Search FQXi


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

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

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:07am UTC, wrote cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat ...

Dr. Elliot McGucken: on 9/28/09 at 19:50pm UTC, wrote Perhaps entanglement and relativity derive from the same source--the same...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/27/09 at 10:59am UTC, wrote Hi Brian , Indeed ....unfortunally ....what I find very dangerous is the...

amrit: on 9/27/09 at 7:33am UTC, wrote Brian with self-observation of the observer religions will dissaper....

Brian Beverly: on 9/27/09 at 5:27am UTC, wrote Jason, I disagree because religion is used to create holy wars which...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/25/09 at 23:14pm UTC, wrote Thank you very much Georgina , it's nice and interesting. I am a very...

Georgina Parry: on 9/25/09 at 22:49pm UTC, wrote Steve, Link to BioChemWeb for info on apoptosis

Steve Dufourny: on 9/25/09 at 16:56pm UTC, wrote All people are uniques,precious and complementary. Anybody is better than...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Re.macroscopic objectivity: How an outcome is to be called, the method..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

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

Jahangir kt: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..." in Our Place in the...

Steve Dufourny: "I am going to tell you an important thing about the aethers. I thought that..." in Alternative Models of...

halim sutarmaja: "dewapoker hadir untuk semua pecinta game poker dengan teknologi terbaru dan..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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

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

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

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


FQXi BLOGS
November 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Entanglement from a Local Deterministic Model? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Vlatko Vedral wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 15:47 GMT
Entanglement is a quantum effect that exhibits the clearest departure of quantum theory from the previous classical physics. This is easiest seen through the Bell inequalities which are satisfied by all classical physics, but are (both theoretically and experimentally) found to be violated by quantum systems.

What’s at stake here are the assumptions about the underlying reality of the world and/or its locality. The reality assumption stipulates that values of experimental measurements are known in advance and independently of making measurements. This is true in the classical world: the police camera monitoring your driving speed does not change the speed by measuring it (otherwise you’d have a great defence in court against paying the speeding fine).

Locality on the other hand says that measurements in one part of the universe cannot instantaneously affect another part of the universe (but the disturbance can at most travel at the speed of light). This is in perfect agreement with the theory of relativity.

Bell’s inequalities only assume reality and locality (and , yes, you also have to believe in probabilities; if you don’t, you can circumvent Bell, which is what some Many World Interpretation of quantum mechanics supporters have been promoting. This point, however, is irrelevant for the present discussion). The fact that quantum systems can violate Bell’s inequalities means that either the world is not real (in the sense of being predetermined, independently of our measurements) or that the world is in some sense nonlocal – i.e. some signals can travel faster than light. The latter conclusion is precisely why Einstein, who was a staunch realist, chose to call entanglement “a spooky action at a distance,” for he thought that it implied a fundamental nonlocality in nature.

The bottom line is that up until recently there was no way out of Bell’s logic and the world we live in either had to be nonlocal or unreal (or both). Now, however, a Nobel Prize winning Dutch physicist Gerhard ‘t Hooft believes to have found a local realistic model that does exhibit features of quantum entanglement. (You can read his paper here and Technology Review’s take on it here.) And this, of course, is very surprising!

‘t Hooft believes that although the microscopic world is local realistic, quantum mechanics emerges at larger scales. This is, in spirit, the same logic that permeates Einstein’s philosophy. Basic quantities in ‘t Hooft’s deterministic model are "beables" (they are independent of measurements – hence the name). He’s also got "changables" (things that change beables into other beables) and "superimposables" (things that change beables into things that are not beables).

Heisenberg, in contrast to Einstein (and now ‘t Hooft), gave up on reality when he invented quantum mechanics. He based his description of atomic phenomena on observable quantities only. Whatever the underlying entities in nature are (read: beables), Heisenberg recognised that we can only talk about them through what we observe and nothing else. The main quantities in quantum mechanics are observables and most observables are not beables, i.e. their outcomes depend on our measurements. How does ‘t Hooft bridge the gap between observables and beables?

First of all, ‘t Hooft’s model is discrete in space (one feels this needs to be the case to comply with the quantum discreteness). Likewise, the evolution of his model takes place in discrete time units and is thus the same as that of any cellular automaton. But this is, of course, not sufficient to reproduce quantum physics (otherwise, classical statistical mechanics would do the job). In addition to beables and changables ‘t Hooft needs superimposables in order to comply with quantum mechanics. But how can that model still remain local realistic? I definitely need to examine his work much more to give a more detailed answer to this conundrum. But my hunch is as follows.

