles over time. So any measurements you make from that perspective will also be time varying.
Does this make sense?
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 27, 2020 @ 13:09 GMT
Connes is the best for the non commutative analysis but it has not reached unfortunally this quantum gravitation, he has also probably forgotten to consider also the non associativitey and a different philosophy about the generality of the universe, but he is the best in this topic , I have learnt a lot in studying his papers on arxiv.
About what I explained, be frank Jonathan, what is for you the origin of our universe, the philosophy is important, I am curious , so I d like to have your general idea, do you consider the fields and so the points or strings and geonetrodynamics or geonetrical algebras for the ranklings of these fields, if yes, why and how can you be persuaded ?
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 27, 2020 @ 15:57 GMT
It all fits together Steve...
The optimal case for close-packing of spheres is why String Theory works in the dimensional spaces where it is effective. If you combine this with the notion that a minimal container is 2-dimensional (i.e. - a circle has in interior and an exterior), and it must persist in time, the reason for gravity to be quantum becomes obvious.
But in terms of geometrogenesis and geometrodynamics; the emergence of massive particles and of volumetric spaces coincides. So we end up with 5 10-d and one 26 dimensional String theories plus 11-d supergravity falling out of the compact arrangement of spheres and the need for there to be containers to have matter.
Simple,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 27, 2020 @ 16:17 GMT
Hi Jonathan, thanks for developing , I am understanding. I consider like you know that all is made of particles coded and 3 main systems of finite series of 3D spheres, in a kind of superfluid and so all is in contact. These spheres oscillate and with the two fuels, and the fact that they are in motions rotations oscillations, so that explains also the quantum fields these 3D spheres because they...
view entire post
Hi Jonathan, thanks for developing , I am understanding. I consider like you know that all is made of particles coded and 3 main systems of finite series of 3D spheres, in a kind of superfluid and so all is in contact. These spheres oscillate and with the two fuels, and the fact that they are in motions rotations oscillations, so that explains also the quantum fields these 3D spheres because they merge and we have the bosons , I beleive strongly that we don t need to have extradimensions, we live in a pure 3D at all scales and the 3D spheres cosmological and quant are ok with this idea, but I respect the strings theorists , they begin in 1D with strings inside the photons and after they are connected with a 1D main cosmic field and after they create the geometries, topologies, matters, fields, properties with the geometrical algebras mainly and the mathematical properties, but what I say simply is that if all the general philosophy of these strings, branes, superstrings, Mtheory is not the primordial essence, so all is generally false, it is just relevant for some rankings of fields , but I doubt personally that these strings are the answer begining in 1D towards 11D if my memory is correct, I prefer the coded particles , I don t know, maybe it is a fashion due to Witten or even a business, they have considered a kind of infinite heat and after only photons and after strings inside and after partitions like a music to create the reality, but frankly philosophically speaking there are many general problems with these strings , why we evolve for example ? there are reasons, the strings don t explain this evolution , and many other things. Some strings theorists consider a kind of god, others a kind of mathematical accident from this heat , but I have really difficulties to agree with this general idea that all comes from fields, the 3D coded spheres can explain all shapes with several mathematical tools also, I know that the strings are considered at universities but maybe they confound a good work of Witten about the fields giving him the field medal with the theory of strings, I can agree that there are several good things about the strings to better understand the QFT , but generally I don t agree like main cause of our universe and its correlated philosophy. That said a conjecture appears probably about these strings and the 3D coded spheres and these 3 main series, because they oscillate thes spheres. Maybe th secret to converge is to rank correctly all this and in considering only a pure 3D at all scales more a time evolution and these motions rotations and oscillations. I know that there is an enormous business around the strings and that Witten is supported, but it is always better to cooperate than compete after all, it exists this conjecture.
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
ASHLEY j ANDERSON wrote on Nov. 11, 2020 @ 01:32 GMT
Quantum mechanics and relativity. I never understood the issue physicists had with the unification of the two until today. I read about the issue of course but still didn't understand the problem. Listening to Brian Greene speak about the quantum approach to physics, I realized the big problem comes from the belief, as he stated, that all things are quantum and there is no distinction between what...
view entire post
Quantum mechanics and relativity. I never understood the issue physicists had with the unification of the two until today. I read about the issue of course but still didn't understand the problem. Listening to Brian Greene speak about the quantum approach to physics, I realized the big problem comes from the belief, as he stated, that all things are quantum and there is no distinction between what is relative and what isn't. He said we need to shift our ideas about reality. He used Schroders cat as an example. Its both dead and alive until you look. This is completely crazy to me. The cat is dead or alive in the box whether someone looks or not. It exists independently. The cat will only ever be dead or alive but not both at once. While I see he is talking about the possibility of the two, possibility isn't real. Things are or they aren't. Never both.
Quantum mechanics says things can be in two places at once but they really aren't anywhere but where they are.
So what does this have to do with the unification problem?
Well, for starters he stated there is no distinct value of matter that separates what is relative and what is quantum. This is absolutely false. The distinction is very clearly between particles and atoms. Particles are quantum and operate at quantum scales of both speed and time and relativity is anything Hydrogen and above. This is the magic of the universe. It's because particles operate at quantum scales and atoms at another that matter can evolve into elements and people.
If atoms were to operate as particles do, there would be no time lag. Everything would move instantaneously. There couldn't be a noticeable past of future. It is because atoms formed after particles that they can exist and transform at larger scales. Made of particles that move at quantum scales, atoms shift and alter their electrons, become isotopes and fuse together while maintaining their identity as atoms without any knowledge of their particles shifting until after it happens.
Our bodies grow and constantly change but we don't notice it until gray hair spouts up.
However the particles in our body never stop shifting.
Quantum exists within bodies, objects, atoms.
Gravity is time held together with a notable past.
Particles do not have a past, that can be noticed in a single moment.
Atoms do. Elements do.
Quantum mechanics and relativity coexist like this.
Particles are to the universe what
Strong weak electromagnetism is to Gravity
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
RAJAN DOGRA wrote on Dec. 8, 2020 @ 14:42 GMT
Does ultraviolet behavior of quantum Yang – Mills theory with no instability indicates single particle theory that connects gravity with QM ?
The ultraviolet behavior of quantum Yang – Mills theory possess no instability as the separation between physical gluons becomes exceedingly smaller & smaller with increase in energy. Ultimately, at quantum length, in the limit of approaching the...
view entire post
Does ultraviolet behavior of quantum Yang – Mills theory with no instability indicates single particle theory that connects gravity with QM ?
The ultraviolet behavior of quantum Yang – Mills theory possess no instability as the separation between physical gluons becomes exceedingly smaller & smaller with increase in energy. Ultimately, at quantum length, in the limit of approaching the origin of field space, the dynamical variables, becomes so infinitesimal in magnitude that they effectively represent a single physical gluon G . At Gribov horizon, application of Gauss Divergence theorem to this single physical gluon G leads to singularities of color-Coulomb potential spread all over a spherical surface β at quantum length of physical gluon.
After acquiring additional degree of freedom in the form of free color-Coulomb potential at Gribov horizon, the gluon ‘G’ has the aforesaid spherical system β firmly attached to it. At Gribov horizon, the uncertainty principle forbids this spherical system β, of constant radius (h’/8π), to undergo any Lorentz – Fitzgerald contraction in laboratory inertial frame and rather, demands the motion of gluon ‘G’ to instantaneously drop to zero speed in the laboratory inertial reference frame. This sudden deceleration in the speed of gluon ‘G’ at Gribov horizon assigns an inertial mass to gluon ‘G’ in accordance with General Relativity theory. This inertial mass of gluon ‘G’ produces gravitational effect in its surroundings because of equivalence between inertial mass & gravitational mass in General Relativity theory.
For further details, please click the following link
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346075636_Mathe
matical_Connection_between_Gravity_and_Standard_Model
Treatin
g the physical gluon as a point particle (of zero dimension) yields trivial UV fixed point for asymptotically free Quantum Yang Mills theory under flat space time assumption. However, the wave particle duality of any physical gluon entails to have non trivial UV fixed point at certain minimum Quantum length of the single physical gluon.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Dec. 10, 2020 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear friends@FQXI,
My apologies for this long absence and for not taking part in the discussion of late. I have written a new paper on eigenvalues of the exceptional Jordan algebra. There arise a set of twelve curious eigenvalues from four cubic euations: perhaps these eigenvalues are telling us something about mass ratios of quarks and leptons:
https://www.tifr.res.in/~tpsingh/massratiosarxivdec7
2020.pdf
Maybe you can see a pattern in these remarkable eigenvalues. I also attach a table which could be useful.
Best wishes,
Tejinder
report post as inappropriate
Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Dec. 10, 2020 @ 15:38 GMT
Here is the link to the same paper [mass ratios]
Jordan EigenvaluesThe table does not get attached unfortunately: but it is only a list of known masses ande the eigenvalues.
Tejinder
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 7, 2021 @ 08:26 GMT
UPDATE January 7, 2021
A theoretical derivation of the low energy limiting value of the fine structure constant, from the algebra of the octonions, yields the value 1/137.04006
The fine structure constant from the algebra of the octonionsBest regards,
Tejinder
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 7, 2021 @ 18:48 GMT
Hi Tejinder, It is a beautiful paper about the octonions and jordan works. You try to generalise this GR and QM and rank our standard model in considering an octonionic universe respecting so the fields and the general relativity. Like I said before , this kind of works is respectable and interesting to better understand our QFT, that said like I explained, we cannot affirm that this GR is the...
view entire post
Hi Tejinder, It is a beautiful paper about the octonions and jordan works. You try to generalise this GR and QM and rank our standard model in considering an octonionic universe respecting so the fields and the general relativity. Like I said before , this kind of works is respectable and interesting to better understand our QFT, that said like I explained, we cannot affirm that this GR is the only one piece of puzzle and that the fields are the origin of our universe. The string theorists and geometrodynamists forcus all on this with different maths and fractalise or extrapolate the dimensions like with the strings begining in 1D , after 10D for the bosonic strings or 26D or others in function of mathematical tools utilised. So they consider all that we have a 1D at this planck scale connected with this GR and a 1D cosmic field and the photons and oscillations vibrations inside. oK we understand this and even we can insert the kaluz Klein theory and the 5D, but what I try to explain is that this GR is probably not the rpimordial essence and the photons so also, they are just for me particles encoded in a the vaccuum giving us the electromagntism and the heat and they permit also to observe, because without light we don t observe. I like also the beauty of these E8 octonions and the play of persons in maths about them trying with the non commutativity to complete our standard model. But what I try to explain is that the points or strings and these extradimensions begining in 1D are just a general assumption. Of course they can permit with several symmetries and maths plays to explain better the bosonic fields, but the universe is not an octonionic universe, the fields are just emergent , what we must find is the main origin of this universe and I doubt it is from fields and oscillations of photons, we need to understand the vacuum , for me the main codes are there in the spacevacuum of this dark energy and these series of 3D spheres in my model after ar activated and becomes what they must become due to these photons encoded giving us the bosonic fields and the 3 main forces known and also the cold dark matter is encoded and permit to give the antiparticles and the gravitational quantum fields and also a fith force appears due to a serie of quantum BHs farer than our nuclear forces. I know that the thinkers are persuaded and have difficulties to change a line of reasoning but between us, I doubt that this universe has only created photons and that this GR is the only one piece, furthermore the dimensions can respect the pure 3D at all scales and this planck scale is just an assumption also due to maths, so it was the main problem to reach the quantum gravitation, utilise by curiosity and see the results the forces between these quantum BHs and the positrons , see what appears, the QG simply because we must consider not the protons and electrons, change the distances simply and respect the newtonian mechanics. See the calculations of the force. The problem of the majority of searchers is to consider only this GR , strings or geometrodynamics and also these E8 and fields like origin. It is the biggest error for me of thinkers, they turn in round in trying to explain the deep unknowns, but nothing, they just complete a litteö bit our standard model and its bosonic fields and they try just to complete this GR, they forget to think beyond the box. I liked your paper and I respect the maths utilised, I just explain that it is not sufficient to explain our unknowns. G c and h are not sufficient to explain this QG. Best regards, happy new year also.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 7, 2021 @ 20:59 GMT
Here is an idea for your works even if it is not my speciality about the octonions. The riemann hypotheisis for me is essential about the distribution of primes , and so the p adics analysis. The non commutativity and the hypotheisis of riemann become interesting if you consider the quasicrystals about the localisations and so the fractalisations of forces.Connes has worked about this , now consider also the hibert space , you shall see that several relevances appear when the order is considered but not the periodicity.The oscillations so in your octonions can be correlated.That can permit so to utilise the function of fields and the spectral analysis.Now insert the p adic numbers in these quasicrystals and mainly this E8 and also consider the non associativity for the subgroups ....Regards
report post as inappropriate
Member Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 9, 2021 @ 12:58 GMT
Thank you Steve, for your interesting suggestions. I am thinking them over.
Kind regards,
Tejinder
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 9, 2021 @ 13:51 GMT
You are welcome , I am focused at this moment about a thing that you could maybe help , I have considered a new conjecture , there is a conjecture about the volumes, like the poincare conjecture about the spheres, all returns always in this 3D , it is simply the choice of this universe, the other dimensions are just a mathematicla play invented by the humans, but the 3D is a foundamental at all scales. Proving this conjecture is difficult and probably is correlated with the poincare conjecture. Now this conjecture probably has something to do with these 3D spheres and the poincare conjecture, I ask me what I must utilise like tools to prove this conjecture. I have studied the proof of Perelman with the Ricci flow, so we can utilise the same kind of reasoning but with an intrinsic ricci flow and also with the synplectomorphisms preserving these volumes. But frankly I have tried several roads but it is not easy, if I prove this conjecture, that prove my theory and these quantum 3D spheres with this poincare conjecture. This new conjecture makes me crazy lol, friendly
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 7, 2021 @ 21:08 GMT
Numbers, primes, riemann hypothesis, p adics analysis, spheres , Lie groups , quasicrystals, fields and particles , they all dance in a pure geometrical topological spherical truth ......
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 8, 2021 @ 21:28 GMT
An octonion is not a genuine number. An octonion is a set of numbers where each number has been assigned to a different category, and where each different category is said to be a different “dimension”. Octonions exist nowhere but the human imagination.
But there is NOTHING FUNDAMENTAL about the genuine numbers anyway. It is categories and relationships that are fundamental. This is just simple logic:
Relative mass and (single dimension) position are examples of real-world categories of information. Physicists represent these categories as variables, e.g. in the mathematical equations that represent the laws of nature.
You can potentially form genuine numbers out of mathematical relationships between such categories (when the numerator and denominator categories cancel out), but you can NEVER EVER form categories out of relationships between genuine numbers.
So it is categories and relationships that are essential and fundamental: clearly, genuine numbers are made out of categories/variables and relationships.
Once you have some genuine numbers, you can imagine an octonion number by assigning each number to a different category/ “dimension”.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 9, 2021 @ 12:56 GMT
Hi Lorraine, I can understand what you tell. Even if I don t agree with the fields like main origin and the octonions utilised to explain our unknowns. We must recognise that this E8 for example is a beautiful tool mathematical for its symmetries and others. When the numbers are inserted , the fields of our standard model, the non commutativity and even the non associativity, that becomes relevant for the ranking of fields and correlated particles , the dimensional analysis are not important for me, but the fractalisations of fields yes, this E8 is simply a good tool to improve our standard model not to reach the quantum gravitation because it lacks things , but to better understand our standard model yes. The p a dics analysis and the primes and this hypotheisis of riemann are utilised simply because there is a like partition wich could permit to correlate these fields in their fractalisations. It is mainly about hierarchies.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 9, 2021 @ 21:44 GMT
Steve, the points I’m making are that:
1) Octonions don’t exist: they are a complex human construction which requires human beings to perform a series of algorithmic steps to construct and utilise them. Physics is blind to algorithmic steps.
2) Categories and relationships are fundamental, but numbers are not fundamental.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 9, 2021 @ 23:52 GMT
My dear Lorraine...
It is exactly as you say in point 2, with a caveat. So to restate things yet again; while categories and relationships are fundamental, REAL numbers are not.
This is precisely WHY the octonions are closer to the truth than the reals. The octonion algebra is a way to represent that everything starts out relational - having no constant or precise value - and by a process of reduction, we can arrive at stable quantities. If we view the imaginary dimensions of the octonions as rotations, then by fixing 4 of 7 axes we get the quaternions, by fixing 2 of their 3 axes we get the complex numbers, and by stopping the last rotation we obtain the reals.
It is BECAUSE your statement 2 is almost precisely true that your first statement falls apart Lorraine. It is only due to the fact that things are relational and not fixed to start with that we can arrive at a universe that is stably physical - while still having freedom of choice! It is the fact that variability is primal and constancy the result of variations that makes the octonions such a powerful tool. And while it is true they can be constructed; it is more nearly factual to say their self-existing properties were discovered.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 04:19 GMT
It is not unlimited...
But the real numbers are not the only valid algebra. One might consider extending things endlessly using a Cayley-Dickson construction but it turns out only 4 algebras are normed under division - which basically assures symmetry or makes certain operations reversible. The complex numbers have equal parts of constancy and variation, the quaternions have 3 times as much variation as constancy, and the octonions have 7 times as much.
But when variability greatly outweighs constancy; it makes sense things would become directional, cyclical, evolutive, sequential, and so on. Now Connes talks about all the really interesting stuff happening when the degrees of freedom approach infinity. So that's where it comes in that QM maps an infinite dimensional Hilbert space to a surface, and non-commutative geometry tells us about what happens in between.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 13:56 GMT
Dear Lorraine, I beleive the same about the importance of these octonions, I don t beleive they are the truth , they are just a mathematical tool interesting to rank the fields of our standard model, that is all, the universe is not an octonionic universe where the fields are the truth in oscillating vibrating differently and the GR is not the onloy one piece of puzzle for me. The algorythmic steps like you tell seem important indeed , we have created the binar codes and the computing with the qubits and correlated algorythms, but for me the universe is more complex than this for the algorythms universal. I consider 3 main ethers and so qutrits and 3D spheres. If we want to create a universal quantum computer , so we must mimate this universe, I have seen that they work actually like the society D waves about the annealings computing, that could be relevant to consider the cold and heat and these 3 main primoridal series to reach this quantum computing but the complexity seems very difficult.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Lorraine, if we take the meaning of algorythms, they are operations instructive finite to solve problems. It is so what we have in technologies now with the computing having created a basis and a specific structure, so we create roads to sove and adapt the solutions. But the actual algorythms utilised are different than our universal algorythmic mechanism. The universe has also created its basis and tools and the algorythms utilised with its own informations seem deeper than our actual system. All this becomes very philosophical in fact, we return about this origin of informations and what are our foundamental objects and why they create all this physicality with their properties, geometries, topologies and evolutive mechanism. The real difficulty is to mimate this universe in fact.Our actual algorytms are calculations numerical or non numerical permitting to solve the problems that we have created and it is function of the time and the complexity , the probabilities being essential also like the parallelisations. But like I said they are invented by us in function of our problems also invented like the basis of the system.We try in fact to detail our inventions and adaptations like a method to create a garden with all its steps to reach the aim. But what we don t know is this universe and its aim and its pure meaning , we are not in a problem like the rubbik cube if I can say, it is more than this and we must accept our limitations. That is why the AI can be created but not a conscious computer , maybe it is well like this after all. The ethic seems essential after all and we must be prudent maybe in playing with all this.But it is an other philosophical story.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 9, 2021 @ 21:20 GMT
I might add that to construct octonions or to construct mathematical equations out of component parts, and the performance of mathematics itself, all require ALGORITHMIC STEPS. Poor old physics is completely blind to the algorithmic steps necessary to construct an equation or a universe. Physics seems to think that these things just miraculously happen, and that the necessary, “hidden”, algorithmic steps don’t have to be accounted for, and symbolically represented in detail.