One can maintain the local realistic classicality if one has access to some underlying (could be hidden) quantumness. It seems to me that ‘t Hooft needs this in his model of Bell inequalities tests. Here Alice and Bob use their local but distant quasars (pulsating stars) to aid their measurements. This reminds me of a trick exploited in a recent paper of mine in Physical Review Letters. Together with my colleagues from Vienna and Belfast, I showed that classical states of light (i.e. those that admit local hidden variables), when manipulated by local operations only can still violate Bell’s inequalities (the point being that their local operations rely on prior shared entanglement). So, in this way it appears that you can have your cake and eat it. But, of course, your world is still ultimately quantum (more precisely, nonlocal), albeit the quantumness is here in the background and, granted that, your theory then only talks about beables and changables (the much needed superimposables come from the background).

In addition to Bell’s inequalities there are other issues that ‘t Hooft’s model has to grapple with. However, no matter what the final verdict this model, one thing is for sure. We currently have two extraordinarily successful (and pretty) theories of Nature (quantum physics and general relativity) that do not sit happily alongside each other. Given that relativity is basically a local realistic theory, one way of combining the two (and by no means the most popular choice) is to discover a local realistic theory behind quantum mechanics. That was Einstein’s dream to start with and it is clearly kept alive by effort’s such as ‘t Hooft’s in spite of all the obstacles along the way.

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

report post as inappropriate


Unable wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 16:45 GMT
Hi Vlatko,

Great post. But why aren't beables observable? Why don't we have direct access to beables?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Unable wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 16:46 GMT
Or do we have access to some beables and not others? And if so, why?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 17:19 GMT
Dear Vlatko,

This is an interesting article. I skimmed it quickly, but need to reread it thoroughly. I am using a multi-dimensional lattice (an expansion of Garrett Lisi's idea) to model particles. t'Hooft is using cellular automaton. In my model, there are higher-dimensional quantum numbers that are not observable in 4-D Spacetime. These could be t'Hooft's beables. Furthermore, I had to make a higher-dimensional correction to the definition of intrinsic spin to correctly catagorize bosons and fermions. This leads to "scalar fermions" that have a proper intrinsic spin (of 1/2) in 6-D, but not in 4-D (intrinsic spin = 0), and therefore look like tachyons or Faddeev-Papov ghosts. t'Hooft may need a similar correction term to fix rotational symmetries.

Dear Unable,

I suspect that some of these beable-like quantum numbers are observable in 4-D, but many are not.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vlatko Vedral wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 19:02 GMT
Beables are a restricted set of quantum observables (that commute with each other). In that sense, they are like classical quantities and never exhibit superpositions. This is why we call them beables as they obey the classical logic or the excluded middle (they either have some value or not, e.g. you are either moving at 2 meters per second or not). Quantum mechanically, in contrast, we can have a superposition of two different velocities and this, of course, means that quantum mechanics admits (many) entities that are not beables (this is just another way of talking about the difference between the quantum and classical theory - the language of beables is initially due to John Bell). If you define beables in other ways, then you may approach quantum mechanics more closely, but you will also depart from the classical notion of what it means "to be". This is the well known law of "conservation of trouble" when it comes to interpreting quantum mechanics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 20:28 GMT
I have not read this yet, though I have my suspicions this may end up as another quantum interpretation that is not terribly germaine to actually doing physics. I think that to paraphrase the subtitle to Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" we need to quit worrying and learn to love the quantum.

I do have this idea (more an idea of an idea) that maybe there is some relationship between quantum interpretations and interpretations of time in general relativity. Further, general relativity in d= 26 dimensional bosnoic string theory can in a simple sence be modelled with the 24-cell. The elements of the cell are "letters" or hold quantum bits in 24 of the 26 dimensions. The other two dimensions are tachyon vacuum states removed from the theory. These 24-cell tessellates spacetime, and how thy link up causally is a sort of cellular automata. EAch 24-cell is a unit, in a spacetime thin sandwich with a program, that changes its data set according to how it interacts with other 24-cells. Maybe 't Hooft's model here has some relationship or dualism with this spacetime picture --- maybe?

I wonder if there exists an infinite number of possible quantum interpretations?

Often a beable is identified with the classical-like particle in Bohm's equations of motion. These are classical-like observables thought to underly QM.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 08:54 GMT
Hi all ,

The entanglement is fascinating .

The critical point and states must be adapted of course in a thermodynamic point of vue .

If we admit the compressiblity like a kind of infinite for the extrapolations (Even if I think what the infinite must be adapted too near the wall)

We must admit too the gravitational fields for the density and its frequences .Thus due to this infinity the heat too is difficult to encircle and difficult for the equilibrium .

The thermal dyamic thus is infinite and the fluctuations are numerous ...correlated with the rotation of quantum spheres ....the opacity can be adapted at this critical point of fluctuations.The pression is directly linked too .

I think what the volume which is difficult to analyse must be adapted with the entanglement of quantum spheres ,the lattices and the spheres which are specifics .

It exist a specific entanglement whith their properties of fields and rotations .This entanglement probably is the same what our future universal sphere and their maximum density .Thus a big question is this one ,our quantum architecture evolves thus and the lattices between spheres change thus wwhat is this universal and quantum dynamic in this line time .

If the density increases ,thus we must all adapt in the equations ,those variables of lattices between spheres are relevant in an evolution point of vue .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 13:25 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I have been studying the book you recommended. Chapter 25 is about "The Cellular Structure of the Leech Lattice". In this manner, your ideas and t'Hooft's may be related. Some of my "special numbers" seem related to the shallow holes of the Leech lattice (as well as the related K12), and thus my ideas may tie into yours and t'Hooft's. In my opinion, the difference is that my ideas have more details and less generalities, t'Hooft's ideas have more generalities and less details, and your ideas are closer to the middle of both extremes. I identify my "beables" as T3HF , T8HF , T3R , TG , F3 , F8 , F'8 , F15 , Q3 and Q8.

Perhaps there are an infinite number of quantum interpretations... I also addressed a possible origin for entanglement (via the collapse of a multi-dimensional lattice and the preservation/ conservation of some higher-dimensional geometrically-related quantum numbers) in the Discussion section of my paper, although I realize that these ideas are controversial.

Dear Steve,

There may be relationships between sphere packings and cellular automata.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 15:00 GMT
t'Hooft's paper is very interesting, and deserves serious analasys. I will come back with comments after I will fully digest it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 19:01 GMT
RAy,

Yes there is the chapther on cellular structure of M_{24}. I am not tempted to call these beables particularly. This involves mostly Delaunay cell structure and deep vs shallow holes. A lot of these developments are meant to work up to the Monster group and automorphisms on that.

Florin:

I skimmed 't Hooft's paper some. I must say that this has a certain Bohmian flavor to it. He involkes a cellular structure (automata) as beables, but then has complex structures which operate to define quantum observables. I can make a number of predictions here. I doubt this will become some new paradigm that replaces standard QM. Many worlds has had a bit of a run of late, but frankly I think it is like all such interpretations: They lack any observable effectiveness. As such the MWI-ers have proposed adulterations to QM to make their system in some way observationally effective. There is some discussion about the end of the Born rule, which if that turns out to be the case may lead to profound changes.

As I have said, what might be mysterious is not the quantum world, but the classical world. We might instead ask the question of how the classical world has emerged on top of the quantum world.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 09:53 GMT
Hi,

Ray,

A cellular automata ? ,I don't know ,I am going to learn more .

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 10:27 GMT
Local deterministic entanglement is possible directly from Schrodinger's equation, as it is shown here and here without needing hidden variables.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristi Stoica wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 10:30 GMT
... or cellular automata which lack rotational symmetry.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 13:12 GMT
Vlatko

At size of Planck in quantum space information (EPR experiment) and energy transfer (gravity) is immediate.

At size of photon energy and information transfer is of light speed

At massive bodies is slower that light speed.

Quantum entanglement is atemporal phenomena, because no tick of clock happens for quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is immediate phenomena.

Quantum entanglement is not fully understood yet because quanta move in timeless space and not in space-time that is merely a math model.

yours amrit

attachments: 7_With_Clocks_we_Measure.........pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 16:48 GMT
Hi ,

I understand now the computing with this cellular automata ,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 17:14 GMT
Sorry error ,

I saw now the base of computing .I saw the play of life and the different cellular dynamics ,it's very relevant all that.

It's logic indeed to have the net actulay and the disign and arcitecture .

It's what I d like to do ,a system with the good bases with the spheres and the time to build the Universe .

If the rotations are inserted correlated with mass and all ,it's interesting .

We could extrapolate correctly our Universe in polarisation.

If the cellule are spheres ,thus the lattices are correlated in maximum contact .