And just like you can’t construct categories (like mass or charge) out of relationships between genuine numbers, you can’t derive algorithmic steps out of law of nature mathematical relationships. On the other hand, you CAN construct mathematical relationships using algorithmic steps: algorithmic steps are fundamental.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 04:40 GMT
We are looking for the way nature did it Lorraine...
Of course there are procedural or algorithmic steps to any process of creation or of observation. It appears observation and creation are two sides of the same coin, but we have yet to discern its true shape and size to the utmost. I've bet on the idea that all the Maths are true at once. Call me a hyper-Platonist, if you like. But people wonder 'how did we actually get here?'
I made some mathematical discoveries more than 30 years ago that set me on a path to discover why Math so drives Physics. Wolfram shares your idea that it's more algorithmic than mathematical. Tegmark favors the other view. Gerard 't Hooft would rather marry the algorithmic view with Physics. While I find it necessary to marry the mathematical and procedural view in a kind of process Physics.
But everyone wants to know the procedure nature used to create the cosmos.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 20:58 GMT
It is not that we have a mathematical universe or an algorythmic one , it is that all is linked in a pure general physical and mathematical partition where the particles, the fields,the numbers, the algorythms dance together in harmony from a pure disorder and chaos. It is odd to separate all this because all is one simply under a specific universal logic. Ypou can tell all what you want, it is a simple fact and this partition is not known, we know a small so small part of puzzle, and for me personally it is the particles and their informations and codes wiuch distribute all
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 02:56 GMT
I'd like to add this...
It is the fact that relations are more primal or fundamental than quantities that makes the octonions so exciting. When I spoke with Tevian Dray at GR21; what I verified with him is that things like size and distance or interior and exterior are relations instead of quantities, as we approach the Planck scale or the rim of a black hole. The geometry becomes first non-commutative and then non-associative, as we approach the universe's origin therefore.
This is precisely why Tejinder's work is so profound. It takes advantage of the fact that evolutive properties that arise in higher-order algebras are a causal agent that can explain early universe cosmology. Another example would be a background independent formulation called energetic causal sets, where from the barest of assumptions one can draw a fecund evolutive schema. I had the great pleasure to hear Lee Smolin lecture about this, and praise its simplicity to him afterward.
It truly fascinates me that there are evolutive properties inherent in the Maths. And I feel as though I've seen the world outside the cave, because I was the lucky guy who got to ask the right experts the right questions, to see the other side of the story. When I go to conferences and lectures by top experts; I feel as though I am in the company of the gods or the ancient philosophers, because they know so much more than I do - and only a true expert can answer the burning questions that fuel my romance with knowledge.
However at this point; I am fairly certain numbers can self-evolve in higher dimensions.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 03:59 GMT
What if Connes' intrinsic time is the main player?
If the canonical time evolution described by Connes is a property of a large class of systems; it may be a prime mover or driving force to create a sort of trend toward evolutivity. If "non-commutative measure spaces evolve with time!" as Connes suggests; there is an unseen evolutive property at work in a great variety of physically realizable settings. As Tevian and I discussed; it comes into play more often than most people in Physics realize.
I would have to point to the octonions as the example that epitomizes directed evolution in Maths. The process of multiplication in the octonions is best seen as a procedure or algorithm, but it is very much like a process of triangulation from every possible angle. From the inside looking out, and from the outside looking in, at every possible angle, is the root of projective geometry. This is embodied in the octonions, in the geometry of their algebra.
So if the intrinsic time of Connes manifests in evolutive properties that are universal to many higher-order systems; it MUST be significant somehow.
Have Fun!
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 11:36 GMT
Hi , all this is interesting indeed about the octonions but are you conscious that if the fields and the GR only are not the truth, so all the generality of these octonions is not sufficient ? the experts like you tell focus all on this , the problem is not their skillings , the problem is the generality philosophical.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 11:37 GMT
it is not that we have higher dimensions, but other scales in fact and unknowns.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 21:03 GMT
The maths are a tool Jonathan and we must be prudent in their interpretations, they permit indeed to prove rigorously the assumptions and theories in physics, but they can also imply assumptions themselves, let s take the multiverses or the whormholes or the reversibility of this time, they are due to maths, in fact the physics is the main chief orchestra, not the maths, and we have the same problem with the maths of strings and their extradimensions, they are just assumptions like even this planck scale.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 11, 2021 @ 21:14 GMT
Ah the Planck scale...
It is where extensibility or extensiveness and uncertainty are equal. It is also indeterminate whether a given extent is space-like or time-like initially, because its precise definition is discovered in the direction of further evolution. This can be as you have said a kind of quasicrystal that becomes more ordered over time. The reason we can think of the Planck scale as self-evolving is because of uncertainty. We see that things including spacetime have to get bigger than a certain size to persist.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 15:57 GMT
the palnck scale maybe does not really exist Jonathan and the GR is maybe not the only one piece of puzzle, so in trying to unify the GR and the QM, Gc and h with the fields, the thinkers turn in round in the philosophical prison simply for me, they forget now to think beyond the box. It is the reason why they cannot explain our unknowns simply. Wiclzek for example that I respect and like published the noise of gravitons like quanta of the gravitational waves, but it is just an assumption, the particles of gravitation are different that this, I was surprised in encoding his DM in our nuclei and in taking into account different distances , now make the calculations that I have explained, the QG appears simply , this weakest quantum force, it is not an emergent electromagnetic force, but the electromagnetism is emergent, it is totally different.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 20:52 GMT
To state the obvious, octonions are a hybrid, a human construction. They are not numbers, because they have been assigned categories/ dimensions. It’s very easy to see that numbers have no category/ dimension: you can easily construct numbers out of mathematical relationships between categories where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, LEAVING NO CATEGORY. The whole point about numbers is that they have no category/ dimension. Categories/ dimensions are a different thing to numbers.
Something that we would describe as numbers really exists in the world; but octonions only exist in the human imagination. Yet we can represent both numbers and octonions as (e.g.) symbols on bits of paper, as though there were some similarity between them, but there isn’t.
Construction steps must be fully accounted for. Things don’t just miraculously “happen”. You can’t sweep construction steps under the carpet and pretend that they don’t exist. Mathematical equations only represent relationships, they do not represent algorithmic steps i.e. construction steps. Construction steps can only be represented algorithmically i.e. as IF, AND, OR, THEN, FOR…NEXT etc. Put a mathematical equation into a computer, and it will get you nowhere: it’s the behind the scenes IF, AND, OR, THEN, FOR…NEXT that does the work. Physics does not account for IF, AND, OR, THEN, FOR…NEXT: these are the algorithmic steps that cannot be derived from law of nature mathematical relationships.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 21:53 GMT
I'll explain why I think the truth is different...
The term 'imaginary' throws some people, or fools them into believing we have invented something unreal to account for a thing we don't understand. Imaginary numbers are the freedom to vary by a specified amount in a particular direction. If you put a weight on the end of a spring, there are real-valued quantities such as the stiffness and elasticity of the spring, the mass of the weight we use, the distance we can stretch the spring and have it return to its initial position, and so on.
The imaginary part is bound up in how far it goes above and below the midpoint, when you pull down the weight and release it. But it also results in a specific period of repetition, for the cycle of action, as the weight bobs up and down. The really tricky part, when you try to think of these things in pure Maths, is that the imaginary numbers are orthogonal to the reals. And furthermore; if you go to 3 imaginaries for the quaternions they are each orthogonal to the others, and likewise if you go to 7 imaginary dimensions for the octonions.
This makes most people's head hurt and think that it's all in their imagination, but imaginary does not mean unreal in this case.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 21:58 GMT
I am prompted to add...
When you use conditional statements in a program or sequence of steps; IF, AND, OR, THEN, FOR… NEXT are all ways to smuggle in the concept of time. They are based on a prior assumption of sequentiality. This is precisely what is seen to happen naturally or automatically with the octonions, if you believe in the work of T.P. Singh. So we don't have to sneak in time because it arises on its own.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 22:17 GMT
Typical ignorant bullshit from Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 23:32 GMT
Jonathan,
if Octonions naturally or automatically can let arise time, then why not feed a computer with a bunch of Octonions and wait until the computer program starts to execute itself – without having to execute it? According to your statements that is impossible since we cannot use the conditionings like IF, AND, OR and so on, because according to you that would mean that we smuggled in time. So far, so good.
But consequently, Lee Smolin et al. - whom you have cited in some earlier posts here - unfortunately have smuggled into their numerical simulations exactly what they in the first place wanted to demonstrate with these simulations – namely time. They did it by using a computer. But if Smolin et al.'s brain would have the capacity to do the needed calculations “by hand” (hence, in the brain – let's call that “brain calculation”), they again would merely have smuggled in what they wanted to “prove” in the first place.
So, the simple and unspectacular logical truth about your claims is that already every “brain calculation” that uses “Octonions” to "deduce" something will smuggle in what it wants to “prove” in the first place – namely the “emergence” of time. And that is a “relatively meager” result – since it is just unspectacular good old circular reasoning.
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Jan. 11, 2021 @ 03:51 GMT
‘It is very easy to see that numbers have no category/dimension” Now that is a prime example of more “ignorant bullshit”. 200+ years of complex NUMBERS.
Computer programming/algorithms and Octonion Algebra. There aren’t many people on the planet that know more about that combination than I do. One cannot effectively do anything meaningful with Octonions without a computer and...
view entire post
‘It is very easy to see that numbers have no category/dimension” Now that is a prime example of more “ignorant bullshit”. 200+ years of complex NUMBERS.
Computer programming/algorithms and Octonion Algebra. There aren’t many people on the planet that know more about that combination than I do. One cannot effectively do anything meaningful with Octonions without a computer and suitable software. I recognized that >25 years ago when I started development of my symbolic algebra software for Octonion Algebra. Several major iterations and three different programming languages later I have something that is actually quite good. I posted a simplistic version of it open source in the forum for my 2018 fqxi essay along with a sample program that cranks out and verifies the equivalence between the Octonion work-force equation and its companion form with outside differentiations, the Octonion equivalent of the divergence of the classical stress-energy-momentum tensor. This is classically used to integrate over some arbitrary volume with select outside differentials converting volume integrals to surface integrals leaving the mathematical description of the equations for the conservation of energy and momentum.
I mention this because it is a perfect example of how it is nuts to claim mathematics should take a back seat to algorithms, that somehow math is thus inferior. Coming up with the proper form for the Octonion Algebra work-force equation was not too bad, but the algebraic invariant portion has 192 differential product terms in each of eight dimensions, none with an outside differentiation. It would be excessively difficult to modify these terms such that you have nothing but outside differentiations on all product terms.
The sample program I gave shows both sides and proves after doing the outside differentiations on the SEM terms there is a perfect match with the work-force side. The ALGORITHM to produce the SEM terms was provided BY THE OCTONION ALGEBRA. It was created from all possible algebraic invariant quad products, as defined by the 16 different definitions for proper Octonion Algebra. It is quite ignorant for someone to think that Octonion Algebra is just in someone’s imagination when the form just referenced precisely covers Electrodynamics through its conservation equations while additionally providing another algebraically separate central force: gravity.
Anyone that has taken a numerical analysis programming course would clearly know the math drives the programmatic algorithm, not the other way around. The same math problem can be solved in a plethora of different programming languages. Computers, algorithms used in computer programming are nothing more than subordinate tools used to do something useful. They are totally a human manifestation. They are not fundamental like mathematics is.
We do not invent or “dream up” any mathematical principles, we discover them. They were there before us and will still be there when we are long gone. As for the popular notion of “emergence”, why bother?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 11, 2021 @ 20:24 GMT
I'll admit I am a Platonist...
I share the view espoused by Plato, that ideals or archetypes of form exist apart from the material universe, and that nature somehow incorporates the perfect or ideal into the real forms we see around us. But it was Mathematics and not Plato's philosophy that convinced me. And like Rick Lockyer; I found a computer was essential to exploring some things, and provided unique but verifiable insights.
Rick is truthful and accurate in his statements that mathematicians discover the properties of Maths they explore, not invent them, and that the Maths dictate the program steps and their sequence inflexibly. If you are working in the octonions, the order and sequence terms are evaluated is strictly dictated by the algebra itself. So there is nothing to devise or invent, except how to carry the steps out.
In some ways; it's the repeatability factor that makes it impressive. It works the same on any computer with enough oomph. What that implies is that the Maths are the same for everyone, or in every setting, possibly even before the origin of the cosmos. That's where the Platonism comes in. I believe the Maths predate the universe and that's why Mathematics of itself can help shape the laws of nature, as we have come to know them.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 11, 2021 @ 21:45 GMT
I speak as a person who studied Mathematics for 2 years at school, and for 3 years at university, and received a High Distinction for one of my Mathematics subjects. I also studied Physics and Information Science at university, and I was a computer programmer and analyst for more than 20 years.
Re Numbers:
What are real-world numbers? We are using number symbols to represent something about the real world, at a fundamental level. Clearly, numbers are nothing more than mathematical relationships between categories, where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out. There are no dimensions involved, except in the human imagination, which uses dimensions as a way of handing complex mathematical relationships.
Why doesn’t Rick Lockyer, who thinks he knows all about numbers, explain EXACTLY what a number is?
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 01:55 GMT
I would suggest you read the classic book by I.L. Kantor and A.S. Solodovnikov titled “Hypercomplex Numbers, An Elementary Introduction to Algebras”
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 15:30 GMT
It was greeted with much skepticism...
When Tomita first began expounding the subject of Modular Hilbert Algebras, the Math community initially thought some of his ideas were crazy. But after Takesaki made a careful and thorough exposition of this topic; the rest of the world learned that Tomita's results are real and significant. This led to Alain Connes making Tomita-Takesaki theory the centerpiece of his PhD thesis!
So when Alain Connes wrote "Noncommutative measure spaces evolve with time!" in 'Noncommutative Geometry Year 2000,' he had been playing with these ideas for a while, but it was like a private obsession because it was pretty much a secret to the rest of the world, that algebras or geometric spaces could have intrinsic evolutive properties resulting in a canonical time evolution.
The 'intrinsic time' of Connes is therefore not an invention of the French Lion of Maths, but is instead a monumental discovery about autonomous patterns and dynamism in Mathematics first hinted at by Tomita, explained by Takesaki, and later greatly expanded on and put in geometric terms by Connes. This is still one of those mind-blowing ideas that turns the world inside-out, so it is unexpected..
And the development of these ideas has been very obscure before Tejinder Singh and his colleagues incorporated this notion into Aikyon theory. What makes the octonions an essential part of this story is that while the most exciting stuff happens when the degrees of freedom (dimensions) approach infinity; the octonions exhibit strong evolutive properties with only 8 dimensions!
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 15:53 GMT
Hi Jonathan, all this is interesting indeed , Connes we know him is the best for this non commutativity , and Tejinder has made a beautiful paper with these octonions, they are a good tool. But and there is a but lol, I repeat, we cannot confound the relevance of this tool to better understand our bosonic fields and the main origin of our reality, I repeat even if you are persuaded about your...
view entire post
Hi Jonathan, all this is interesting indeed , Connes we know him is the best for this non commutativity , and Tejinder has made a beautiful paper with these octonions, they are a good tool. But and there is a but lol, I repeat, we cannot confound the relevance of this tool to better understand our bosonic fields and the main origin of our reality, I repeat even if you are persuaded about your philosophy general of this universe. We are not sure thet the only one piec3 of puzzle is the GR and that the fields are the origin of our reality creating the topologies, geometries. I d like to have your general philosophy, please explain us, do you consider really that this infinite eternal consciousness for example is an infinite heat and that the photons and points or strings inside oscillating in 1D are the answer, be frank, develop your general idea please. I agree that the works of connes are interesting , the evolution in my model is essential and I don t consider that it comes from the maths but from coded particles , the time is irreversible on this entropical arrow of time and it is a thing emergent due to motions rotations of these particles for me, so why we must consider the fields and the maths of these octonions like the answer of our reality ? it is really a fashion in fact, I beleive that the thinkers have forgotten to consider the particles instead of fields, you know , the particles are not a problem, they are in contact explaining the fields and waves if we apply specific finite series of 3D spheres in begining with the biggest central volume and after we decrease tyhe volumes and increase the number with the dirac large number, now consider 3 main finite series coded, one for thje main codes, thje space vacuum and the two fuels that I explained , the photons and the cold dark matter and when they merge they create the electrm and gravitat fields, it is not a problem in this reasoning also to gfractalise the fields with the octonions if you want but the general philosophy is different about the origin. Why this fashion of fields ? explain me and please detail your answer. The einstein fields equations and his GR seems the problem and the works of witten it seems to me, it is really a prison now for me.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 16:12 GMT
lol I have the feeling to fight alone against a lobby of fields like origin , apparently with my 3D coded spheres in a superfluid I am a problem , but it is not serious, I know that the persons have not thought about a so simple general universality, I know also that I irritate because I think differently and that the majority of thinkers have worked hard with these fields and this GR, I respect this, but like I said all is in contact and the fields and waves can be explained with my reasoning also, I don t understand why they want to insist on the fields creating our topologies and realities and with extradimensions to be frank. The universe is simple generally, and philosophically there is a lot of problems considering these fields, they don t really respect the evolution and the transformations of this E and the matters energy informations. This thing that we cannot define does not play at guitar for me you know, there is a problem philosophical considering the evolution I repeat and our evolutive consciousness, if we evolve and we are not perfect , there are reasons, if a thing can oscillate the photons to create the universe and that this thing is incredibly skilling, and when we see all these more than 10000 billions of galaxies, so frankly it is not a problem with oscillations to stop the sufferings and the lack of cosnciousness , so you see well that there is a problem with the oscillations vibrations. The universe is not mystical, it is a pure evolutive rational physicality with concrete laws, axioms, equations, why this infinite eternal consciousness has not created a perfect conscious universe and its lifes in a specific oscillation at the begining so ?
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 16:19 GMT
Here are some missing pieces...
It turns out to be easy to coax automatic evolution out of infinite degrees of freedom and finitely reducible uncertainty alone. So in some ways; Tomita was just stating the obvious, or Connes was making plain something that should be apparent to Physics folks right away. The idea is that if you are working from an infinite range of variations, or infinite...
view entire post
Here are some missing pieces...
It turns out to be easy to coax automatic evolution out of infinite degrees of freedom and finitely reducible uncertainty alone. So in some ways; Tomita was just stating the obvious, or Connes was making plain something that should be apparent to Physics folks right away. The idea is that if you are working from an infinite range of variations, or infinite possibilities; pretty much anything is possible, ..almost! But nothing is quite actually real or truly possible without an evolutive process.
If we approach it from the Quantum-Mechanical view; some of this becomes possible to explicate simply. John Klauder eloquently explained at FFP15 that we can see Quantum Mechanics as a projection from an infinite dimensional Hilbert space onto a 2-d surface with specific well-defined properties. He went on to explain that we can obtain enhanced quantization by lifting the target space or varying it in ways that let us see hidden details. This is like constructing conformal field theories to fit the need.
We can relate this back to Connes' remarks that the really fun evolutive stuff happens when degrees of freedom become infinite but this must be mapped onto finite-dimensional spaces and relations. My guess is it does not happen all at once, but proceeds in stages respecting all possible forms up and down the dimensions. This expands on themes developed by my departed friend Ray Munroe - that both the simplest and most complex forms possible in Math inform Physics - informed by works of other departed friends, F.D. 'Tony' Smith and my Physics mentor Greg Kirk.