If the weakest mass is the maximum velocity of rotation thus the light is different because linear thus probably the light is different or perhaps simply the sense is different thus the polarity, but the same in these limits .Perhaps they don't turn but it's less probable in my opinion.

About the time ,it's essential for the specific quantum evolution dynamic and too the universal building and the space between mass in rotations .In this logic the main central quantum sphere turns in the maximum and thus the Universal sphere at the physical end ,which is not a real end ,don't turn.

The evolution ,coded ,is an essential piece of the building .

If a algorythm is made in this logic with rotating spheres ,many links can be made with a specific serie .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 18:50 GMT
I like these words of Wheeler ,his friend is dead

Probably one day ,we can hope it ,we will take the central idea of everything.It will be so simple ,so beautiful ,so convincing what we shall us Oh how that would have been otherwise ! How have we made to stay so long blind"

In french

Sûrement un jour, on peut l’espérer, nous saisirons l’idée centrale derrière toute chose. Elle sera si simple, si belle, si convaincante que nous nous dirons alors "Oh, comment cela aurait-il pu être autrement ! Comment avons-nous fait pour rester aveugle aussi longtemps

It's beautiful ,the complexity returns to the simplicity .

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 15:42 GMT
Dear Cristi,

I apologize for overlooking your earlier postings. You, Lawrence and others had some interesting conversations about your paper last year - I need to read this to give intelligent responses.

My model uses discrete multi-dimensional lattices (similar to Garrett Lisi's E8 Gosset lattice, and similar to solid state physics). Broken symmetries correspond to collapsed dimensions, but some of these primary quantum numbers (the equivalent of 't Hooft's beables) remain related because of conserved secondary quantum numbers in the original multi-dimensional lattice. These extra dimensions (my favorite model starts with 12-D, but has interesting similarities with Lawrence's 27-D) collapse down to four observable dimensions. The real question is "Do the collapsed and unseen extra dimensions represent a continuous or discrete set?"

Regarding rotational symmetries, I had to add extra quantum numbers spanning the first eight dimensions so that fermions would be fermions, and bosons would be bosons. These quantum numbers are a natural part of the multi-dimensional space. Adding these extra-dimensional quantum effects might be a perfectly natural way to introduce effects from the M2-brane, or might be considered a fudge factor. At this time, all I am sure of is that it works, and it might also explain t' Hooft's rotational symmetry problem.

Dear Jason,

My wife is an artist. We rarely talk physics (although some of her art looks like some of my multi-dimensional diagrams), and sometimes she gets jealous of it. I can somewhat relate to your situation.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristi Stoica wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear Ray,

Thank you for the explanations. Probably your solution may work for 't Hooft's theory as well.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 21:35 GMT
Hi ,

Ray ,

What is the t' Hooft's rotational symmetry problem ? I didn't know this theory .Is it relevant ?

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 12:24 GMT
Dear Steve,

Some of 't Hooft's symmetry problems are discussed here. In Section 4.2 of my paper, I was forced to define fermions as:



where T3R is an effect from dimensions 5 and 6 (the M2-brane), and T'G is an effect from dimensions 7 and 8 (effectively representing the gravity-brane). These ideas might also be applicable to 't Hooft's paper.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

p.s. - I hope this post looks OK - the preview software might not be working correctly.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 12:28 GMT
Dear Steve,

That last "T" in the above equation should have been T'G. We seem to be having technical difficulties...

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 15:56 GMT
Hi ,

Thanks for the link ,I see now .It's interesting about the probality and the determinism .

Of course we are so far still of this entanglement and ultim cellular automata .

It's so difficult to understand the ultim equation but I agree what our Universe is an evolving system like a computer .Our relativistic perception and our young age of evolution is a real problem .

I like the fact to have this idea of ultim automata ,the fact to be in an evolution system of complexification shows us the furnishing(arrangement)by polarisations in Time and space.

The anthropic principle is evident and of course all equations are balanced in this principle.

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 20:08 GMT
The blog says "Locality on the other hand says that measurements in one part of the universe cannot instantaneously affect another part of the universe (but the disturbance can at most travel at the speed of light). This is in perfect agreement with the theory of relativity."

However if there could be communication outside of visible 3D space then that could also be in perfect agreement with relativity because relativity does not currently take into account this possibility. The speed of light rule applying only to communication through the visible portion of 3D space. (Which could be considered as a sequence of slices of 3D space.)