Bimetric Convergence is a term I have coined for a scenario where dimensionality is at first unconstrained, ranging from 0-d to infinite dimensions, and was both bottom-up and top-down limited - until cosmological transitions constrain the upper and lower limit of dimensions. The linked published paper explains a little better.
Best,
Jonathan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 16:39 GMT
Just so you know Steve...
I deeply respect your message, and FWIW I think you are on the right track mostly. I have latched on to the idea of spherization in all dimensions, because it's pretty obvious the universe is a sphere of sorts. I have included a table from Tony Smith summarizing their properties (spheres in various dimensions) so the reader can see all of the spheres at once - in the linked document above. I am a fan of superfluids as well Steve. But I think we either live in a nested array of spheres or a sphere riding on a sphere - in the ultra-macroscopic view.
I got hooked on the decomposition of spheres story when Joy Christian was a regular contributor, and despite his going a little off the rails; he had some very good ideas to share, that were mathematically supportable. I kind of hope that folks don't treat his stuff as crackpot work - because it was more of a near miss. I think some of his claims were impossible to back up without a full blown quantum gravity theory, which he did not have. So it is with your work that until you can fit more of the puzzle pieces together at once; folks may assume you don't know what you are talking about.
My Warmest and Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 18:25 GMT
Thanks Jonathan, you know when I have found this universal link, it is in ranking a little bit of all, more than 12 years ago, and I knew that I found something innovative, I am not a professional so at the begining, it was limited, I have learnt a lot and now it is more concrete. You know when I have shared this theory on linkedin, I have been endorsed by neil de grasse tyson and others Phd ,...
view entire post
Thanks Jonathan, you know when I have found this universal link, it is in ranking a little bit of all, more than 12 years ago, and I knew that I found something innovative, I am not a professional so at the begining, it was limited, I have learnt a lot and now it is more concrete. You know when I have shared this theory on linkedin, I have been endorsed by neil de grasse tyson and others Phd , they loved my theory and they told me it is innovative, but I have been hacked jonathan and others have even tried to plagiate and that continues, it is not well, they thought they were smarter because they were professionals , so they have utilised tools that I didn t know, but now I am going to publish correctly. In fact I know the humans , they are the most of the time, vanitious and full of greed , and fortunally that FQXi exists and the internet with the dates because my theory is not the theory of spheres Jonathan, but the theory of spherisation, unifying the spheres quant and cosm but also the evolution and the 3D. The members of FQXi could recognise this but they are occupied with their own works , hope they have not forgotten that I have improved a lot . Nothing falls down from the sky you know Jonathan, I have learnt and searched answers since many years, and I beleive in all humility that I merit this respect , not from the vanitious but from the real rational universal thinkers searching concrete answers. About Joy, he is on face and in my friends, but other friends told me that he lies a lot , Richard Gill a friend of Hooft told me this, that he was not at oxford and that he plagiates a lot. I am a nice guy you know but I know the humans and their tastes for the authority, power, vanity, greed and others , I cannot accept the plagiarism, I am the first to have generalised these spheres 3D and an universal sphere in optimisation, I know that my work is serious . The fake thinkers and the plagiarists and the vanitious don t interest me, I want to learn more with real universal thinkers, not the pseudos and I know that they exist on FQXi also. hope they respect my work evolving with or without the approvements of jealous and envious and vanitious. You seem a good guy , the most important is this universalism after all and the respect. Sometimes this planet is surprising in fact lol , vanity of vanities, all is vanity my friend you know and many are ready to sell their souls for many things, or to play without consciousness also like a game where they even don t understand the points of equilibrium, like the cooperation better than the competition.
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 19:54 GMT
That is the value of publishing Physics letters Steve...
One can set out a sketch of an idea with not much proof, and thereby establish that you had a certain idea. But it is always a challenge, how to know when you are saying enough without saying too much. You don't want to put your unsupportable ideas out there prematurely, and make it look like cracked pottery even when you have good ideas and want to expand them later...
So you have to know ahead of time that some portion has strong evidence or can be proven. but you don't want to wait until half a dozen others have published similar results, and then claim your work is completely original. This gives the appearance of plagiarism for those who had seminal ideas and failed to publish until only after it appeared to be a good idea after all.
The way I see it; Joy Christian foolishly painted himself into a corner, by clinging to facets of his work that he could not show true, and which may actually be false. I don't think he was an outright plagiarist, but in some ways he was touting pure Maths and trying to show it is good Physics, but failed in his bid to do so. Without stronger evidence; he was foolish to push things so far. But a lot of those Maths still make perfect sense.
Best Wishes,
Jonathan
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 20:40 GMT
You know Jonathan, I work seriously and I have an education in sciences, I was in maths sciences trong in secondary in one of the best school of my region, 9 hours of sciences, 3 , 3 ,3 , more 4 hours of labs, and 9 hours of maths, I know what is a derivation, a study of function, or an integration, after I was at university in second in geology but I have had a coma due to epilepsy, one year to...
view entire post
You know Jonathan, I work seriously and I have an education in sciences, I was in maths sciences trong in secondary in one of the best school of my region, 9 hours of sciences, 3 , 3 ,3 , more 4 hours of labs, and 9 hours of maths, I know what is a derivation, a study of function, or an integration, after I was at university in second in geology but I have had a coma due to epilepsy, one year to be better, I have made agronomy, but I cannot stop to study the sciences and maths, I have ranked the books of bronstein and semendiaev in maths and you don t imagine the papers that I have studied, I know what are the geometrical algebras and I work to create my own tools in maths for my theory with the spherical geometrical algebras, you see Jonathan, the thjinkers never must underestimate the searchers even not professional, and you don timagine the books read in philosophis and sciences, it is in me, I cannot stop. There I study the works of Steven Duplij and fortunally that I have these basis at schools, I am obliged to explain this , just for the plagiarists or the persons against me, like this they know that I am not a crackpot. I d like to tell you one thing, the theoretical sciences community Jonathan work about many assumptions and they are professional, and it is not considered like crackpot, so explain me how it is possible that the strings are considered like this and it is an assumption. Many åprofessionals make assumptions, like Tegmark and the multiverse, it is proved? is it taken like crackpot ? no, the same for the whormholes, the same for many things in fact , so I am going to be frank, there is an enormous problem inside our community you know, it seems a circus sometimes. But a sure thing, we must prove our assumptions and there all the persons accept, we must shut up and calculate, at this moment nobody has reached the QG, I have reached it, and I will publish this year with the correct mathematical tools because like I explained I know the maths and I have in all humility the capacity to create my tools, I am not better, I have just this capacity general to create and imagine, many utilise the tools of others but a few number can create their own tools or new tools in maths. I am not Riemann, euler, godel,cantor, poincare, Connes, Duplij, Atiyah,dirac, Lie....but I know their works and I am steve simply the spherical guy lol . You know Jonathan, many publish papers in taking the tools known and after they try a little bit to be relevant , but a few number make like connes or Duplij, creating their own partitions. It is not complicated to take the tools knowns and write a paper in physics mimating the others, what is difficult is to be innovative and create complex innovative tools or partitions relevant to go deeper. I am obliged sometimes to explain a little bit deeper my knowledges. My english is not perfect, I speak french, ductch, spanish, latin and english and I confound sometimes , so the persons must not forget this also. I write poems and theaters in french and I play guitar and piano and I love the blues rock at guitar and classic at piano and I have many creations also. I don t sell me , no I explain for the persons against me who I am , a searcher wanting to have answers. I like you Jonathan, you seem a good guy, universal, smart and interesting, take care my friend.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 20:57 GMT
all this to tell in repeating that I was prepared for the polytechnics in civil engineering in secondary in choosing this discipline maths sciences strong , it was difficult in maths I must say and I have very well made my exams , with 9 hours of maths by week during all my 3 last years 16, 17, 18. and 3 hours of physics, 3 of chemistry and 3 of biology more 4 of labs like I said. You see Jonathan, I know about what I speak in all humility, but it was just the basis these years, it is after that I have learnt a lot in reading the best books in maths and sciences, for example I know all my equations you know in quantum mechanics like in thermodynamics, I have stiudied by memory all the books of Zemanski about heat and thermo ndn many other in maths, physics, and even chemistry and biology, I have even ranked the animals, vegetals, minerals, and the biology in details.I am obliged to explain, sorry if it is pretentious, just like this, you see clearer about me. All this to tell that you shall see my publications this year, they shall be well made with the good concrete maths and physics.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 17:05 GMT
As it turns out...
It does arise in General Relativity. Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler introduce this in chap. 16.3, which starts on pg. 388 in my copy. This regards factor ordering, curvature, non-commutativity, and the equivalence principle. Because some terms couple to curvature; we are told about exceptions or modifications to the "comma goes to semicolon rule" on pages 390 and 391, but Physics research in recent years shows there are additional modifications to add to the list.
The work that Rick Lockyer cited earlier speaks to precisely this concern! He fills in the blanks by showing one missing piece arises from the forced ordering of the octonions! So even GR experts MUST be acutely aware of non-commutative factors in their calculations - if they really know what they are doing. A lot of people take shortcuts Steve, or assume that certain things are true across the board. Translations in 3-space commute, but rotations do not.
Go Figure!
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 18:38 GMT
The big philosophical question will be , these 3D spheres , are they emergent or are they the choice foundamental of this universe jonathan ? all is there, they don t emerge for me from fields in 1D at this planck scale and connected with this cosmic field of this GR, no they are created coded at the primoridal essence of the universe. You see the difference now ? the topologies and geonetries are not due to fields for me and maths of strings or geonetrodynamics, no they are deformed spheres in 3D , it is totally different.If I am right it is the endo of strings and fields in fact , not the E8 because it can be utilised also with my finite series primoridal of 3D spheres.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 19:35 GMT
In my view...
They arise from the action of Lie group G2. I'm pretty sure E8 plays a part earlier on, but G2 supplies the piece you are looking for. Think on 'how does there come to be interiority/exteriority?' Then the place of the spheres in 3-d Physics becomes clear. We are used to a situation where size and distance are fixed or constant, but they might better be seen as relational at first, where a gauge setting mechanism is needed that gets supplied by cosmological transitions.
Early universe cosmology forces us to abandon some conventional assumptions entirely. There must always be some kind of determiner for fixed relations to arise.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 20:22 GMT
I have discussed about this with several persons working with the octonions, the E8 and the G2. All this is interesting because it pexists probably a kind of conjecture about the fields or the 3D spheres like origin. The actual cosmology that we analyse is unfortunally limited, due to fact that we can only observe the photonic spacetime , the BB is an assumption and maybe we have a deeper logic...
view entire post
I have discussed about this with several persons working with the octonions, the E8 and the G2. All this is interesting because it pexists probably a kind of conjecture about the fields or the 3D spheres like origin. The actual cosmology that we analyse is unfortunally limited, due to fact that we can only observe the photonic spacetime , the BB is an assumption and maybe we have a deeper logic than this BB. I have studied also several papers about this inflation and BB cosmology and the GR. If I can , the shape of this universe seems a key , a sphere or not or a future sphere and why and how? I liked the explainations of Alan guth about this inflation. I consider personally an expansion of the space due to the multiplications of these finite primordial quantum series of 3D spheres having the dirac large number, the same I have calculated than our finite cosmological serie of 3D spheres. The singularity being this central cosmological sphere being a thing beyond our understanding, a kind of supermatter energy able to create all infornations with these finite quantum series having codes , this supermatter energy so is a matter energy possessing all the mendeleev table and the energies , and so the distribution of matters is in function of codes and the 3 series that I explained, the fuels permitting to activate the space vacuum.It is the DE , this spacevacuum Jonathan simply.See that that implies a logic that we cam predict seen the dark energy and dark matter disponible and the spherisation in my model, all can be unified in all humility and that can complete logically the standard model.I don t affirm that the universe is a sphere actually but it will be a sphere or is maybe allready a sphere, and that implies an acceleration decceleration towards the maximum volume spherical and after an acceleration decceleration towards the minimum balanced spherical volumes, it is a little bit this also the meaning of my model of spherisation, it is an evolution of this universe, see that at tghis quantum scales it evolves, that is why also this consciousness evolves, but it is an other story.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 13, 2021 @ 12:11 GMT
Jonathan, here is the general idea of my spherical geometrical algebras that I have invented and permitting to quantify this QG.
I have invented the Spherical geometrical algebras, correlated with the geometrical algebras of Clifford.
3 main finite primordial quantum series , having the same number finite than our cosmological finite serie of 3D spheres, I have calculated, it is the dirac large number.
---> space vaccuum main codes of the DE
--->photons , fuel 1 , implying in merging with the space the electromagnetic forces of the standard model and the heat.
---> cold dark matter ,fuel 2, implying the antiparticles the balanced cold and the antiparticles
General vectorial analysis, associativity, non associativity, commutativity, non commutativity, vectorial spaces, under vectorial spaces. Scalars , real numbers multiplication vectors , primes, p adics.
Utilisation and properties and 3D quantum spheres,
Tensors, matrix, torsors, vectors, complex numbers, spinors, quaternions , differential forms, volumes, densities, angles , sense of rotation, superimposinmgs, sortings, synchronisation....densities linked and life time and evolution. Rotations, phasis, imaginary numbers. Oscillations vibrations of 3D spheres, more the hopf fibrations on surfaces permitting to rank the quasiparticles. External and internal products ....rankings.
Symplectomorphims preserving the volumes for the deformations of 3D spherical volumes.
The number finite does not change ,
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 19:27 GMT
This is how Connes explained it...
Time - in Noncommutative Geometry blog gives details of how time has an intrinsic evolution or arises automatically in NCG.
Heart Bit #1 - in Noncommutative Geometry blog explains how this gets to the heart of what non-commutative geometry is all about.
And it is further discussed and explained here at the n-Category Cafe:
Re: Alain Connes’ “Intrinsic Time” - QFT of Charged n-Particle: The Canonical 1-Particle - in n-Category Cafe blog features Connes' explanation in a discussion about how intrinsic time works in QM.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 21:53 GMT
Human beings are well known for extrapolating and interpolating ideas, and for creating fantasy scenarios in books and films. But many people seem to believe that mathematics and physics is exempt from this type of thing.
However, many mathematical ideas are clearly pure fantasy, e.g. some ideas about numbers. Number symbols can be used to represent something about the real world; the real world is what is important; the real world is most definitely not a fantasy scenario.
Seemingly, no-one can concisely explain WHAT a real-world number actually is, but then they try to claim a number can have some sort of dimensions.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 13, 2021 @ 01:29 GMT
It is true humans are great fabricators...
It is sad, however, that many of those who dissemble with great apparent veracity are the ones who become the leaders in our society. It is too often the best fabricators and not the best thinkers making the important decisions.
Current events do so attest.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 13, 2021 @ 10:39 GMT
Hi to both of you,
Lorraine ,indeed the humans like to dream and imagine fantasies, they create, it is very well for the arts but we have this also inside the sciences community and mainly in maths and physics due to symmetries or others, and the psychology and the own encodings also create these things. That is why we have so many assumptions. But a sure thing after all is that only the...
view entire post
Hi to both of you,
Lorraine ,indeed the humans like to dream and imagine fantasies, they create, it is very well for the arts but we have this also inside the sciences community and mainly in maths and physics due to symmetries or others, and the psychology and the own encodings also create these things. That is why we have so many assumptions. But a sure thing after all is that only the proved laws, axioms, equations are accepted, implying that we must take into account just this pure rational determinisn after all. We can create, imagine but we cannot affirm our assumptions.
Jonathan, the world is not perfect like we know and like I said, we can rank the humans and their psychology, comportments, philosophies, ... the world is a system with specific parameters and the humans try to adapt themselves to this system, many plays a game and are not really conscious, all what they search is to be well and so the edcation permits to play and their skillings are utilised to reach the aims, many in the leaderships think they have successed their lifes because they win a lot of money, but they have forgotten foundamental parameters .This planet is surprising I must say and it is due to our past, our primitive instincs, our educations, we have not really understood the complementarity and the cooperation, of course it exists this cooperation but not globally, it is very sad because we could be so well generally on this earth. The project that I have created is for this, to harmomise the high spheres of power , that will permit to evolve better if we improve the main global system , that will reasure the humans mainly and they shall nourrish their minds with better informations. But I ask me if this UN wants to change or are they conscious really , maybe they accept this reality and are not really anxious about the future and the generality of lifes. I find this very odd knowing that these universal truths and this energetical potential are realities. But the hope exists still fortunally.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 13, 2021 @ 23:54 GMT
Jonathan and Steve,
But what exactly is a number as opposed to: 1) categories (where mass and single dimension position are examples of categories); and 2) mathematical relationships?
I’m saying that numbers are nothing more than mathematical expressions/relationships between categories where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, leaving something without a category. I’m saying that numbers have no dimension/ category; but, on the other hand, the human mind sometimes needs to use dimensions as a way of handing complex mathematical calculations.
I would like to hear other concise views about what exactly defines a real-world number.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 14, 2021 @ 18:07 GMT
Hi Lorraine, yes indeed they are mathematical expressions between categories, and they permit to rank in function of these categories becvause they are not identical , they permit to increase or decrease or others these categories. I don t beleive personally that we have extradimensions but a pure 3D where the numbers permit simply to categorize this 3D in function of the levels of properties.2 is bigger than 1 simply and the addition, multiplication, and others are tools permitting so to categorize better the different measurements and properties.The real world is what it is , a physicality with its physical and mathematical lwas, but the physics first for me and after the maths permitting to categorize like you say. So indeed we can rank and correlate, we have the Naturals, integers, rational numbers,irrationals, algebrics, trensciendentals, reals, imaginaries, complex and so we have groups and subgroups and correlations between them, it is just a tool for me, the primes are interesting that said and the p adics analysis. They are so generators and can be correlated with the physical properties when we converge of course.It is like this for the computing and the randomness and the generators simply. Regards
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 14, 2021 @ 21:57 GMT
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 15, 2021 @ 19:57 GMT
What is a number in the 'real world'?
There is a profound difference between none and one of any quantity. And multiples of that yield a stable value, an integer. But one might also ask if the freedom to vary beyond a certain number is worth something. In the parlance of number theory; the freedom to vary in a specified direction finds its representation in an imaginary number.
It was found via the sums of squares problem that there can only be a certain number of imaginary dimensions in a sensible algebra - 1, 4, or 7 - corresponding to the complex, quaternion, and octonion algebras. This is simply an acknowledgement that it can be necessary to include more angles of rotation to represent the physical reality, but we are not free to insert any number as we like.
It is obvious that the freedom to vary is not worth as much as a specified value, as per 'a bird in the hand.' But even if it is only worth 1/4 as much, that means the freedom to vary becomes a 'this must vary' if we go to 3 or more dimensions of variation. However; that is my own interpretation of what Connes and others are talking about, and not the mainstream view.
But I think there is ample evidence that 'real world' extends at least to the quaternions, if the experience of aviators counts for squat.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 15, 2021 @ 21:50 GMT
I find it interesting...
The sums of squares theorem was originally about real integers, and it led to the Hurwitz theorem being proved, So we find there are only 4 possible normed division algebras. It's all about being able to return to where you started.
Best,
JJD
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 15, 2021 @ 22:46 GMT
Thanks Jonathan.
I would have thought that quaternions are just a convenient mathematical way of representing the world. The world is different to our symbolic representations of it: while we use time and energy to do calculations using pen and paper, or via computer, the world does it without using time and energy, and without any brain or computer infrastructure.
So I would think that perhaps there are no calculations going on in the real world, (and there is no Platonic realm which miraculously explains everything), there are merely relationships that exist. What we represent as numbers are also relationships (where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out). So, when a number-change event happens for a variable (from whatever cause), the law of nature relationships mean that other numbers automatically change, because numbers are merely relationships between categories, not calculated end-products.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 16, 2021 @ 04:24 GMT
Quaternions have a time dimension, so can represent change over time> I'd argue that that can be better used to represent the history of something happening in the World, like a flight. Rather than the material world. Each quaternion can represent a rotation and so change is built in. They are non commutative, so the importance of the sequence of happenings is inherent. (And they do not, in their favour, suffer from gimbal lock) However what has been ( unless still materially enduring) and what is are not both actual. Here is the same issue as when 4 dimensional Euclidean space is used to represent the material world. It does not make sense for there to be any kind of happening in the material world without energy. Time necessity is debatable. It can be regarded as an emergent concept, from material-spatial change.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 16, 2021 @ 19:37 GMT
To be clearer: the start and end of a rotation do not co-exist but are together representing a happening. That represented rotation could be said to take time. Or the start and end can be said to belong to different configurations of existence. A quaternion can represent an important characteristic of existence, that it changes. They can also represent history but not uni-tenporal material existence.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 16, 2021 @ 21:52 GMT
Re “change”:
What are the contributing factors that make a world? What we represent as variables/ categories of information (e.g. mass, position, charge), lawful relationships, and numbers are fundamental aspects needed to make a world.
But so is change of number/ assignment of new numbers to the variables a fundamental aspect needed to make a world. This is another aspect of the world that can’t be taken for granted. Things don’t just “happen”, numbers don’t just change for no reason.
A number is not an entity that changes itself. Law of nature relationships between categories “cause” number change for some numbers, but only because other numbers have changed. It’s these “other” numbers that are the problem.
Seemingly, a system must run down unless new numbers for the variables are continually input to the system.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 17, 2021 @ 05:05 GMT
Your list of what is needed to make a world is actually a list of what is useful to represent a world. Existence and energy are fundamental.. Whereas your numbers need input to make them change, energy throughout existence is change. Never destroyed just charging its type. Large changes can become smaller changes. Chaos theory shows small changes can lead to large changes. An isolated system or representation o such may run down. That is not necessarily so for many interacting systems; able to 'feed' off of each other.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 17, 2021 @ 05:10 GMT
That's not saying systems can endure eternally. Eventually they will decay or be destroyed; but also replaced by other systems.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 20, 2021 @ 14:54 GMT
Let me turn this around...
The energetic component creates change and the material component observes or follows energetic activity. Georgina is correct to cast energy as the agent of change, while Lorraine's view that matter creates choice or exercises the freedom of choice needs further explanation.
Mass creates curvature in general and it has the effect of inducing the decoupling of wavefunction components in Continuous Spontaneous Localization, which is a feature of Tejinder's theory. That is; mass or gravity causes the quantum wavefunction to decohere through localization.
But the finite speed of light is also a result of the universe's curvature. If we turn Einstein's famous equation around; c^2 = E/m. Then look at what happens when the mass of the universe is 0, and we see that the speed of light is unbounded for a flat 2-d space devoid of matter, like we expect to see near the Planck scale.
So the presence of matter serves to slow down the communication between elements of space, by inserting time, or inducing a slowing of time through cosmic mass.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 17, 2021 @ 21:49 GMT
No matter what the variables are, e.g. the energy or position variables, the laws of nature determine that the relationships between the numbers that apply to the variables always hold. But the lawful relationships don’t actually move the system forward.
The system of lawful relationships is static, the system of lawful relationships is not a perpetual motion machine. One number change “causes” other numbers to change due to fixed relationships, but that’s the finish of it: the numbers for the variables are now all in correct lawful relationship, and the world has ground to a halt.
What saves the system is free will/ agency which continually inputs new numbers to the variables, thereby driving the system forward.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 20, 2021 @ 15:03 GMT
It is absolutely true Lorraine...
Energetic systems tend to run down. There is no perpetual motion, per se. It is an unavoidable consequence of the global asymmetry of the Mandelbrot Set that what you are saying must be true. It's written in the Maths as well as apparently being an inflexible law of Physics.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 20, 2021 @ 15:06 GMT
The flip side of course is...
The action of the Mandelbrot Set under the Octonions tends to maximize choice for those who are in a position to make choices. So we can all be thankful that with hyper-dimensional super-determinism; we can all have optimally close to perfect freedom of choice.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 20, 2021 @ 15:10 GMT
That is...
We have the optimal freedom to choose, if we have sufficient energy to exercise our choices by executing actions that adequately engender that choice.
JJD
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 18, 2021 @ 08:45 GMT
According to the paper linked in the article, Tejinder Singh's explanatory framework can be probed experimentally. By taking this as given, one can simply wait until there are some solid experimental results available for Singh's explanations (which are, in my opinion, interesting, but not mandatory).
Concerning the features of non-commutativity and non-associativity, I would like to add...
view entire post
According to the paper linked in the article, Tejinder Singh's explanatory framework can be probed experimentally. By taking this as given, one can simply wait until there are some solid experimental results available for Singh's explanations (which are, in my opinion, interesting, but not mandatory).
Concerning the features of non-commutativity and non-associativity, I would like to add that these features of sequentiality already occur in ordinary school-level algebra. For example, solving an equation that has one unknown constant left in the equation and one can obtain the value of that constant only by an auxiliary calculation means to first having to perform that auxiliary calculation before one is able to solve the main equation and obtain the result thereof. At first “obtaining” the main result and after that performing the auxiliary calculation (or even not at all performing that auxiliary calculation) does not make much sense to me. So in most cases one necessarily must obey a certain sequence in time to obtain the desired result of some main equation.
Whereas such mandatory steps in time can be neglected by human beings at will, for example by first painting a wall with the furniture left standing at the wall and after that part of the painting job removing the furniture and proceed to paint the left over areas of the wall (and not vice versa), hard science as physics – when considered as empirical – must obey certain steps in time to at all come to some reliable conclusions. “Possessing” the “result” before the needed calculations have actually been performed does and has only worked for a relatively small percentage of cases in history and surely there are many more cases where the obtained results had not been what one had believed them to be before having carried out the needed calculations – and more importantly before having carried out the needed experiments, and hence observations! I think the main issue here is that the hard sciences are really dependent on empirical research and experiments and not on beliefs. Beliefs are humanly, but what nature does must not necessarily be in accordance with human beliefs, history and even personal experience should tell us so.
And last - but not least - what would our craving for theories be without some nice humor... check out that nice and cute picture if you like, at
https://www.larecherche.fr/non-la-physique-ne-se-r%C3%A9du
it-pas-aux-maths
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 20, 2021 @ 18:38 GMT
Sometimes the result is a surprise...
When Benoit Mandelbrot first tried to print out plots of the Mandelbrot Set; he thought it was a computer glitch or some weird error, before verifying that the unusual warty shape was something persistent. It looks the same whoever probes it. Was it there before anyone did the calculations? What do you think?
There may be yet weirder stuff 'out there' but to find it you might need to imagine or think there is some 'result' worth pursuing, before you write the program to do all those difficult calculations. If he was still alive; I'd say ask Fokko du Cloux. Was E8 there already, before they began to probe it? Is it real or is it Memorex?
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 20, 2021 @ 18:55 GMT
Regarding possible experimental proof/disproof...
That should be interesting to see. But I would not count out an inexact match. The theory I've been developing for the last 20 years is not identical but it has perhaps 80% overlapping content or points in precise agreement - such as early universe evolution under the octonions in Connes' intrinsic time.
The biggest difference is the reductive mechanism, where I treat dimensional reduction as a process of condensation and Tejinder's group uses CSL. Astrophysical evidence is often ambiguous or inconclusive. So we could both be winners, if the evidence points the right way. And there could be room for adjustments.
In discussions with Gerard 't Hooft and with Aurelien Barrau I learned that predicting an exact fingerprint of what we would see if a theory is true can be quite tricky.
Best,
JJD
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 20, 2021 @ 21:13 GMT
Hi , the predictions seem to follow harmonical partitions, but actually we have just a little bit understood our standard model and its bosonic fields and the QFT, we d be surprised if my reasoning is correct about the main codes of this vacuum and that the bosonic actual fields are just activated due to photons encoded, so the actual partitions and mathematical tools like this E8 consider these bosonic fields only , and it can be predictions of errors if that others encodings and codes have a deeper logic and that they don t follow the same partition .... so the results can be simply false and so the experiments are a lost of money if we are not sure about these predictions, there is an enormous philosophical problem for me actually inside the sciences community considering only these fields and this GR. They turn in round trying to go deeper but all this seems not true if my reasoning is correct about new partitions and fields due to different particles energetical encoded like this DM cold giving the quantum gravitation and the anti particles. The E8 is maybe beautiful but can imply an ocean of confusions and false predictions because the fields are emergent and not only correlated with these photons ....Think about this if I am right.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 00:03 GMT
To a certain degree in my opinion math patterns exist as potentialities, independent of whether or not these patterns are generated by a physical process (computer or something other). But I also think that the question of whether mathematical patterns are found or invented is a bit misleading when it comes to the quest about the fundamentals on which the existence of the universe is or is not...
view entire post
To a certain degree in my opinion math patterns exist as potentialities, independent of whether or not these patterns are generated by a physical process (computer or something other). But I also think that the question of whether mathematical patterns are found or invented is a bit misleading when it comes to the quest about the fundamentals on which the existence of the universe is or is not based on.
The misleading part simply is that if one believes that all of reality exclusively only exists – in some form or the other – as mathematical patterns, then one easily can loose one's connection to empiricism. The very best example thereof are the FQXi contests where very many contestants present highly mathematically sophisticated “explanations” and swear that with them they have “found the theory of everything” - no predictions, no experiments needed any more. Of course, 100 or more so different mathematical equations and their interpretations for the same “yet-to-be-explained” open questions in physics in these contests cannot be all true and complete at the same time!
Selecting out of the huge plethora of existing mathematical frameworks the one (if it is amongst that plethora) which is the one-and-only “theory of everything” can only be accomplished by experiments, not by analysis (although via analysis one presumably could sort out those frameworks that entail contradictions and therefore are inconsistent right from the start). And it can only be accomplished when the framework at all has a proper and unambiguous interpretation for every single one of its mathematical statements.
I would also differentiate between a Mandelbrot set and Octonions. Whereas the Mandelbrot set can be produced by some relatively simple mathematical iterations, Octonionic maths must introduce a whole bundle of rules and premises and personally I would not take all the single steps that one must make to understand all the “implications” of that octonionic framework as logically mandatory. However, a theory where one has no chance to test it empirically may describe the things it pretends to describe correctly, despite that we never could test that! This then would amount in “many words” where different people with different points of view could argue about that theory for decades, or to be more precise, forever. Only for the case that there would someone come up with such an untestable theory and ALL physicists and philosophers shout “hey, THAT's the the truth, hurra, we recognized it!!!”, then obviously no physicist or philosopher will be interested any more in an experimental test of the theory (but maybe some non-phyiscists and non-philosophers would still have some doubts...). So it does not make much sense to me to endlessly discuss things that haven't been tested yet or cannot be tested in principle and one of these things is the quest of whether a platonic realm of maths exists eternally or not. I have my opinions about the answer to that question – but the next question then is who cares? – and the answer to that last question in my opinion is:
almost *nobody* :-) and in my opinion that's a good thing!
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 06:28 GMT
Stefan, maybe you could avoid being misled or misleading by understanding math patterns are not physical reality anymore than physical reality is math patterns. There is simply a correspondence between physical reality and a subset of mathematics. One may deeply ponder why this is without ever reaching a definitive answer, yet enjoy the journey. Or one might accept it axiomatically and spend their...
view entire post
Stefan, maybe you could avoid being misled or misleading by understanding math patterns are not physical reality anymore than physical reality is math patterns. There is simply a correspondence between physical reality and a subset of mathematics. One may deeply ponder why this is without ever reaching a definitive answer, yet enjoy the journey. Or one might accept it axiomatically and spend their time exploring mathematics for answers to deep and unknown questions about physical reality.
I do not agree with you that experiments will choose the appropriate mathematical structures. This ended at the sub-atomic level, where experimental probing necessarily breaks or at least disturbs beyond recognition what is trying to be observed. To wit; there have been 0 theoretical breakthroughs resulting from construction of the LHC. Money spent on a bigger accelerator would help humanity more if applied to social programs in under developed countries. This does not mean macro level predictions from new mathematical physics can’t be verified or excluded by experimental observations, just limitations should be expected on what can and cannot be corroborated, and the utility of experimentation is restricted to post theoretical work in the domain of mathematical physics.
So if you buy my premise experiments will no longer tell us how to structure the math, what are we left with? Good guesses? Maybe. Better might be a robust mathematical structure. The general notion of “an algebra” is simple enough and the structure of any particular finite dimensional algebra can be completely known without the need for overly exceptional math skills. But all algebras are not created equal. Some are simple, and because of their simplicity give you no more than you put in yourself. Others are more involved, indicating useful structure and even nested structure. This structure embodies the symmetries of the algebra, indeed its “voice” if you bother to learn its language so you may hear what it has to say. This is fully achievable by we mere mortals, whereas blasting apart particles in an attempt to gleam how the debris was structured beforehand sorting out what new particles were created is a long shot.
Octonion Algebra can be structured 16 different ways for a given set of Quaternion basis element triplets. As it works out, the mathematical structure for all observable phenomena like energy density, forces, momentum, work end up with exactly the same result for all 16 Octonion forms. The simplistic classical parallel is getting the very same deflection direction for a charged particle traveling through a magnetic field whether you use a right handed system or a left handed system. This should be expected for any observable. One could, and I do, call this the law of algebraic invariance.
A believable corollary to this law would be the law of unobservables, where the mathematical structure leads to results that change signs when the Octonion Algebra applied is changed up. As this turns out, there are 15 different bins for the possible variances, and all product terms in a bin either all change or all do not change for any possible change in Octonion form. If a zero value is assigned to the sum of all terms in each bin, the full result that was a mix of algebraic invariants and algebraic variants is now fully invariant since +0 = -0, and each bin sum becomes a homogeneous equation of algebraic constraint.
Now these equations of algebraic constraint are NOT observable, yet as boundary conditions do, restrict the results for the family of solutions. Of course you still need general covariance for the calculus applied (have it), a coordinate system exploiting symmetry and proper boundary equations to go with the homogeneous equations provided by the algebra. Non-trivial, you do not fall out of bed on your head, jump up and say “by Jove, Iv’e got it!”.
Everyone must choose their path. They may not get where they want to go, but like they say about the lottery, you can’t win if you don’t play.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 08:31 GMT
The question for me is what's the real price that potentially can be won in this lottery. For me, there yet are much too many unknowns involved in all the attempts to mathematically derive the real answers to certain open questions in physics by “simply” concentrating on maths. The problems with that in my opinion start already by assuming that what one has developed is – or must be – a...
view entire post
The question for me is what's the real price that potentially can be won in this lottery. For me, there yet are much too many unknowns involved in all the attempts to mathematically derive the real answers to certain open questions in physics by “simply” concentrating on maths. The problems with that in my opinion start already by assuming that what one has developed is – or must be – a complete correspondence pattern between (physical) reality and the maths one has developed.
So, as it stands for now, I consider what you wrote about Octonions as beautiful but at the same time as on equal footing with mathematical explanation systems that for example the Egyptians or Mayans established for the sake of explaining – at least to a certain degree – creation. A difference to the Octonion framework may be that the latter is ment to refer to physical processes instead of referring to some spiritual worlds, since modern physics neither does deal with spiritual worlds nor does it believe in these worlds.
But that physics has excluded these worlds does by no means mean that physics is free of metaphysical speculation. Alone the discussions here at this site, the assumptions made about the meaning of certain features of Octonion mathematical frameworks and the (sometimes rather circular) “explanations” given for why these features should have this or that meaning are proof enough for me that there is a huge amount of metaphysics involved here.
I have nothing against metaphysics, I merely see a certain danger in the attempts that I criticize to confuse metaphysics with what originally was good old empirical sciences without realizing it. Don't misunderstand me, I do not say that everybody should stop searching for mathematical patterns. I merely want to highlight that when it comes to the quest for the fundamentals that our reality is based upon, I see a tendency that the researchers of such mathematical patterns take their discipline as being on the same empirical level as good old physics once was. The irony here is surely that “good old physics”, although having established for example a viable “explanation” of space as something that can be bend and deformed, it obviously has not managed to bring its mathematical constituents into a complete one-to-one correspondence with reality. I see no reasons why that should at some point be other with the Octonion or similar frameworks.
In other words, for all such theories, there will be always something that will remain unexplained in the sense that the theory itself is not able to provide that explanation from within itself. And of course, that opens the doors to metaphysical speculations – what is in my opinion not bad per se. But in my opinion one should not take metaphysical musings about fundamental reality to properly capture fundamental reality itself. Metaphysical “reasoning” will be here to stay, even in pure maths, I only demand that for the sake of clarity, one should label metaphysics as metaphysics and not as an empirical science. The price to win in the lottery is not to get rid of metaphysics, although that may be the wish of some people involved in that lottery. There will always be something that will remain unexplained unless applying to it some kind of metaphysical reasoning. And here I agree, everyone must choose their metaphysical preferences to somewhat cope with the remaining unexplainables.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 12:04 GMT
Dear Jonathan, If we take the harmonical partitions and this E8, we can compare with the music , I play guitar and piano like I told you , and I love to create improvisations , so I take gamuts on this piano for example and I improvise in respecting the notes. So with the E8 it is a little bit the same, we create partitions inside this gamut and instrument. And the combinations are infinite considering the creativity and improvisations, like the mathematical tools utilised, but we turn in round inside these gamuts, imagine that for reaching our deep unknowns, the gamuts of this piano are not sufficient, we need to superimpose many others instruments and other gamuts, so we can play all the most beautiful musics that we want, we don t reach them. This E8 is this, a tool , a gamut, where we can create partitions, sometimes we find a new thing interesting but it is limited simply because the E8 is not the only one instrument mathematical. In fact we know so few still and we must probably add so many instruments and gamuts and play furthermore the good partition and it is beyond our understanding due to limitations. The number of instruments and gamuts to add is enormous and the music to play is so complex that we cannot make it actually. If my humble reasoning of these 3 finite primoridal series of 3D spheres is the secret , so imagine the complexity of combinations and the real partition universal where even the assymetries exist implying the uniqueness of things..... You imagine the complexity of this universe and the number of these finite series and different volumes and motions ? I have calculated like I told you , the number of cosmological spheres is the dirac large number oddly and I consider these quantum primordial finite series also the same, imagine now when they merge these 3 series. The partition correlated is not a piano lol but a thing beyond our human understanding. Friendly
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 17:27 GMT
Stefan, I do not think everyone fits into philosophical boxes like you seem to. As for your “good, old physics”, it is stagnant and stale. Maybe I am wrong, but you appear to be an ardent empiricist. No one can deny the importance of experimental evidence, but no one should be stuck on the belief that reality is exclusively what humans, with their inherent limitations, can observe. Believing...
view entire post
Stefan, I do not think everyone fits into philosophical boxes like you seem to. As for your “good, old physics”, it is stagnant and stale. Maybe I am wrong, but you appear to be an ardent empiricist. No one can deny the importance of experimental evidence, but no one should be stuck on the belief that reality is exclusively what humans, with their inherent limitations, can observe. Believing the latter does not force one into the metaphysics box, with all of its philosophical trappings.