The statement "This is in perfect agreement with the theory of relativity."does not mean that another explanation that counters the locality argument might not also be in agreement with relativity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 20:11 GMT
The blog says "....or that the world is in some sense nonlocal – i.e. some signals can travel faster than light. The latter conclusion is precisely why Einstein, who was a staunch realist, chose to call entanglement “a spooky action at a distance,” for he thought that it implied a fundamental nonlocality in nature."

Well though Einstein!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 08:48 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Yes indeed Thanks Einstein for all these works .

Well said Georgina !

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 12:19 GMT
Ray,

Of course I find myself with the usual backlog of things to read, and as yet I have not seriously bent metal on 't Hooft's paper. I am also finally on the mend with respect to this bizarrely serious cold I got. The MIT Tech-Rev article problably illustrates the thinking of most physicists. The idea is unlikely to develop to some stage where it develops into a serious alternative. To be honest I am longing for the day here where the MWI loses its influence on physics.

Quantum interpretations are interesting in some respects, but there appears to be no formal or empirical decision process to sort them out. This might really be telling us that quantum mechanics is seriously fundamental, and attempting to impose classical-like underpinnings are problematic. To be honest what is maybe mysterious is not the quantum world, but that on a large scale there is the appearance of a classical world.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 13:28 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I understand. I'm not a fan of MWI either, but something weird or "spooky" seems to be happening at the quantum scale. The discrete nature of QM may be fundamental, and somehow we live a "continuous" world because we observe a large number of averaged discrete quantities. Discrete micro-world -> Quantum Statistical Mechanics -> Thermodynamics -> Continuous macro-world.

Take care of yourself!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 13:45 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

By the way, the lattices that we are working with also have a discrete nature, so I don't think there is a fundamental problem using discrete lattices to help describe discrete particles.

Have Fun!

Raty Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 23:35 GMT
I worked up many years ago a theory where the affine paramter for general relativity had a level of stochasticity. This was a sort of Langevin dynamics to the parameter. So it would advance by increments dλ + dδλ for δλ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 23:37 GMT
Ray: My post got truncated due to carot symbols

I worked up many years ago a theory where the affine paramter for general relativity had a level of stochasticity. This was a sort of Langevin dynamics to the parameter. So it would advance by increments dλ + dδλ for δλ much smaller than λ as a coin toss uncertainty in the proper interval. It was a sort of interesting idea at the time. It was an idea for a semi-classical gravity problem. The model 't Hooft advances here might be in some ways applicable to this type of problem. The relationship between the "beable" and the quantum observables might in modelled in this way. The CA's in this theory would then be nondeterministic Turning machines, where there is some branching of outcomes that has quantal elements to it.

I am not so much interested in quantum interpretations outside of what sorts of problems they might solve. Bohm's interpretation of QM has some implications for quantum chaos I worked up back in the dark ages when GH Bush was President. 't Hooft's approach might have some appplicablility to some problems. However, I don't take these things that seriously, or not as seriously as Tegmark has with WMI to run off with all sorts of wild speculations.

I think quantum mechanics is largely correct, and any serious deviations may occur around the Planck scale. There I think unitarity is generalized into a type of modularity, but that might be fore later. So I think QM is in a sense "exact," at least FAPP. What I think is really odd is then the existence of a macroscopic world with observable aspects to it which defy quantum mechanical description.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 16:30 GMT
It seems that in a basic sense, we measure the distinctions, but understanding is a function of the connections, so if all our tools do is measure, reality appears digital, even at the smallest scales, but doesn't add up to anything that makes sense.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 13:05 GMT
Obviously, t'Hooft has it wrong. There is a magical intelligent unicorn that designed the universe.

QED

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tom wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 21:18 GMT
Sorry, I still don't get what all the fuss is about. If all particle interactions

can be reduced to photon exchanges, as QED explains, then we're in the domain of

c and simultaneity reigns. At the speed of light Einstein's universe has always

been non-local!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 21:30 GMT
The fact that all particle interactions can be reduced to photons is not as important as what gravity does to space. Black holes bend space, and everything just falls in whether it has mass or not. Does that mean that gravity is a different process than quantum mechanics?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tom wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 21:42 GMT
Yes, gravity is on it's own... singularityshuttle.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 00:07 GMT
I can see that if I'm going to get my hyperdrive, I'm going to have to rip into the Einstein equations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tom wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 00:16 GMT
That's the ticket!

But remember, at c , all baggage vanishes.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 02:16 GMT
Thanks Tom, I kind of expected as much.