I had the good fortune to have had Melvin Schwartz as my Electrodynamics professor prior to his Nobel laureate award when I was an undergraduate physics major at Stanford University 49 years ago. He taught the subject from a strict relativistic viewpoint rather than the classical historical progression. He was not afraid to use the justification “because it is beautiful” when asked why things were as presented. He was talking about the algebraic structure mandated by relativity, and how it brought things together in a beautiful mathematically consistent manner. This was not lost on me, nor was the vast amount of empirical evidence Electrodynamics as presented was correct. It was then that I became convinced of the importance of algebraic structure and the possibility of unification of Electrodynamics and Gravitation with a potential theory but requiring a doubling of the dimension count. This was about 20 years before I heard anything about Octonion Algebra, it was not taught nor was it en Vogue at the time.
So, I did not take Octonion Algebra whole and force fit it into physical reality oblivious to empirical considerations. Electrodynamics was my guiding star at every step of my journey. The algebra not only met, but exceeded my expectations. When the structure of the algebra mandates outcomes you know are empirically correct, this is no coincidence, nor is it an application of metaphysics. The fact that the structure can shine a mathematical light on something not experimentally observable is a good thing, not a philosophical transgression.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 07:15 GMT
Alone at FQXi, over the last decade I read similar arguments as yours over and over to argue in favour of one's own theoretical framework (not to mention all the frameworks I found outside the FQXi domain by other scientists). Most of them contradict the Octonion framework that is advertised here (by Jonathan; I am not sure if you claim the same things about what Octonion maths means in detail as...
view entire post
Alone at FQXi, over the last decade I read similar arguments as yours over and over to argue in favour of one's own theoretical framework (not to mention all the frameworks I found outside the FQXi domain by other scientists). Most of them contradict the Octonion framework that is advertised here (by Jonathan; I am not sure if you claim the same things about what Octonion maths means in detail as Jonathan does claim, but that is not the issue here).
After a decade being a regular reader at FQXi, I think it is necessary to clearly spell out that the plethora of theories presented at FQXi during that decade which claim to have determined a unification scheme for explaining what Jonathan aims to explain with Octonion mathematics – cannot all be true at the same time, since they make contradictory claims and attach contradictory meanings to their mathematical constituents – when one is willing to compare them! That is not to criticize FQXi or the task to at all develop such theoretical frameworks – no! - it is merely to emphasize that one must be very careful to assign to one's framework more than what it factually says and to emphasize that the question what it factually says is by no means a trivial question (“factually” as opposed to “interpretationally”)!
But the just mentioned comparison is simply a matter of straightforward logic, not a matter of some metaphysical or personal believe-based arguments, it is indeed a trivial task! The pattern that is revealed by that comparison comes about by psychological factors forcing the inventor of some theory to stick to it due to believe-based reasons. By working for decades on the same themes, it is clear that such efforts psychologically must result in a tacit increase in ones subjective probability judgements for the own framework to indeed match fundamental reality.
With all respect to all these people, I see not the slightest hint that the arguments brought up by you and others at this site in favour of an Octonion or otherwise interpretation of fundamental reality is free of psychologically and hence believe-based reasoning.
To the contrary, with all respect to scientists like for example Connes and Dieter Zeh, I would subsuming the arguments made over the decades by all the above mentioned theoretical framework's advocates under the same psychologically driven reasons that led Connes and Zeh over the decades to believe that what they once wrote in their dissertations some 50 years ago must have a much wider scope of application only because the elements they rightfully identified in their dissertations are relevant to their field of research – have been indeed relevant to the field (and still are today!). Please do not misunderstand me here, I cannot and will not prove that what for example Connes and Zeh have concluded over the decades must be wrong, that is not the issue here, I only want to highlight with these more prominent examples that even successful dissertations cannot be taken as evidence for the truth of the arguments that had been developed over the decades from the results of such dissertations (or other long-term personal developments of some basic ideas). Why can't they be taken as evidence? Because alone for the example with Connes and Zeh, the metaphysical assumptions are simply not identical, they are metaphysically very different and hence cannot be considered as being both true – unless one skips logic and sticks to some eastern philosophy where everything can and is true depending on some perspective. Connes assumes “dimensions” whereas Zeh always advocated for a universal wave-function branching. These are different concepts and hence clearly different ontological assumptions.
So, the reason I brought up the Dissertation issue (Connes and Zeh) is to highlight that all the hitherto presented foundational frameworks are merely *interpretations*, subjective answers to some outstanding questions in the respective sciences. Their ontological assumptions are different, in many cases mutually exclusive and therefore contradict each other. And the arguments you brought up in favour of Octonions are in no way different from the arguments that had been brought up in favour of all the other theoretical frameworks – that's the common denominator for all these frameworks and that is no wonder – since all these frameworks have been developed by human beings, all equipped with the ever same psychological baggage.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 12:08 GMT
Hi Stefan, It seems that it is a kind of lobby inside the sciences community, the thinkers had not an other road general and so they have been fascinated by this E8 and the strings and geometrodynamics to unify G c and h , so they have taken this GR and the photons and after they have considered at this planck scale inside these photons and they have considered so the 1D and after mathematical...
view entire post
Hi Stefan, It seems that it is a kind of lobby inside the sciences community, the thinkers had not an other road general and so they have been fascinated by this E8 and the strings and geometrodynamics to unify G c and h , so they have taken this GR and the photons and after they have considered at this planck scale inside these photons and they have considered so the 1D and after mathematical tools like this E8 and they play with the maths to explain the fields like main origin, so they have considered a kind of TOE, but in fact they just had not an other general idea, it is mainly a problem philosophical also considering the origin of our universe, they so explain thewse geometries, topologies and fields with a 1D cosmic field of this GR and the 1D of these strings , Witten and Einstein have created a kind of philosophical prison and now it is fdifficult for them to think differently, they are persuaded and have worked hard also about these geometrical algebras, they try to unify the whole and they try to explain our deepest unknowns.So they try with all the actual mathematical tools to converge like the con commutativity of Connes, or the lie groups, algebras and derivatives, the cliford works or others, kaluza klein also , they try with subgroups in fact to reach these secrets. I have remarked that they cannot change their philosophy , they are persuaded that these fields are the key , I am so a little bit a free electron lol with my 3D coded spheres , and like this theoretical sciences community is very vanitious, so you imagine the problem wich is more than we can imagine. It is sad because they could consider my theory and superimpose it to this E8 and other mathematical tools and they shall have good answers and predictions. The physics and the maths can converge and a kind of conjecture even appears with these 3D spheres and the branes, Mtheory, superstrings , but like I said they have difficulties to consider this. The strings are teached at universities and I can recognise several interesting mathematical extrapolations but it is the generality philosophical that I don t agree, maybe they confound a field medal of witten for a great work about the quantum field theory and these strings, the other main problem is that they consider this GR like the only one piece and this planck scale wich is in fact not proved and just a mathematical extrapolation, so they maybe loose their time in trying to unify like I told G c and h. Itr seems that we have a deeper logic to all this to superimpose , thst is why for me they trun in round. How can we change their minds , I don t know, the problem is more complex that we can imagine. Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 12:42 GMT
Stefan, so in summary , the thinkers have difficulties to change their line of reasoning and their philosophy, they don t like simply to be contredicted, and they dislike even when a person arrives with an innovative general idea, in all humility I have this problem, I am a problem for the theoretical sciences community , and it is rare to find a humble general thinker accepting, hope the members...
view entire post
Stefan, so in summary , the thinkers have difficulties to change their line of reasoning and their philosophy, they don t like simply to be contredicted, and they dislike even when a person arrives with an innovative general idea, in all humility I have this problem, I am a problem for the theoretical sciences community , and it is rare to find a humble general thinker accepting, hope the members of FQXi can be universal and logic and not too much governed by this vanity, because instead to accelerate the process of evolution in physics, that implies the opposite effect, I am conscious that I found a relevant general idea and I need help to go deeper and farer in the details, so instead to be persuaded about these unknowns in physics and philosophy, they could superimpose my theory and try to converge and develop it, but like I told , it is difficult for them, they are persuaded and also I repeat, this community is more than vanitious, it is like a disease this vanity even, and I am not perfect I have also this problem like all humans, we must fight this problem and cooperate instead to be persuaded about things not proved, we must fight these primitive instincts and be more universal. I have the same problem with this project of global collaboration, this vanity of persons imply that they are blocked to follow , they are more than irritated, I don t know why , maybe they prefer to be followed, I don t want to be a leader, it is not important for me, I just want sincerely to improve what we can improve on earth and the sciences community can do it, they shall listen the UN if we create a concrete book of solutions adapted where all wins. But apparently nobody on this platform wants to explain their ideas , they prefer like I told you explain their philosophies or ideas and show how smart they are, we return always at this vanity in fact simply. The humans are surprising I must say, all governed by their egos and vanity in fact, all what is important is themselves in fact and a few number are real universalists understanding the real meaning of this altruism unfortunally , the humility is the most of the time inside this community a fake one, we are destroyed and this planet also by this vanity .It is a fact. And more you explain these truths, more they are angry and more you irritate them lol , what a world, what a sphere earth but a good new we evolve , regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 18:37 GMT
Stefan, you seem to have misunderstandings of the optimal process of discovery and mathematical application. First and most important, before discovery, the “truth” of its conclusions are undefined, so you have no logical basis to criticize the process used by individuals seeking a common discovery goal on the basis disparate tacks cannot all be true. The optimal process to improve the human condition be it through discovery or governance is freedom of thought and free expression of ideas. Sadly this is lost on the Biden administration, his political party and in many corners of the scientific community. So it is optimal that we have people with different ideas and approaches looking at the same issues, even if one contradicts another.
Mathematics is robust, and it is quite possible to take a long journey down a road you think will take you to your desired destination without making a single math error only to discover you have chosen a dead end. The complexity of the task makes it impossible know this until you walk the path. There have been examples of individuals with proper views of the destination yet initially made math errors in their attempt to prove it, only to clean them up and ultimately triumph.
Your statements about “psychological baggage” and “belief systems” seem a bit condescending, don’t you think? I prefer intuition, which is the basis of creativity.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 20:15 GMT
Rick, i think you have not understood my arguments or do not want to understand them. I do not bother, but repeat them.
“The optimal process to improve the human condition be it through discovery or governance is freedom of thought and free expression of ideas.”
That's true for you, all others and also for me and my comments here.
“First and most important, before...
view entire post
Rick, i think you have not understood my arguments or do not want to understand them. I do not bother, but repeat them.
“The optimal process to improve the human condition be it through discovery or governance is freedom of thought and free expression of ideas.”
That's true for you, all others and also for me and my comments here.
“First and most important, before discovery, the “truth” of its conclusions are undefined, so you have no logical basis to criticize the process used by individuals seeking a common discovery goal on the basis disparate tacks cannot all be true.”
I have that logical basis to criticize their statements about their own theories they present here. If that criticism sounds condescending to you and/or them, then so be it, and I do not really expect other reactions from individuals who make claims which cannot be fulfilled when one takes a closer look at what they actually accomplished to produce. Sorry, but this is really not my fault, but theirs. And since you bring up political and administrative issues, I will not mention any names to which I refer these criticisms. I explicitly exclude Tejinder Singh here from that kind of criticism since in my opinion he does not trumpet things into the world that are not in accordance with what he writes in his papers and moreover, his framework is testable experimentally.
“So it is optimal that we have people with different ideas and approaches looking at the same issues, even if one contradicts another.”
Sure, otherwise I would not have taken part in any of the essay contests. In these contests and also in my subsequent comments here and elsewhere I am happy to have the opportunity to communicate my points of view. Hope you have the intellect to get the point that I do not criticize people's ideas or approaches. What I criticize is their misleading statements about what they have achieved. You may like it when someone is mislead, I don't like it.
Concerning your rather political statements I will not comment other than saying that I will continue to write my points of view here until the – in my opinion very unlikely – case happens that my comments will be blocked due to being too inconvenient for some political or administrative camps. And for that case I would really not understand what reactions some people expect when somebody claims for example to have found the “theory for everything” or found the “essence of consciousness right within mathematics”. Do they expect that everybody just should nod one's head and shut up? In what world do these people then live with such expectations...?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 20:30 GMT
Lol , a spherical belgian beer and some spherical belgian chocolates ? they are good you know :) that permits to be so quiet and less vanitious, be the force with you jedis of the Sphere , I liked this discussion to be frank. We demonstrate in some words what I explained lol all persuaded the humans
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Jan. 23, 2021 @ 00:18 GMT
I am quite sure I understood what you wrote, perhaps the issue is it was not what you meant. Through repetition you made a big deal that a set of conflicting approaches cannot all be correct. This is an obvious fact and thus a meaningless tautology. The logical breakdown you committed is extending this to justify your criticisms of particular approaches. It is fair criticism to question anyone claiming to have THE theory of everything. It is illegitimate to think you can make a logical/fact based claim someone’s mathematically correct and consistent approach is no better than another, for the facts of the final theory, if ever, are not in evidence. You have nothing more than your opinion, which you are certainly welcome to, as I am, as is Jonathan, Steve, et al.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 23, 2021 @ 06:34 GMT
Rick, I have facts, not opinions. One fact is that browsing here and at the FQXi blog of Carlo Rovelli (“Understanding consciousness within the known laws of physics by Carlo Rovelli”) through the comments of the proponents of Octonionic maths reveals some obvious facts:
1) no complete summary is given as to what up to date Octonions do say and do not say about reality.
2)...
view entire post
Rick, I have facts, not opinions. One fact is that browsing here and at the FQXi blog of Carlo Rovelli (“Understanding consciousness within the known laws of physics by Carlo Rovelli”) through the comments of the proponents of Octonionic maths reveals some obvious facts:
1) no complete summary is given as to what up to date Octonions do say and do not say about reality.
2) Instead of doing 1), the proponents devoted most of their words (many words!) trying to control their critic's arguments by not doing what would be necessary, namely doing step 1).
3) In the course of 2), you laid out in an older comment here that you managed to establish some good results. But these results are not the issue here, the issue are the “Octonionic” claims about the origins of time and the nature and origins of consciousness.
4) You need not comment on these issues, since you simply did not make these claims (at least I cannot find such claims from you at the relevant pages) but not commenting on these issues simply misses the points my criticism is all about
5) In that older comment you recommended reading a classic book titled “Hypercomplex Numbers, An elementary Introduction to Algebras”.
If you guarantee me that in that book – or in some comparable books written by experts that are able to differentiate interpretations from objectifiable logical facts – there is an objectifiable mathematical explanation for the origins of time and consciousness – then I will read these books. Books that merely would provide subjective opinions about the issues in question are of no interest for me, since there is a whole plethora of such philosophical books out there already, so nothing new for me.
So, number 3) is my issue where I see no objectiviable logical facts for the claims to somehow having figured out the origin of time and the origin of consciousness.
“The logical breakdown you committed is extending this to justify your criticisms of particular approaches.”
I knew that you would misunderstand what the issue is here.
“It is illegitimate to think you can make a logical/fact based claim someone’s mathematically correct and consistent approach is no better than another”
The issue here is not about mathematical correctness, it is about the lines of reasoning that led someone to believe having found the origins of time and consciousness within Octonionic maths, without ever explaining in detail how one came to that profound conclusion in the first place! As long as there is no such detailed explanation, even a framework with correct maths is no better than another, different (or even equivalent!) framework with correct maths when issues like the origins of time and consciousness are at stake.
That I do criticise “Octonionic claims” about the origins of time and consciousness is simply due to them having popped up at Carlo's blog coincidentally with one of my comments there. And surely, i cannot critizise all the other trials about which i said that they logically cannot all be true at the same time. I simply have not the needed time to do that and moreover i would not consider such an undertaking as having the slightest impact on how people think about their own theories and why i should at all change that thinking in the first place.
Therefore, another fact is, that, since I found it interesting how and if at all the claims about the origins of time and consciousness via Octonionic maths will be substantiated during the course of discussions, I further engaged in the discussion – and now I have the facts about how these claims have been substantiated and the summary of these facts is given by the points 1) – 5). Or in other words, up to date it has not been explained how one came to the own profound conclusion in the first place.
I have decided to criticise those kinds of Octonionic interpretations about time and consciousness only because they popped up at Carlo's blog and coincided with a comment of me there, and my intuition says that the followers of that Octonionic maths (at least those that had commented on the blog here and on Carlo's blog) will not lay out how exactly they came to their conclusions and why these conclusions should be considered logically mandatory in the first place. Please point me to some statements on the respective two blog sites where the logical mandatory of these claims has been outlined in detail if you think that my lines of reasoning are only opinions.
By the way, when i do criticise people's theories at FQXi, i do not want to change the minds of these people, but to give some food of thought for all other people interested in issues that are discussed here at FQXi.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Jan. 23, 2021 @ 15:06 GMT
Our discussion is smogging up Singh’s blog, so I will leave you with this.
‘ “Octonionic” claims about the origins of time and the nature and origins of consciousness”. Well, there it is. Your foundation is based on pure speculation that time has an origin and consciousness let alone its origins has anything to do with mathematics, or either has a mathematical description that must be covered by a TOE. No amount of “facts” tacked on to an unsubstantiated initial claim can make the argument fact based, unless these “facts” substantiate the initial claim. Neither you nor anyone else has done this. You have an opinion, nothing more than this.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 23, 2021 @ 20:25 GMT
Rick,
“No amount of “facts” tacked on to an unsubstantiated initial claim can make the argument fact based, unless these “facts” substantiate the initial claim. Neither you nor anyone else has done this.”
Finally you got that right - Happy weekend to you!
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 23, 2021 @ 22:05 GMT
Stefan....
I must weigh in here with some thoughts. It seems overly averse to assert that mathematical truths do not have the status of facts. While real-world truths can be evidence based and verifiable; this is also true for various mathematical relations. The notion that Maths is something entirely human generated is at best an over-simplification, and at worst is a kind of denial that there can be an independent reality for what is logically sensible.
To ask what the octonions do or do not predict is somewhat less ambiguous than asking the same question of String Theory, but people are still trying to flesh out exactly what octonionic Physics looks like. I do not cotton to the idea that only one version could possibly be correct either, since we are not at the stage where the falsifiability conditions are that sharp.
Unless you possess facts not in evidence for me; some of your statements to Rick fall apart. But it is only because the real world is more ambiguous in its own reality than the rule of Occam would imply. It's not like you can say, if the octonionic version is false then Strings must be true, because the Strings program uses the octonions.
But I have yet to find a better answer for the origin of time.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 19:14 GMT
To Steve, Rick, and All,
One can make an analogy in playing the Piano and learning the Octonions. There is a wealth of great Piano music written in keys with mainly black notes. I heard this in so many words from Vladimir Feltsman when auditing a Master Class, but it is also a well-known fact to composers - given the flexibility afforded. However it looks more complicated on paper. There is more to keep track of, in terms of where the black notes are added
One must add more and more sharps or flats, as one progresses around the circle of fifths to get to different key signatures. But there is a simplicity when playing on all or mostly black keys. So there is less to remember; if you know that you are starting and ending on a particular note. Working in the Octonions is similar because it allows a simplification due to the fact a higher-d algebra is a better fit to Physics.
All the Best,
Jonathan
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 19:28 GMT
To explain further...
If one goes from playing in C on all white notes; one can go to the key of G then to D by adding sharps or to the key of F and then to Bb adding flats. But it gets more complicated in the middle, until you are playing on mainly black keys. Then it simplifies again in a higher order of progressions, in mostly black-noted keys.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 20:17 GMT
Thanks for sharing Jonathan, I love the piano and guitar, I prefer to play at guitar the rock and blues mainly and jazz, but at piano I play mainly classic and jazz, I have in all humility many compositions , I love to improvise in fact , I take a gamut , and I play in function of my emotions and feelings of the moment , I love to accelerate and play quickly sometimes, the silences also are...
view entire post
Thanks for sharing Jonathan, I love the piano and guitar, I prefer to play at guitar the rock and blues mainly and jazz, but at piano I play mainly classic and jazz, I have in all humility many compositions , I love to improvise in fact , I take a gamut , and I play in function of my emotions and feelings of the moment , I love to accelerate and play quickly sometimes, the silences also are important. The music is fascinating in fact and the combinations are infinite in improvisations and never the same even with the time. The arts are important considering the creativity and the free will is correlated , that is why it is difficult to put the free will in algorythms, the consciousness also seeing the combinations and the parameters to take into account. The feelings and this universalism seems important at my opinion even when we create partitions in maths or physics, like if this consciousness permitted to converge towards this universal philosophy and its pure universal altruisn and uniqueness even considering the diversity of creations, the singularities become relevant. A melody at piano or guitar or others can be simple or complex but the most important is the harmony and the feelings , the arts permit to our minds to create things and express our heart, soul , mind, .... One of my favorites in classic is Vivaldi, when you listen the 4 seasons, wowww if you close the eyes you see the seasons and the nature. Bach is more mathematical but I love also , Mozart him are pure innocent creations of a child not polluted lol by the systems of adults, it is so pure and full of joy even. Others are more sad, or this or that . That depends of composers in fact. The same maybe for our partitions in sciences and maths, it is always after all in function of the education, the encodings, our evolution, our philosophy, our life , the environments, ....and its feelings. All roads don t go to Roma but towards this universal truth yes , and the diversity and our uniqueness are wonderfull after all, that is why the assymetries creating the unique things become relevant, and the complexity implies a kind of humility.
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 20:35 GMT
so Jonathan, in resume, it exists an universal partition of spheres , I am conviced and not from the octonions, they are just an instrument inside this partition for the fields and some gamuts where we improve or create , but the real universal music of 3D spheres considering these 3 finite series them are more more than this you know, I can understand that you love this E8 and octonions but see this universe and what is its essence primoridal, see well the nature around you and at all scales furthermore, see well what is the choice of this universe and see this complexity in the details. These spheres are fascinating. they can be deformed, don t forget, not need cosmic fields of this GR to create the topologies and geometries you know, the intrinsic codes in this space vacuum of these series of spheres are sufficient. Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 21:08 GMT
we can go deeper in philosophy , we have all our assumptions that we don t affirm of course, we just discuss, I consider a kind of creator of this universe and I consider it like an infinite eternal consciousness and like you know this thing that we cannot define sends the imformations primoridal from the central cosmological sphere, it sends fionite coded series of spheres, a thing important in...
view entire post
we can go deeper in philosophy , we have all our assumptions that we don t affirm of course, we just discuss, I consider a kind of creator of this universe and I consider it like an infinite eternal consciousness and like you know this thing that we cannot define sends the imformations primoridal from the central cosmological sphere, it sends fionite coded series of spheres, a thing important in my model of spherisation iof that this thing is a kind of ether but without time, space, dimension, matter, it is a pure energy connected with all but in 0D , and this thing needs to transform and code the series finite, so the central sphere is essential in my model and it is there that the 3 other ethers become physical where we have only a pure 3D at all scales, like if it was the choice of this universe simply, a 0D ether of consciousness and 3 aethers in 3D , this thing cannot make miracles so with oscillations, we can just maybe feel it in meditation but it is an other story that I cannot really develop and answer or affrim. This mechanism proves that we evolve due to imformations continuing to be in evolution, see that this DM and DE disponible can explain the evolution and we can even predict generally the universe. We are still so youngs in fact and it is fascinating if the consciousness evolves and that the complexification of this biology is a reality, we create a kind of project Jonathan for me and we are tools , fractals of this infinity. There is nothing of odd or religious in all what I explain, we need a kind of transformator of this E , like a musician of spheres in fact and at this momment we don t know this partition of spheres, we just analyse a so small part, maybe 0,0000000001 percent of the secret of our standard model , so we must recognise that a TOE does not exist and probably in one million years on earth of evolutive sciences, it will be the same, we must be humble and when I read the name toe , lol that makes me laugh in fact. The same when the thinkers tell that we have only photons and this GR and strings inside oscillating vibrating like if this infinity that we name god played at guitar with these strings. You know , I have nothing agiant these octonions, but let s be logic, it is just a tool and we are I repeat so youngs at this universal scale, the complexity of series that I explain furthermore are not a problem, the problem is to know how they act really , and we know nothing about these spheres oscillating, vibrating, in motions rotations and in evolution.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 23:14 GMT
The steps that must be taken “between the lines” in order to make maths work are algorithmic steps.
Maths does not work all by itself. Similarly, Mandelbrot Sets don’t just “evolve”; mathematical iterations don’t just happen all by themselves.
Mathematicians and physicists are blind to the “between the lines” algorithmic steps that are necessary to make their equations work. What this means is that mathematicians and physicists are blind to a necessary aspect of the world.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 20:16 GMT
It was all there to start with Lorraine...
The mathematical structure is not something we invent or can alter. It has built in minima and maxima. The curious thing about the Mandelbrot Set is that only using the very simplest equation gets us the most complex object. If we add terms or go up in degree; we end up with something less interesting.
So sure; there have to be algorithmic steps to discover or uncover the structure that is inherent in the Maths. But this is precisely analogous to a procedure of triangulation used by navigators at sea to know where they are or find their way to distant lands. The Mandelbrot Maths are the same.
So your argument is that there is work to do, if we want to explore, and that we don't need to look beyond the real numbers because that is all unreal. It's like the people on the island in "Moana" arguing that everything they could ever need is already there; so why go exploring? The point is; there is really something there - out beyond the reef - worth finding.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 20:56 GMT
The Mandelbrot algorithm uses Pythagoras' formula...
The Pythagorean theorem uses a squaring operation, where a number is multiplied by itself. So the hypotenuse of a right triangle is obtained by c^2 = a^2 + b^2, where a and b are the legs joined by a right angle. When using complex numbers; the same letters a and b are employed, so a complex number is designated as a + bi where a is the real coefficient and b is the imaginary, and the two components are orthogonal as before.
So the complex numbers themselves are a triangulation in the Argand plane, the domain of the complex numbers. But then the Mandelbrot formula says we take the value for each location, multiply that number by itself, and then add back the location of our starting point - again and again to see what converges. And points that don't go to infinity; we say they are part of the Mandelbrot Set.
So this idea of multiplying something by itself and adding that to another value appears in both the Pythagoras and Mandelbrot formulae. So we are doing ranging operations on something by squaring and adding then comparing. This is a powerful generalization. It is also how we obtain dimensional estimation, in terms of distinguishing 2-d from 3-d and so on.
I have written and will explain that this is the key to symbolic thinking!
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 21:09 GMT
Symbols are a projection...
A circle on the printed page has a wonderful regularity and uniformity. But it is seen in its entirety only from above. We can't tell if the circle is a cross-section of a cylinder or sphere, however, if we are assuming it is part of a larger (or higher-dimensional) figure. But humans are not born with the capacity to distinguish this. It generally develops around 2 1/2 years of age, according to the research of Judy DeLoache. So the capacity for dimensional estimation is what I think of as a gateway skill for other learning.
So we see that the circle is one of the earliest symbols to appear in petroglyphs all over the world. Is it the flattened image of the Sun or Moon? Some say it's a symbol for God. What about the reflection of the Moon in a pond? Does that seem like a gateway to another world to you? Maybe it did to the ones who first started making symbols. They even drew animals. They saw that they could make a flat representation of something 3-d and it opened up a whole new world. Go figure.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 23, 2021 @ 20:55 GMT
Jonathan, the extradimensions are just projections of a pure 3D, they don t exist in nature and the real complexity if not to discover or observe due to better technologies higher dimensions due to mathematical projections , the real aim is to go deeper and farer in the scales in a pure 3D , the 3D is the choice of this universe and the sphere also in 3D , the planck scale in 1D is a pure mathematical extrapolation wich does not exist in logic really. You can tell all what you want, the nature is a pure 3D at all scales. If you find an other logic in the observations, tell me, but no , you shall see a 3D everywhere even in the QM, the problem comes from the philosophy and the dream mystical to have hiher dimension to reasure maybe the mind , but be sure the real beauty is the 3D creations and at all scales, the maths utilise tools and we have us invented these tools like the 2D or the quaternion considering the motions or the circle or the point or now the strings in 1D connected with a 1D main cosmic field and after the superstrings, strings, brabes, Mtheory extrapolate extradimensi0ons but they are just projections, nothing of odd , the problem is really philosophical and about the origin of our universe, the 3D is our truth and at all scales, I am persuaded, the thinkers confound the fractalisations of this 3D and projections with extradiemnsions wich don t exist in nature.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 23, 2021 @ 21:02 GMT
This problem comes from mainly the strings and branes or the warped 5D anti desitter space, after the bosonic strings , superstrings,supergravity have created 10 D , 11D and 26 D , the real error comes from the phiolosophy of strings and also from the fact that they consider that the fields, oscillations , vibrations of these photons are the keys and so they have played with the maths ???? me I want well but all this seems åpure sciences fiction , and they make the same with the dimensional tine now , is it a hidden camera ? they beleive maybe that they speak to god I don t know me or that they can reach it with these extradiemnsions but it seems so odd , never the concrete rational maths have proved these extradimensions, it could be better at my humble opinion to fractalise the 3D and there they shall understand better this QM and they shall unify G , c , h more the DE and the DM.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 23, 2021 @ 21:09 GMT
the problem has begun with Kaluza Klein and this fith dimension , a fith one superimposed to the 3D more a time of this general relativistic space time, and hop hocus pocus , they consider loops at smaller scales ???? and the Mtheory considers this reasoning and add other dimensions ??? you find this logic you ? considering the notions rotations oscillations vibrations of 3D spheres simply ? me I want well, but it seems that we have a big crisis inside the sciences community where the irrationalism is prefered ,I am frank, if now they beleive that we have points or strings at this planck scale wich is not sure to exists and after due to oscillations circles and after spheres,and after other extradimensions, so we loose our pure rationalism of our 3D and its proportions important for the motions and the time evolution. The problem is there, the philosophy more the scales and dimensions, that is why they turn in round in trying to unify G c and h.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 14:06 GMT
It is wise to remain open minded about dimensionality...
Sure the world looks 3-d; but is it? Does our common reality have the same dimensionality at all levels of scale? Probably not. Does D go up or down as you approach the infinitely small? Probably both. The infinitely large? ..?
One must consider that we live in a world of 3-d forms, but that 3-dimensionality might be like an island of norms. Knots hold together in 3-d that would untie themselves in higher dimensions. So to some extent it is necessary that physical reality has a 3-d aspect.
But after learning more about possible origins from the experts; I came to realize there are many ways the current state could be descended from a higher-d reality. Perhaps I can't prove it's true, but you can't prove it's not.
Remember that if you have a point in space or a sphere - and it's the only thing there - it has no particular size. You might say the two figures are different, but this requires being able to determine that it exceeds 0-d.
Why couldn't there be more dimensions without having to invent them?
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 15:02 GMT
Hi Jonathan, sure we cannot prove if yes or not, but we must also observe the nature wich gives us the truths , they are very simple generally , and so complex in the details. You know it is not because the mathematical tools and the imaginations imply resulsts that we must take them like facts. I think that the problem is philosophical like I told and about how we interpret our maths. Maybe the humans need to dream and imagine and are not satisfied with our pure physicality in 3D , but in fact this 3D is fascinating in its creations, we comtemplate a wonderful project in evolution and we are inside living , feeling this. The time is a duration correlated with the motions and seem irreversible on this entropical arrow of time and it is not really a dimension but a parameter also of evolution , because without time, we have no motion, and without motion we don t exist. Why superimpose other dimensions ? I don t know, it is still the philosophy and the origin of the universe I think. The more possible origins like you tell from experts are just assumptions after all but indeed we are all free to beleive in what we want. We are all free to beleive in this or not and follow who we want. My free choice is the 3D and a time of evolution and I accept my nature and its limitations , I try to be a good tool for this universe considering the consciousness, maybe we are just this, tools of optimisation where the complexity returns to simplicity.Thanks for sharing your ideas my friend, take care and spherically yours also :)
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 15:27 GMT
the problem seems to come form Klauza Klein like I said and Wittem, with the geometries and this fith force , they consider the massless and the scalars and only a minkowski spacetime of this GR , so like I told you , all is a question of phylosophy, they consider only the fields like origin and this GR like primoridal essence , and so they try with the polytops or others to explain our unknowns, Hooft also with holographic principle, but for me the main error of these relevant thinkers if to consider only this GR and only the oscillations vibrations , fields of photons, they forget to consider the DE and the DM. They can be experts in their topics , their extrapolations like mine are assumptions, but it seems that the complexity of this 3D and the pure thermo and newtonian mechanics is ok at all scales, the aim so is to understand better our unknown scales , we don t need really to superimpose extyradimensions, we need to have better technologies and prove the mechanics of these scales with deeper logics than actually. Hooft has considered this fith diemsnion of the GR spacetime, but why he does not go farer in superimposing the other unknowns , why always consider only this GR and photons ??? I don t understand to be frank, the photons have been created just to observe, because without light we don t observe and they are quanta of E , permitting in being encoded the heat and electromagnetism. Witten arriving and his feilds, so he consider that we have strings inside them ocillating in 1D and a 1D main cosmic field of this GR connected permitting the emergent geometries, topolgies, properties of matters. And after they extrapolate with the works of Maxwell for the vacuum and Riemann and Einstein for the tensors. But all this is just works about the GR , the space time luminiferous and its properties, why not to go deeper than this ? In 100 years of GR and others , now they consider all that we have just this like primordial essence, you find this logic you lol ?
report post as inappropriate
Jim George Snowdon replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 15:46 GMT
Hi Steve,
Why do we need time to exist as some kind of force or thing?
We have motion in our timeless universe. We have motion, and we exist. Time does not exist, we just assume that it does exist.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 15:52 GMT
It is the same with the holographic principle of Susskind, Hooft and others with the works of Witten, they try in this reasoning to reaqch the quantum gravitation , but like I said if they cannot unify G c and h , the QM and the GR there are reasons, it is due to the philosophical prison, like I told I have reached it with a totally different logic philosophical and not only in encoding photons...
view entire post
It is the same with the holographic principle of Susskind, Hooft and others with the works of Witten, they try in this reasoning to reaqch the quantum gravitation , but like I said if they cannot unify G c and h , the QM and the GR there are reasons, it is due to the philosophical prison, like I told I have reached it with a totally different logic philosophical and not only in encoding photons and with a different vacuum. I was surprised to reach it , I will publish this year correctly. I beleive in all humility that their errors like I repeat is to consider the GR like primoridal essence and the only one piece of puzzle and so the paradox of informations is considered in thjis logic like the concept of entropy and BHs. They consider so the ADS CFT correspondance and they play with the branes, strings , Dbranes, fields and others in superimposing and utilising the lie groups for example and mainly this E8 like polytop. The problem mainly is the philosophy and also how they consider the entropy generally. That implies so this prison of this GR. Now if they superimpose the main unknowns and change their philosophy , they can better understand the problem , they could consider different foundamental mathematical and physical objects, the 3D spheres and the 3 series primoridial that I explained, with the space vacuum for the main codes of this DE and the two others, the fuelds permitting the bosonic gravitational and electromagnetic fields. The concet of entropy is totally different. Furthermore it is easier to explain and reach the unknowns and also it respect the QM, the newtonian one, the QFT , the themodynamics wiuch can be better understood with this balance of this cold DM. The couplings also are better understood and furthermore and it is important, the energy disponible is more important considering my equation E=m(c^2+Xl^2)+Y , the real aim is to reach these scales and their mechanisms, even the consciousness can be better understood. A fith force appears furthermore instead of a fith dimension.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 16:00 GMT
Hi Jim, we need for me this time, if we consider that this time does not exist, it is just a philosophical interpretation where we consider the eternity or others, but we live inside a physicality where the time is essential for the motions and for the evolution.It exists this time, it is not a dimension like the others but it is real andit seems that we have an entropical irreversible arrow of time. I can respect your philosophical interpretation but for me this time is a reality, it is a piece essential even for this evolution and the motions. The time life exists for all things inside this universe , it is not an illusion our lifes. Friendly
report post as inappropriate
Jim George Snowdon replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 16:32 GMT
Steve,
I don`t think I could say I have a philosophy. I would say that I have an observation. The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for our confusion about the nature of time.
The motion of the Earth, with the reality of our consciousness, produces the illusion that time exists as some kind of force or thing.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 16:39 GMT
Yes I can understand Jim but you see well that we have a duration of evolution, we have a past , a present and we shall have a future, you see well that you have a life time and the earth also , the time seems to exist , without it we have no motion ,
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 17:34 GMT
A sure thing you know Jonathan is that I respect a lot these persons, Hooft,Maldacena, Witten, Susskind and others , I have even learnt a lot in studying their papers , I see differently the general philosophy and the main origin of our universe. I am not against their works , I try just to complete my theory correctly.The main importance for me is to think beyond the box, to think deeper in considering a deeper logic than just this GR and photons and their oscillations with the strings. I beleive even strongly that it exists a kind of conjecture between all this, between the 3D spheres and these strings. If my equation in on the good road with the 3 series superimposed, imagine the revolution for our mass energy equivalence . The informations , the BHs, the DE, the DM , the GR , all this dance in a specific universal partition and the aim is to find its secrets after all. We can go deeper than wheeler and Bekenstein at my humble opinion if my reasoning is correct.There is like a energy, mass, informations, spheres equivalence in summary and the aim is to know all this by the algebras is distributed, the main codes of this space vacuum being the keys but the two fuels merging permitting the fields can show the partition with the good mathematical tools.
report post as inappropriate
Jim George Snowdon replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 17:35 GMT
The onus, of course, has to be on those who say that time exists, to prove it. FQXi held their first essay contest, which was on the Nature of Time, in 2008. They have not since announced that the nature of time has been explained.
Yes, we have durations elapsing, but we don`t have time(s), past or future, independently existing in reality. We have the present. There is nothing else.
We have motion in our timeless universe.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 18:16 GMT
Jim, we have the present indeed but the past has existed and it is not a simultaneity, when I studied the evolution in bilogy of our earth, we know that we have had this past and it was before this present and the future will exist because in the present we have motions acting on it , the universe is not timeless , it exists, the same at all scales, the universe was in the past younger and we have an evolution of this universe.
report post as inappropriate
Jim George Snowdon replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 19:00 GMT
Steve,
We dig up Dinosaur bones. The bones never left the present. They are not proof that some separate time exists somewhere, somehow. Everything there is, is in the present. It`s here. There is no co-existing past of some kind.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 19:13 GMT
Dear Jim, you know I have ranked in all humility the animals, vegetals, minerals and even the maths, physics, chemistry and also this evolution in studying in details the works of Darwin, Lamarck or other modern evolutionary specialists, and it is evident that we evolve and that the time permits this evolution, the past has existed in its present and we see that we have a complexification even, see our brains and this consciousness, all evolves inside this universe, several things are stable and other in complexification evolves and give biological results, without this time, we have no motion, no interaction, no effect , and so no life. The quaternions for example has a 3D more a time for the motions, in telling that this time does not exist, so the quaternions don t exist and it is evident that they exist. I can understand your interpretation considering the present, but even the present exists and at each moment of evolution , the duration of evolution acts on the matters, because they are in motions. The eternity is an other concept beyond our understanding and that becomes philosophical. We live inside an universe in evolution and this time permits this evolution simply, the past has existed , the present exist and our consciousness permit to study these parameters with determinism.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 19:38 GMT
Jonathan, to solve the information, energy , matter problem, so we can consider the main codes in this space vacuum but is not the spacetime of this GR and oscillations vibrations of these photonc connected with the cosmology or with a kind of God, it is a spacetime vacuum made of particles coded possessing the main codes and these codes are activated when the two fuels merge. It is totally different than the works of Shannon or Bekenstein, the informations here primordial are not in the GR spacetime , but in an other ether of this DE. So the infornations, the matters, the energy, the spheres 3D are the secret for me , the real primordial informations cannot be found with the GR and the photons, we need to go deeper in the general analysis about these primordial informations. The BHs entropy and informations shall not solve the problem and that will not give for me a quantum correct computing, it lacks things, I consider 3 main systems and qutrits and one possesses the main coded and informations permitting the distributions of energies and matters in fucntion of activations of these fuels.
report post as inappropriate
Jim George Snowdon replied on Jan. 25, 2021 @ 17:10 GMT
Hi Steve,
Why do we need time to have motion?