I have a really stupid question. I would be grateful for an answer from a professional physicist. We have a theory called string theory. We have branes that we explain in terms of violin strings. Bohr got the idea about waving electron shells from his studies of music. We'll all go home and wonder how the universe really works; then, we (some of us) will turn on our favorite music and completely miss what should be obvious. Does quantum mechanics have any connection with music? Can a quantum system have an inherent musical quality, maybe a sequence of notes? I know this sounds kind of stupid, or humorous. I mean, the Hadron Supercollider could be playing Mozart and we'd never know. No, I don't know what kind of tests we could run to see if quantum systems play music. Truthfully, I doubt the LHC would play Mozart. Maybe it plays Heavy Metal.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tom wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 03:14 GMT
Well Jason, I'm not a physicist, but the 'music of the spheres' being played on the quantum violin would be at the frequency order of 10 to 20 vibrations per second, far beyond our range of comprehension I'm afraid. Now, perhaps Schrodinger's cat...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tom wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 03:19 GMT
p.s. that's 1020 vibrations per second.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 11:47 GMT
an author named Tymencho (sp) wrote in 2006-7 a couple of articles in the AAAS "Science" which spelled out how triads and sequences of chords obey orbifold discrete dynamics. Orbifolds are of course discrete SL(n,Z) type of geometries for windng numbers, such as a string wrapped on a d-brane.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 13:12 GMT
it's beautiful ...the music of the spheres ,they turn and still turn in a harmony of building ,a symphony of evolution ,a requiem without end ,a music and its notes ,the frequences and the attraction and the repulsion on its score ,they live and build ,they sing the universal score .

And its childs in this sound ,this love in music towards the tremolo and its eternity .

The symphony of spheres and this sphere under the looks of creations and their hopes .They hum the requien of life ,heads lowed under this immensity and its drums,the trumpets of eternity ,the piano and its crochet-rests under the tremolo of creations ,this tremolo of livings ,the spheres.

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 17:27 GMT
I had an idea for achieving the Alcubierre hyperdrive. I want to play around with "virtual energy". Such a hyperdrive system is still kind of a black box right now, but it works something like this. Your spaceship is equipped with a virtual energy hyperdrive. At rest, your ship exists normally in the physical world. You can enter, leave or bang your head on it. When you press down on the "acclerator", you gain the benefit of velocity and steering. But the faster you go, the less you exist in this physical universe. At 5m/s, you're still pretty solid. A pitcher with a good aim can still bounce a baseball off your hull. As you accelerate to .1c, there is a good chance that you won't collide with anything in physical space. If something does actually hit your ship, the collision treats your ship as having momentum

p = m(virtual)(0.1c)+m(real)(0m/s); your virual mass is reduced to zero. Your total momentum = zero. You can make the trip to Alpha Centuri very quickly. However, you do so without the benefit of momentum and kinetic energy; you are isolated from physical interactions because you are using virtual energy. But you don't care because you just wanted to make the trip.

By the way, the hyperdrive black box may work by using virtual energy to place a black hole sphere over a white hole (negative energy/expands space/opposite of a black hole), separated by "something". This too is a virtual energy system with spring like properties. You get all of the benefits of expanding/contracting space by pushing the two objects (black hole and white hole) away from equilibrium in some direction. But it's all virtual energy which will activate the laws of physics enough to warp space and travel as fast as you want. But you get none of the huge energies/momentums because you're using virtual energy.

If you tamper with the hyperdrive system or try to pull energy out of it, you will either get some virtual energy out of it which is no energy at all, or you will break it, and be stuck somewhere in space. You cannot use virtual energy to blow up anything. It's only purpose is to achieve velocity, but without the benefit/drawback of momentum.

I am challenging the very concept of momentum, p=mv. By using virtual energy, I am partially or completely removed from physical interactions involving momentum, but I can still achieve velocity.

So what's wrong with that?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 17:29 GMT
Editing:

If something does actually hit your ship, the collision treats your ship as having ZERO momentum.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 22:15 GMT
I've been reading about General Relativty, Einstein's equations and Geodesics. I feel like I'm starting to distrust my rulers and my clocks. So I came up with the idea of using lasers. Since all of my lasers are the same kind (He-Neon for example), I always know what it's frequency and wavelength should be. I can trust the speed of light, c, to always calculate to 2.998E8m/s. I assume I can always measure frequency with an oscilloscope.