What does time do that elapsing durations do not?
Steve, in my perspective, there is only now, and we have motion in our timeless Universe.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 25, 2021 @ 17:22 GMT
Hi Jim, I can tell the same, why you don t consider this time ? why the motions don t need time ? Of course the now is essential and important, bu yesterday is the past and tomorrow is the future also , one has existed and the other will exist . In the relativity it is important this time like in the minkowski spacetime , it is a tool to see our past like we see our sun 8 min in late , so you see well that this time exists, it is a tool even and the clocks exist. Tell me more about this philosophy, why you consider this ? why do you think it is relevant to tell that this time does not exist, what could be the relevances in sciences? Friendly
report post as inappropriate
Jim George Snowdon replied on Jan. 25, 2021 @ 18:05 GMT
Steve, in my perspective there`s not any such thing as time. I have managed without believing in time for a few decades, I don`t miss it, it`s no big deal.
You are the Physicist Steve. I am curious as to your view of the relevance to Physics that the concept of time not existing would impact?
The rotational motion of the Earth coupled with the reality of our consciousness, produces the illusion that time really exists as some kind of force or thing. I think that`s all there is to it.
report post as inappropriate
Jim George Snowdon replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 14:53 GMT
Hi Steve,
Our time measurement system is based on the Earth`s rotational motion. Our clocks measure the duration of periods of that motion. Our clocks measure durations elapsing.
We consciously experience duration elapsing. We consciously experience motion.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 15:03 GMT
Hi Jim, yes indeed , it is like this that we have invented the name time, to give a name for this thing correlated with the motions and the evolution. It is a kind of duration and we have so the past, the present and we shall have the futur. We experience these motions indeed and we have simply given a name to this time. In the relativity it is a tool even , we see our past due to this light speed like we see the sun a little more than 8 min in late , and so that permits to rank the evolution of this universe , more we go far in space more we return in the past due to this observation under the light. We experience indeed just the present. It is just a tool for the physics. A thing seeming respecting an entropical irreversible arrow of time, that is why the evolution is essential.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 21:00 GMT
The symbolic equations of mathematics and physics just sit there. They never move to the next line unless a person, or a computer program written by a person, makes them “move” by writing the next line. It’s the algorithmic steps taken by a person that makes them move.
It’s the same with the laws of nature and the numbers that apply its variables: they never move; the equations and numbers are not moving parts. Despite the delta symbols in the equations, the SYSTEM never moves forward unless new numbers for at least a few of the variables are input to the system. This input of new numbers can only be represented as algorithmic steps. IF, AND, OR, THEN represent some of the algorithmic steps that are a normal and natural part of the world.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 21:11 GMT
See the above comment...
Since symbols are only a projection or shadow of something higher-dimensional or deeper in its organizational level; they summarize something bigger than they are.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 21:34 GMT
You are right about equations that just sit there...
I particularly like Euler's identity e^ i pi = -1. The TeX version doesn't look right here either. Some formulae appear to be more deeply woven into the fabric of reality than others, however.
JJD
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 22, 2021 @ 22:19 GMT
A few basics about symbols:
Symbols were created by human beings for their own purposes. Symbols are not actual laws of nature, not actual numbers, and not actual algorithmic steps; but symbols that represent of law of nature relationships, numbers, and algorithmic steps are used by human beings to aid in understanding these aspects of the world. Symbols are a tool created by and used by human beings.
Symbols are nothing more than squiggles on bits of paper or screen: symbols that mean something to one person do not necessarily mean something to another person.
………………………
The use of symbols has allowed human beings to separate out the fundamental elements that make up the world, and it is clear that algorithmic steps are an entirely different, but normal and natural, fundamental aspect of the world:
Even when delta symbols are used in the symbolic equations, the system represented by a set of equations can never move forward unless new numbers are input to the system; this input of numbers can only be represented using algorithmic symbols.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 25, 2021 @ 19:49 GMT
A brief tutorial is in order...
The inception of the cosmos is a tricky subject because it forces us to give up common assumptions in order to understand anything. We are talking about a condition where almost all of what surrounds us - that we take for granted - had not come into existence yet. And this means the context for the familiar rules of Math had not solidified either.
Things that work in the the normal way for 3-d don't apply if we don't have a 3-d universe yet. For something to be 0-d appears an impossibility, because it would need to possess (or imply the existence of) infinite energy. If it's only 1-d, then that implies it must be a dimension of time to persist. So this makes the lower limit of things that can have duration and spatial extent to 2-d.
But the conditions which set an upper limit to what the dimensionality was at the outset or origin of the universe require the existence of limited forms to appear first, so that the dimensions are constrained in some way cosmologically. This is why one cannot rule out the possibility for a higher-d origin, and why the dynamical properties of higher-d spaces remain a tantalizing explanation for the origin of time.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 25, 2021 @ 20:19 GMT
“Higher-d spaces” have NO “dynamical properties”. The equations of mathematics and physics just sit there. They never move to the next line unless a person, or a computer program written by a person, makes them “move” by writing the next line. It’s the algorithmic steps taken by a person that makes them move.
It’s the same with the laws of nature and the numbers that apply its variables: they never move; the equations and numbers are not moving parts. Despite the delta symbols in the equations, the SYSTEM never moves forward unless new numbers for at least a few of the variables are input to the system. This input of new numbers can only be represented as algorithmic steps.
IF, AND, OR, THEN are some of the algorithmic symbols that can be used to represent the cause of movement in the system.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 25, 2021 @ 20:52 GMT
Jonathan, if you consider an outside this physicality and let s assume like assumption that it is an infinite energy, let s tell an infinite eternal consciousness, it is an assumption I repeat, so this thing is and was before the physciality a 0D without time, space, dimension, matters, just a pure energy that we cannot define, so this thing has decided to create an universe, so imagine it has during an incredible long time transformed this E in a central main sphere and after all the information in a pure 3D are sent from there, we don t need extradimensions , just a 3D na a time of evolution to create this project that we name the universe, the problem of extradimension is not necessary, even for the time, the error comes form the non commutative time and the interpretation of the GR , it is just a thing that we observe due to photons, nothing of mystical. Lorraine is right for me in explaining also her points of vue, the humans complexify a simplicity wich is not necessary, sorry for the lobbies of octonions and strings, but it is a reality, the problem is philosophical.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 25, 2021 @ 21:01 GMT
Lorraine, I think we cannot change their works, they don t want I d say to change, they are persuaded about their extradimensions and their correlated philosophies with this GR and strings and octonions, in changing that implies that they are false and have lost their time during many years, and furthermore it is an industry, they convice the enterprises to make researchs with this lol, so we speak in the wind, because like all they are vanitious and are persuaded , me my theory I don t affirm it but I respect the pure determinism of motions of a pure 3D, them they invent mystical things to imply confusions frankly I tell me, it is a lobby and a philosophical prison simply. They play with the maths to see who will go the farer and who will find a toe unifying the QM and the GR, but what they have forgotten is that their philosphy , and their foundamental object is probably false , but never they shall accept and recognise this , I am a problem with my spheres and if you add the vanity and I am myself vanitious, so you understand the crisis inside this theoretical sciences community, they congratulate between themselves, the rest is not important for these strings theorists considering the fields and this GR like founda,mentals, we speak in the wind Lorraine.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 10:22 GMT
Jonathan,
“This is why one cannot rule out the possibility for a higher-d origin..”
one cannot even rule out the existence of a creator who created logic, maths and nature in the first place. Why should that assumed creator be restricted to have created things such that everything is mathematically and logically formalizable by the creatures he created? Surely, depending on the...
view entire post
Jonathan,
“This is why one cannot rule out the possibility for a higher-d origin..”
one cannot even rule out the existence of a creator who created logic, maths and nature in the first place. Why should that assumed creator be restricted to have created things such that everything is mathematically and logically formalizable by the creatures he created? Surely, depending on the connotations one attaches to a possible creator one can assume that it is a “mathematical God”, but that once again does only mean that there is no procedure other than different handed down belief-systems for choosing one “picture of God” rather than another. And sure enough, many people do not even consider the idea of an existing God (an entity with will and intentions that created our cosmos) as a sensible idea.
As a matter of logic, there are many things that cannot be ruled out neither by some simply acts of inductive reasoning nor by deductive reasoning. Kant once believed that space and time as we know them are synthetically a priori. Nowadays it is generally accepted that space and time are somewhat changeable in the Einsteinian sense. One can proceed with this and assume that what one has found with Octonionic maths must be interpreted as space-dimensions and assume that our 3D space is a somewhat transformed result of some primordial dimensional realm. With only deductive and inductive reasoning at hand, nobody can prove or disprove these assumptions and making them in the first place is not even wrong (not to be understood in the Wolfgang Paulian sense!). Even if one could show that Octonionic maths “speaks” about dimensions, it is not guaranteed by any means other than wishful thinking that Octonionic maths says the correct things about physical (or even spiritual) reality – even if it got some other well known physics equations right already.
For me there is a difference between a mathematical framework that partly reproduces some known physical laws and the necessity that this framework should say something reliable about other aspects of physical (or even spiritual) reality. I would not even consider each and everything within that – unknown - reality to necessarily have some mathematically formalizable roots. There could be found many examples worldwide and in history where mathematically beautiful frameworks that seemed to reflect (almost) “everything” one had in mind to be reflected, turned out to be incompatible with reality because in the first place one had only the personally preferable things in mind and unconsciously left out other aspects of reality.
So I would like to differenciate between possibilities and necessities when trying to answer fundamental questions about (physical) existence. As I already said elsewhere, my belief in a certain kind of non-mathematical God logically falls under the category of belief and the fact that one cannot rule out some higher-d origins for space and time in my opinion does not prove that each and everything within ultimate reality must necessarily be formalizable mathematically – even if there indeed would be some higher-d origins for space and time. Therefore I further think that one must be cautious when casting things into a mathematical framework to not overlook things that simply could escape that casting process by not being formalizable mathematically. Although it has widely been popularized in the last two decades that ultimate reality and everything within it should “naturally” be completely formalizable mathematically, physics still owes some kind of demonstration that this induction scheme is more than an extrapolation from a little island of applicable mathematics to a mathematical landscape that totally equates with ultimate reality and everything within it.
Has everybody managed yet to cast my impression of the beautiful blue sky and the beautiful blue ocean that I see for example in Italy into a completely equivalent mathematical equation of that beautiful blue sky and that beautiful blue ocean? I would say a definite no to that. Nobody has yet managed to even write down some mathematical expressions that could be completely equivalent to these qualia-contents. But let us imagine that there indeed exists such a mathematical expression and it already has been formulated by someone. That person now writes down that (rather long and complicated?) equation here on the FQXi blog! Now take another person that *knows nothing* about the correlation between the impression of the colour blue and that mathematical expression. That unknowing person only could realize that this mathematical expression is all about seeing the colour blue if that person would have some *a priori knowledge about the correlation* between that mathematical expression and the Qualia of seeing the colour blue. Moreover, that mathematical expression surely is not identical with the *Qualia of seeing the colour blue*, it is only black and white spots on a computer screen (and it does not help to write down these equations with a blue font....).
What this means is that in my opinion one has to be very very careful to not confuse profound meanings one has “found” in mathematical frameworks with the meanings that one has put into the equations in the first place. All this is not to claim that in the case of Octonionic maths one accidentally has done that. It is a more general line of reasoning addressed to the belief that ultimate reality can at all be completely understood by human beings sitting at their little island of selective perceptions. More philosophically speaking I think that one has to be very careful to not confuse *form with content* since otherwise we eventually would end up as a species in believing nonsensical things like for example believing in equations that “truthfully and completely” capture the Qualia of seeing the colour blue – only because that equation is written with the help of a blue font and "therefore" produces the Qualia of seeing blue.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 10:54 GMT
Stefan, all this is beyond our understanding, so we cannot simply affirm nor the origin nor the foundamentals. The maths of course are important and are like a tool permitting to extrapolate our physics , it seems that the physics are the main piece of this universal puzzle, not the maths but it is just my opinion. The philosophy general of this universe is also beyond our understanding and sometimes it can imply problems. It is what they have with the mathematical universe and the fields and oscillations like primordial essence. It is there that the interpretations of maths must be taken with wisdom, we know that it implies symmetries like with this reversible time or multiverses or whormholes, but the real question is , are they reals or is it just a mathematical results wich does not exist. The universe seems following a precise mechanism but we cannot create our own mechanisms because all roads don t go to roma lol . The problem of dimensions seem the most important philosophical and ontological problem , it is also about the begining of this physicality and why and how it has begun, the 0D and the 3D for me are the keys , and not the 1D towards the other mathematical dimensions. But like the strings theorists, I cannot prove these scales and this origin. It is well to share ideas and try to have the truth, but we must recognise that it d be odd to affirm these unknowns. Lol in fact it is easier to formalise the human vanity than this universe I must say , all persuaded like I tell :)
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 14:32 GMT
Jonathan, I like the works of Connes and the non commutativity , he is the best about this. But like I said it is about the relativistic spacetime and the quantum field theory , so with photons encoded in our nuclei and a photonic spcetime, so it is about the measurements of positions in a simplictic resume in function of energies. But what I try to explain is that if we have not only these...
view entire post
Jonathan, I like the works of Connes and the non commutativity , he is the best about this. But like I said it is about the relativistic spacetime and the quantum field theory , so with photons encoded in our nuclei and a photonic spcetime, so it is about the measurements of positions in a simplictic resume in function of energies. But what I try to explain is that if we have not only these photons like primordial essence and that my reasoning is correct with the 3 main series, with the main codes in this spacevacuum and after two fuels merging to create our topologies, geometries, so that implies that all this non commutative spacetime and others are just for the photons but don t explain our other deeper unknows, it permits simply to rank and better understand these photonic fields at all scales that we observe due to these said photons. The operators utilised like the works of loretz or others permit so to have directions if my memory is correct. We modify the invariances and the causalities. That can be correlated with the BHs and others or the time. Many so insert these works of connes in the geonetrical algebras and the strings or geometrodynamics and they play with these tools in trying to detail this reletivistic spacetime due to photons, but what I try to explain is that these photons don t seem to be the primordial essence and that it does not seem necessary to play with the dimensions, we can consider that these photons and the QFT are just a part of the problem under a deeper logic, imagine that we have these main codes in this spacevacuum of this DE and that the DM cold permits to balance the whole of this QFT with the photons and that we have this quantum gravitation emerging due to this, so you see a kind of universal balance between all this. There is like an universal distribution of commutativity , non commutativity, associativity, non asociativity in playing with the 3 series of spheres where the main codes are in this space. We can rank all at my humble opinion in function of how these gravitational and electromagnetic fields are considered in function of codes that they follow. The strings, points and the dimensions are not really necessary, we can rank and understand all this without them , it is even easier.If the finite number of these series does not change , that becomes very interesting about the motions, directions, positions , densities of these volumes wich don t chage also. The matter energy is better understood simply like, the two fuels, photons and cold dark matter permit the distribution of this matter and energy like activations of intrinsic properties. We have so 3 ethers instead of one luminiferous. The error of many for me is to consider only these photons.
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 15:18 GMT
Stefan, are you familiar with the psychological analysis term “anal retentive”? Rhetorical question, no answer required. You might take a go at rationally, not emotionally, describing why mathematics is required to perfectly cover your emotional reactions in its language for it to be legitimate, or perhaps easier justify your use of this *opinion* in your criticism of any mathematical physics approach, let alone Octonion Algebra. Your last quip about my finally getting it was off the mark, for you surely did not understand what I was writing, otherwise you might not have made your latest post. Cognitive dissonance on your part? Seems so.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 16:40 GMT
Dear Rick,
I may be wrong about that, but I have the impression that you are emotionally agitated by my arguments. Anyways, I want to let you know that I don't like to further correspond with someone who replies with terms like “anal retentive” - independent of what you mean by that remark.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 20:23 GMT
Any emotional agitation aside...
A characterization could be made about people who would deny the possibility for flight, labeling it useless speculation, until the Wright people come along to show that the laws of Physics DO support the possibility for heavier-than-air craft to fly - and they always have. Only when some things are shown incontrovertibly true will the naysayers need to change their mind.
But in the meanwhile; people like Rick are out of step mainly because they are ahead of their time, having caught on to a basic truth that occurs on a higher level of generalization than where most folks are looking for answers. I again mention the movie 'Moana' because the villagers were arguing that there was no reason to go beyond the reef and nothing worth looking for beyond the island.
People cling to the real numbers, use the complex sparingly, the quaternions almost never, and imagine the octonions are only a fantasy. Funny how that works.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 21:04 GMT
lol the humans are surprising , they beleive all they are special , the psychology is incredibly odd I must say, all the center of the universe , is it this vanity ? their genetic ? their environments ? I don t know , why tese comportments it is the question, if we don t change we shall fall down like the romans, , we make the same errors. So simple the truth, but so few are able to be real universal altruist. Primates evolved wanting to be light in the darkness of the stupidities lol don t never contredict their philosophies, they are touched in the deepest vanity of their souls and minds. They possess all the truths and they have a responsability, they must share it like if it is going to change the universe, lol so ironical , we are just a planet sphere turning around an other sphere in a galaxy made of spheres in an universe with more than 10000 billions of galaxies, we are not the center of this universe, we are the center of nothing. A congratulation there, a politeness here, this and that but in fact we are just humans limited lost in a galaxy and we turn in round considering the foundamentals of this universe. We have understood maybe 0,0000000001 per cent of our maths and sciences amd hop we conclude that we have all understood , we are a species totally ironical .Monkeys a little bit evolved, that is all. We born, we live and adapt and we die and that rebegins in hoping that the next step will be on a better place than this ironical one. Don t contredict never these primates, they dislike this, agree with them, and they shall satisfy this said vanity dear all . Who knows the best the physics, the maths, the philosphy, the universal love, the truths, lol who is aware of this universal message, all of course without exception, they are all right .
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 21:20 GMT
That's exactly what I'm trying to dispel Steve...
We think we are so special that the 3-d universe is all there is. But we are wrong. Humans are not so special or unique, and that is why the higher-d spaces are equally real to the illusory 3-d universe plus time we silly humans believe in.
I heard a story the aliens tried to explain their technology to our scientists once, about 40 years ago, and that it functions because of the properties inherent in the Maths. Our guys said "but that's not how Maths work" and the aliens just chuckled because they know better.