I assume that I can always measure a change in velocity as a red shift (moving away) or blue shift (approaching). I can use the equation,

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

I want to understand the difference between warped space that scales everthing inside of it, and warped space that destructively rips everything apart with gravity waves.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 20, 2009 @ 01:03 GMT
Dear Jason,

James Clerk Maxwell predicted the Displacement Current by playing around with the form of the four known Equations of Electromagnetism. He unified four different laws of Electromagnetism (by Gauss, Faraday & Ampere) by uncovering their similarities. And these equations can be written as one Quaternion equation. I know that many very bright Physicists have studied the Einstein Field Equations over the years, and should have found new terms (if they exist). Still, I wonder if we could find new terms if we put the Einstein Field Equations into the form of one Octonion equation. I don't know if new theoretical terms could help us understand shortcuts in a higher-dimensional space or not.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 20, 2009 @ 02:32 GMT
Hi Ray,

I've been looking at the Einstein equations. The way it's written, you have all of the stress-energy stuff on the right side. On the left side, you have Ricci curvature which is the curvature deviation from Euclidean space for a unit volume, metric tensor which is like accelerations and Newtonian gravity stuff. Metric space is multiplied by the Cosmological constant, so it scales Metric space within the relationship.

I've been looking at this stuff, and here is what I think. The p3-brane that we live on is moving at the speed of light, c, through hyperspace. The maximum speed of hyperspace is a lot higher than c. If the Big Bang were just a particle creation-annhilation event in hyperspace, then c is probably infinite. We're probably going from particles to entire brane-spaces.

I'm trying to figure out a way to force the speed of light to change at the expense of momentum, by preventing motion in standard space. I want to force a spaceship off of the brane using a particle-space force that exists in hyperspace. There is so much to explain and no time to explain it in.

I believe that a "particle-space" approach is workable if the speed of light and plank constant can scale. However, hyperspace is like the freeway; you can't stop at Circle K for a soda. You have to get off of the freeway. If you want to stop and get off your spaceship, you have to get out of hyperspace and get back on the p3-brane. I also think that the idea of 'virtual energy' might come in handy for out of the brane physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 20, 2009 @ 13:49 GMT
The closest analogue between Maxwell's diplacement current trick and general relativity is how Einstein realized that the field equation was not just R_{ab} = kG_{ab}, but there had to be an additional term Rg_{ab}/2 on the left hand side.

I think the best approach to understanding the possible physics of octonions is to think of there being an additional color index on the three octoinions in the Jordan matrix Look at my paper to see the form of this. The three color index will define a QCD-like structure between the three octonions. This three fold structure then acts on octonions in a 10 dimensional setting, so this field then acts on the remaining 7-dimensional space, or a C^7, with 14 real dimensions. The elementary exceptional group g_2 admits a 7-dimensional complex representation, which furthermore possesses a symmetric nondegenerate g_2-invariant bilinear form which determines a Pfaffican system of one-forms for this "gauge theory." The maximal subgroup for this system is SU(3), so the theory has some "QCD-like" underpinnings. This would then be a centralizer in an system of octonions.

This is an idea of how to maybe proceed with this. The determinant of the Jordan matrix contains various products, including a quadratic term which might have g_2 structure.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 20, 2009 @ 20:31 GMT
I'm Looking at the Einstein equation's. All of the curvature terms are on the left. On the right you have 8piG/c4. Curvature is equivalent to acceleration, right? According to the Alcubierre model, wormholes can make local velocities of light irrelevant if you have the energy to create one. Don't we want to create the maximum curvature for the minimum amount of energy? If so, then maybe we don't want a hyperspace with a faster speed of light. Maybe we want a slower speed of light. If you move the 1/c4 to the left side of the equation, then it is the 4 that scales the energy cost of the Alcubierre hyperdrive. Maybe we want a brane with a lower speed of light. If we found a brane whose speed of light is only c' = 3x104m/s, then the energy requirement would be 16 orders of magnitude less.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 20, 2009 @ 22:51 GMT
This is just a fun and fanciful idea I thought of. I want to use "virtual energy" to build devices that require enormous amounts of energy. Let's use the idea of a hyperdrive device. Since warping space requires the energy of many universes, it's impossible to build. But here is the idea. Such devices can be built using virtual energy. You get the benefit of a hyperdrive transport, but because you're using virtual energy, you can't get that energy out to do work. Virtual energy will only fulfill the requirements of what it was built for. In this way, you get some wonderous devices and tools, but you don't risk blowing up the universe to achieve it. It's a little bit leveraging virtual energy will a very small amount of real energy. Maybe the laws of physics might let us do that?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 17:30 GMT
If conservation of energy makes the hyperdrive impossible, then what happens if define conservation of energy with units according to the number of dimension of the particlar universe? In other words, our universe had 3 dimensions of space. What if energy = PV, pressure of the universe times volume? So, a 10 dimensional universe would have completely different units. If one universe were to leak energy into another universe, there would need to be a unit conversion factor because a unit of energy from a 6D space-time universe would appear differently in a 4D space-time universe. I'm trying to understand if the Cosmological constant might out rank conservation of energy by generalizing pressure times volume where volume depends upon the number of dimensions of a particular universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 18:00 GMT
It was Lawrence who said that a hyperdrive might be impossible because of conservation of energy; "it's similar to perpetual motion". By out ranking conservation of energy with a more generalized pressure X volume relationship that is directly tied to the Cosmological constant, with a conversion factor between dimensions (n=3)/(n=?), it might be possible to break the shackles of conservation of energy, and make the hyperdrive plausible.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 18:12 GMT
Dear Jason,