The truth is what's real, and it is too grand; we haven't learned it right yet.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 09:53 GMT
Jonathan, we retrun about the main origin of this universe and how it acts in fact, we don t know and we must accept this, why we are and what is the main cause, we cannot answer. Like I explained we see that all evolves and all seems coded , a part considers an infinite eternal consciousness and others think that we come from a mathematical accident but we don t know. In my model it is an infinite eternal consciousness having decided to create an universe and it codes the spheres with series , 3 main series . In the strings theory they are divided also but a part considers also this infinite eternal consciousness, so the difference is just that for me we need particles coded and in the strings of geonetrodynamics they consider that it comes from fields creating the matters. I have considered a central main sphere and it is there that this consciousness infinite has firstly changed the energy in sonething able to create all series to create all this diversity. The higher dimensions are not necessary in my model, the complexity is in these series of 3D spheres and their motions and when they merge. We think like we want but we cannot affirm, for me it seems logic, for you it seems logic. About the aliens, of course we are not alone inside this universe but we have a problem of technology maybe. It is very difficult to travel inside this universe and these galaxies, but probably that yes they exist and are numerous, some are less evolved, others more . Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 10:26 GMT
You know Jonathan, I think that in fact the physicists had not an other general idea, so they have just worked with the best idea created by these strings and the fields and E8 now, it is just that the thinkers had just this like general idea, feynmann said and I say this in all humility I don t know all, he said that one day we shall see all the truth and we shall say all, oh my god but how is it...
view entire post
You know Jonathan, I think that in fact the physicists had not an other general idea, so they have just worked with the best idea created by these strings and the fields and E8 now, it is just that the thinkers had just this like general idea, feynmann said and I say this in all humility I don t know all, he said that one day we shall see all the truth and we shall say all, oh my god but how is it possible that we have not seen a thing so simple, it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation, the evolution of this universal sphere or future sphere with these 3D quantum and cosmological spheres. Poincare d agree I beleive, the strings were a good idea but between us , don t tell me that these 3D spheres are not possible, they seem logic, the problem that I see with these strings is that they don t take into account the evolution and this eternal consciousness, if we evolve there are reasons, why this thing has not created a perfect universe at the begining so ? you see well that we need an evolution and the fields like origin does not explain this evolution philosophically and ontologically speaking. The complexity of these series of 3D spheres, 3 main series, one for the space vacuum and the two fuels don t forget possess the same number than our finite cosmological serie, calculate and see that it is the dirac large number and so all is in contact when we consider a central biggest one, and the complexity of these spheres is incredible due to this number, so it is not simple like you tell. The 0D of this thing that we cannot define and the 3D of the universe are for me the truth , we don t need to create extradimensions, it is a pure fantasy. If we want to improve our sciences and technologies we must just go farer towards the secrets of these 3 series merging creating this physicality. Like I said I know that the theoretical sciences community has difficulties to change their philosophy and works, but I d be happy if the thinkers forcus on this also, because I am persuaded that it will be revolutionary . We can simply explain our deep unknowns.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 12:29 GMT
Maybe Jonathan it is the secret to reach the quantum computing really , 3 series of 3D spheres , qutrits, the society D waves works about the annealing and this and that but it is not a real quantum computer.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 12:43 GMT
Jonathan, in learning a little bit more about this society D waves systems , they tell that they have invented a quantum computer but it is just quantum annealings to solve problems in function of encodings, it is not a quantum computer, it is a relevant computer, that is all.I see that said a relevant idea, the cold and heat , in my model it is important considering the two fuels encoded in this space vacuum possessing the nmain codes and energy matter properties, so these codes are activated with the two fuels to give the diversity of matters and the gravitational and electromagntic fields.We have like a super matter energy so at this central cosmological sphere sending all the series and able to create all matters. See now that this society D waves systems can consider this convergence to really reach this quantum computing with better annealings and a deeper logic, but it seems difficult considering the limitations of these series.All seems a question of energies and their distributions and steps of energies if I can say. The spherical volumes become essential and they can also utilise the symplectomorphisms preserving the volumes for the deformations, that will give a 3D computer if my line of reasoning is correct.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 19:17 GMT
Some thoughtful attention is due here...
While 'only what can be constructed is definite' appears to be true for physical systems or the possible origins of a physical universe; the idea that Maths only arise because sentient being are there to construct it over-generalizes what is real. One does not have be be a hyper-Platonist to know that certain realities of Math are invariants. But even so; it's reasonable to say there is a dividing line between natural and invented Maths.
The real point at issue here is how to faithfully represent the real world as is is. Mostly; people have gotten caught up in convenient generalizations that hardened in place through the Einstellung effect so klunky solutions are hard to replace or displace with better models. But even so; things like Calabi-Yau spaces or Tensors are purpose-built Maths while the Octonions and the Mandelbrot Set are naturally-arising entities.
So there is some confusion in recent comments by Steve and Lorraine as to the naturalness of various Maths, and now Stefan appears to have fallen into the same trap. I also balked at the invocation of higher dimensions as a way to avoid certain limitations and achieve a higher level of organization, as it is done in String Theory, and earlier by Kaluza and Klein. It seems like an ad hoc solution, to just say the underlying reality has to be 10-d.
By comparison; there is a firmer basis to state that the 8-d Octonions predated us and are a necessary precursor to the 3-d Cosmos we inhabit today.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 19:32 GMT
To be specific...
If we allow for the possibility of higher dimensions at all; the Octonions have an important place in the order of things. And while it is easy to conjure dynamism from infinite-dimensional spaces; the octonions offer a strong directionality in a compact package.
So they were almost certainly put to use by nature, in the early universe and for the purpose of creating familiar forms - in some way. The real question is, if Strings are true, 'do the dynamical properties of Strings and Branes derive from the properties of the higher-d spaces they inhabit?'
That is to say; if Strings are an answer, they only work because the octonions function as nature intended. Any higher-d Physics whatsoever must hinge on the fact that the Octonion algebra really works, but only if calculational steps are taken in a specific order and sequence.
And that yields intrinsic time evolution as a bonus!
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 19:36 GMT
Hi jonathan, I love the humans, see how we are always persuaded lol , we compete with kindness , we are a little bit all vanitious and we defend our indeas after all, you imagine if all what I tell is true and that you are false, or the opposite for me, if the strings are proved, lol what a world, an institution these strings and E8 , thanks witten, lie and einstein lol they cannot think differently now. To be frank I love the maths and I know well the maths in all humility , I cannot stop to study them, what I try to explain is that it exists mathematical tools very important and they permit to prove and it exists tools in maths implying symmetries or infinities or this or that, if you take all the maths like they are , you create confusions considering the reality. That proves yes, but that implies also confusions and assumptions not proved. And if you consider also the philosophy, so you underatand better the crisis inside our community my dear friends. The maths tell that we have symmetries , so we have for example Whormhole and reversibilities of time, is it a reason to accept them ? the logic it is this also, we must be rational after all. Take care my friend the E8 fan :)
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 20:10 GMT
Thanks Steve...
Even the wonders of a 3-d sphere are not fully or truly understood. And I was skeptical about higher dimensions, especially as part of physical reality. Somehow the idea of mystical realms of higher-d reality didn't bother me so much, but I did not place the two on the same footing. I even argued; 'why bother adding lots of extra dimensions, if it doesn't even get you more space?' I have since learned there is more value to garner.
I once wrote that perhaps the Sedenions are a useless distraction, and a bridge too far - being only of theoretical or instructional value as a point of reference. However if the universe was once a sphere - but in 16-d - then it has only 3 possible decompositions via fibration, with S15 yielding exactly the three algebras - the octonions, quaternions, and complex numbers. Almost too good to be true!
So while you hang out with 3-d spheres; I'll remember that the equation r = 1 yields the whole family of unit spheres - out to infinite dimensions - and not just a common circle or sphere. The simple equation holds more information than we readily see because we are mired in the 3-d reality that surrounds us, and we have forgotten that our origin is from mathematically distant places.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 20:12 GMT
A thing Intrigues me Jonathan, why to consider that we have just the photons and this relativistic space time like primoridal essence and why to consider that this universe oscillates these photons at this planck scales with these strings and branes ??? They had not an other general reasoning or what ? it is more than an institution , it is a religion no ? and why with all this and the octonions for example to consider higher dimensions, is it because they begin in 1D connected with a 1D cosmic field of this relativity? they want to dream maybe I don t know but all this seems odd in fact. That has begun with Kaluza Klein and the strings and after the E8 , is it a fashion in fact inside the sciences community and what I find very odd is that these assumptions are teached at university. Me I want well , but the lesson must have like title, the assumptions in theoretical physics and not the foundamentals of physics lol , maybe they want to be in synchros with god I don t know me with the correct osccilations vibrations. Maybe wait lol it is god who tells them these things.To be serious, I repeat all are assumptions, my spheres 3D , the strings, the E8 , this and that, we cannot affirm , we just discuss and I don t want to convice, I just share a different general idea. It seems logic for you these strings and oscillations and higher dimensions, for me it is total non sense, the universe is more simple that this and respect the pure proportions of motions.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 21:14 GMT
It is simple Steve...
But a truly blank slate is more like what we find in higher-d spaces than in an empty 3-d space that isn't really empty. It isn't really 3-d either, but then it is such a convincing illusion that people assume 3-d is all that's real.
Surprise!
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 26, 2021 @ 21:21 GMT
You know Jonathan, for me the 3D has many secrets to show us if we go towards the centers,so we fractalise a pure 3D, maybe all the extradimensionalists like to dream about a philosophical paradise I don t know, but don t be persuaded about your philosophy, I know that you cannot change because you have worked since many years about this, so it is encoded in your brain more your psychology and all we are a little bit vanitious, we cannot change our lines of reasoning , but try , you shall contemplate the real truth instead of this fantasy my friend ,
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 03:11 GMT
Johnathan, I think pure maths. is like potential and possibility and probability. They are per se between non existent and existing. The math has to be embodied in some way to become an actualized part of existence. That could be reiterative processes such as waves lapping the shore leaving sand patterns, or rivulets draining to the sea, or any cyclic growth patterns. It could also be actualized by computer rendering of patterns or the drawing of graphs. I think that rather than the math existing fully in all its expressions in a perfect math realm, it can be though o like a seed that needs the right conditions for its expression, by nature or human works.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 17:14 GMT
It can be any natural process Steve...
Humans or other living observers don't have to be involved. You can have object-observers relations between two unthinking particles. Darryl Jay Leiter put this concept into mathematical terms (imposing an Abelian gauge group) to create the Measurement Color formulation of Quantum Electrodynamics.
Curiously, by merely asserting that the two particles are engaged in a mutual measurement; we find that the photon is the carrier of the timeline, or represents an exclusively time-like extent. But every process in early universe cosmology is an execution of mathematical principles, that remain unchanging when we vary the physical parameters of origin wildly.
This is why it is conceivable that Maths were pre-existing. The universe behaves as though it is true; so who are we to think otherwise? The whole basis for mutual measurement can be found in the octonions via projective geometry. So an astute person would perhaps say "Aha! This is how nature must have done it." Which then begs the question "Did some mathematical potentialities like the Octonions exist fully-formed before the universe came to be?"
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 17:29 GMT
my dear octonionic friend , lol you know you are persuaded, I am too, why we cannot change our line of reasoning ? because we are persuded and have worked a lot about this, if your octonions and strings and fields like origin and whole truth are proved false generally , you are going to simply be sad a little bit . The same for me , but we cannot fortunally actually prove the foundamental objects and the main philosophical origin, these octonions are not stupid, they permit to rank a little bit the fields, but they are not the foundamental truth even with the lobbies and strings supporting them. You know Jonathan, since when the fields are the origin of our geometries and topologies, they speak to god lol ? I know that it is not easy to change , but you can do it I beleive you seem a smart interesting guy, try my 3D spheres and forget a little bit these octonions, all has been made with them and you are so numerous to work about them that it is not a competition, lol it is more than this between all the E8 supporters, they want all to reach the quantum gravitation but nobody has renormalised and quantified it , it is because you forget foundamentals my dear friend. A real photonic relativistic stringly prison and all you turn in round to be the best ,utilise the spheres and these 3 main series dear friend, you shall see that all is easier and there be sure you shall see the unknowns appearing.You can even superimpose the E8 if you want it is not a problem, just replace the strings or points by these series and superimpose the 3 finite series, the space vacuum and the two fuels that I explained and don t change the finite number when they fuse, just analyse the motions, rotations, oscillations , densities, you can even put the hopf fibrations on surfaces to rank the quasiparticles.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 17:50 GMT
that must converge in logic Jonathan, there is like a conjecture between these 3D spheres and the strings , correlated with the poincare conjecture proved by perelman utilising the ricci flow, consider an intrinsic ricci flow maybe and the symplectomorphisms for the deformations..... 3 E8 superimposed and preserving the volumes and convergence for the quantum computing with qutrits my friend :)
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 01:32 GMT
You can’t just claim that something or other “moves”, or something or other has “dynamical properties”, and get away with it: movement needs to be represented with appropriate symbols.
If something or other in the world moves, there are various possible ways of representing it symbolically: 1) with word symbols (“it moves”); 2) with the symbols used by mathematics and physics; and 3) with algorithmic symbols.
In physics and mathematics, movement is represented by the delta symbol which is used to represent change of number for particular variables. In physics, if the numbers for some of the variables change, then the numbers for other variables will also change due to law of nature relationships. But there is no suggestion that numbers are entities that change and morph all by themselves; and there is no suggestion that laws of nature are entities that cause number change: laws of nature only “cause” number change via category relationships.
So, physics does not actually have a way of representing a genuine cause of, or reason for, number change. Physics does not actually have a way of representing genuine “dynamical properties”. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “DYNAMICAL PROPERTIES”.
The cause of, and the reasons for, number change can only be represented algorithmically e.g.:
IF the situation is such that (variable1= number1 AND variable2= number2) OR variable3= number3, THEN make variable4= number4.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 02:23 GMT
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “DYNAMICAL PROPERTIES”" Lorraine.
Movement is represented symbolically. For example; v is distance with direction over time. IF you were to plot V as T against distance from start point x, you will see number change aa t increases. Any equation that has v in it has motion built in; like momentum, angular momentum and kinetic energy. T, the time period for one cycle and represents the change occurring over that length of time.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 17:31 GMT
This question is only relevant because of what we have learned...
It wasn't until the 90s we found out cosmic expansion is accelerating. Perhaps the easiest way to explain this is to assert that empty space isn't just a void but instead has dynamical properties. This has a one to one correspondence with the intrinsic time idea of Alain Connes, arising from the Tomita-Takesaki theory of modular von Neumann algebras.
Simply put; a large class of mathematical spaces possess some inherent dynamism or the built-in capacity for dynamical evolution. The octonions are simply the most compact arrangement which preserves the strongly evolutive properties. This makes them the minimal case of those algebras one could call drivers. Rick Lockyer has often said that the octonions want or need to drive, and that this is how we can best understand their impact on Physics.
I've spoken with Tevian Dray face to face and corresponded with Cohl Furey and Geoff Dixon, so I know that what Tejinder and his colleagues have done is a major step forward, toward elucidating what octonionic Physics actually does for us. But one thing is for certain; it makes a complete non-issue of what the latest Scientific American labels a 'Cosmic Conundrum.' If space itself is dynamical; there is no conundrum. Problem solved.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 18:01 GMT
So the question remains...
Why is empty space dynamical? That is the real issue. It is senseless to imagine that reality adheres to a mathematical ideal where empty means devoid of form and without dynamical properties, when the actual spacetime we live in behaves differently. It deviates from what Lorraine would like it to be. Perhaps Euclidean geometry and Real-valued Math is inadequate.
One can posit the existence of dark matter and dark energy to explain some of the deviations from a mathematically perfect flatness or emptiness, and to explain the enormous discrepancy (>100 orders of magnitude) between the predictions of Quantum Field Theory and Relativity for the vacuum energy, but there is still a residual we can't explain by adding things. Some call it a Crisis in Cosmology.
The true answer is likely that spontaneous symmetry breaking is connected to continuous topological evolution, where the exact dimensionality of spacetime is changing or continues to evolve over time. So we are in a bubble that's mostly 3-d in nature, but because we are embedded in a larger form that includes higher and lower dimensional entities - D=3 is not a constant over cosmic time.
This allows the intrinsic time of Connes to play a part in the early universe.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 18:16 GMT
Hi to both of you, the space does not really exists in logic Jonathan, the vacuum is made of particles coded, see now my reasoning with the 3 series of 3D spheres sent from the central cosmological sphere , so the space vacuum of this DE is coded and prossesses the main codes and it is like a super matter this central cosm sphere and in fact if we apply the same number than our cosmological finite series of spheres, we have the dirac large number, now consider that the central sphere is the biggest volume and after apply the decreasing of volumes and the increasing in number and see that the space does not really exists , we have particles in contact everywhere at all scales. Now when the two other series merge with it , the cold and heat, the gravitation and electromagntism, the photons and cold dark matter , they activate this space my friend, see that it permits to encircle the fields,waves and others.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 18:39 GMT
In my theory...
Early universe evolution happens under the octonions and makes use of Connes' intrinsic time as a driver toward forms or formation, as with Aikyon theory. In other words; intrinsic time is what drives things from an ambiguous state to specificity. But in my version; this causes the early universe to evolve toward a 5-dimensional volume, as a precursor or parent state to our current universe.
So the 3-d space we inhabit is part of a 4-d spacetime bubble evolving under the quaternions. We are in a ball riding on that 5-d ball, similar to the rolling ball analogy of Cartan for describing the octonion self symmetries. So our universe is a 4-d bubble on a 5-d sea (or a sphere on a higher-d sphere), in my theory.
In Aikyon theory the mechanism of Continuous Spontaneous Localization is what congeals our 4-d spacetime from the 8-d bulk. In my theory; this happens via condensation, but this results from our being inside-out from the prior universe that is left in a 5-d bubble.
I am seeing a phenomenology where spin was trapped in the spacetime fabric in the 5-d parent or precursor, so that torsion in the fabric took the place of tension in some braneworld theories. Thus a very high Weyl value occurred which opened a hole for a black hole - white hole bridge to form. This means that the CMB is the white hole residual from the prior cosmos.
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 27, 2021 @ 18:48 GMT
In your theory wich is an assumption .....and in my theory wich is also an assumption the early universe has begun with a multiplication of these series 3D of spheres , and the time is not a problem you know , it is a problem when we analyse it only with this relativity that we observe, don t forget that it is about observations and in considering only photons, for me your error to all the...
view entire post
In your theory wich is an assumption .....and in my theory wich is also an assumption the early universe has begun with a multiplication of these series 3D of spheres , and the time is not a problem you know , it is a problem when we analyse it only with this relativity that we observe, don t forget that it is about observations and in considering only photons, for me your error to all the octonionists and strings theorists is there, you consider only this GR and the photons like the primoridal essence and after with KK or others you have created extradimensions, it is just a play of maths with the GR and in begining in 1D at this planck scale wich furthermore is a scale not proved and after you play with the tensors and fields of these photons oscillating and vibrating to explain our geometries and topologies, it is just a general assumption , the same for the early universe, we don t know what was this begining , even the BB with the CMB is an assumption even if we have some interesting datas cosmological. I can understand that you are fascinated by this E8 and the fields like origin and the works of connes, specially for the time, but don t forget my friend, all is an assumption , the E8 is just for me interesting to a little bit better understand these photons encoded in our nuclei giving the 3 known forces, don t hope to explain this quantum gravitation with these photons and field and E8, be sure, I have reached it in encoding this cold dark matter , we need a balance you know , that explains the antimatter , the quantum gravitation and furthermore the evolution with the DE disponible, we can even extrapolate the future of the universal sphere with acceleration decceleration towards the maximum spherical volume and after accel deccelleration towards the minimum balanced spherical volume continuing to evolve due to complexification of lifes and matters. The problem foundamental that I see in all humility is philosophical and ontological about your origin of this universe considering these fields , and the choice of foundamentaöl objects and also the fact to consider only the GR and SR . You can tell ball, sphere, hypersphere, 5D sphere or this, me I speak about 3D spheres cosmol and quant in an universal 3D sphere in evolution , it is not emergent these spheres, they are the foundamentals, don t confound. Friendly
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.