I agree that a cosmological pressure would be different in different numbers of effective dimensions, but think it out. If we had a "pressure leak" from one brane into another, the two branes would eventually reach equilbrium within the framework of our dimensional considerations. This is similar to a negative energy wormhole that eventually gets filled in with the Dirac sea. These phenomena might allow single event quantum bursts (like the Bermuda triangle myths?), but cannot be stable. Their stability would threaten the entire multi-dimensional Universe.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 19:59 GMT
One probably should never say never, but hyperdrives or wormholes and other exotic things make physics much more difficult to understand. For instance, if I were to dump a mass onto a black hole a wormhole would permit one to access this matter in the interior. This runs into two big problems. The first is that if the mass I dump is m onto a black hole of mass M, then the mass of the black hole changes from M to M + m. The Bekenstein result tells us the entropy of a black hole is S ~ A/4, for the aria of the black hole proportional to the mass of the black hole. Yet if I can access this material by bridging a wormhole to the interior I can violate the second law of thermodynamics.

On a more subtle level this would mean quantum mechanics is wrong. If I look at the quantum fields or strings which fall onto a black hole they will spread over the horizon and in the tortoise coordinates

r* = r + 2Mlog(|r - 2M|)

become frozen in time as r* approaches infinity. This is of course a different perspective on the physics from an infalling observer. The infalling observer sees the fields or string fall without any of this. The different stems from the fact that a distant observer is measuring the quantum physics for an S matrix that has a different domain of causal support than the S-matrix perspective of the infalling observer. The two quantum observations of the two observers are not quantum mechanically commensurate. Yet if the distant observer bridges the interior with a wormhole this permits the exterior observer to measure to quantum mechanically incompantible observables simultaneously. It also means the exterior observer is able to clone quantum states, which is another forbidden aspect of QM.

Enrico Fermi once asked about intelligent life "where are they?" If hyperdrives were possible it is possible that some ET would be here already. Of course there are UFO mavens who insist they are, but these reports are spurious and vague. It would likely also mean that time travel is possible as well. So future time travelers would be here too. These things of course just don't seem to bear up under scrutiny. Intelligent life might sparsely peper the universe, and we are one representative of them. Yet likely ET find that they are very limited in how far they can travel or communicate.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 21:29 GMT
Einstein's equations demand a very high energy price for a curved space. Furthermore, a brane with a speed of light that is doubled, pays (2)4 = 16 times higher energy. Whatever hyperspace might exist, it's gotten flat faster than our universe can get flat. Curled up universes want to get flat because space itself wants to equalize that energy. Georgina has said that the potential energy is always decreasing. She's right! At the moment of the Big Bang, when the universe broke free of whatever Megastrong force was binding it, all of it's energy came from its curvature. But then I'm stuck! If that is so, that the universe is expanding because it want to get flat because the einstein equations tell us that curvature causes stored up energy; if that is so, then why do we need a Cosmological constant at all?

While this might be true, it doesn't help at all for the quest to discover the hyperdrive. A 10 dimensional hypersphere might be able to releave some of the curvature potential. If it turns out that quantum mechanics is exactly that: a small scale way to relieve curvature pressure, I think I would just cry. From what I've heard, quantum mechanics can be explained in terms of lots and lots of dimensions. Just as a thought, what if, in the first few femptoseconds of the Big Bang, the best way to relieve the humongoginormous pressure was to force it into many higher dimensions. As the curvature became less, all that energy went into Inflation, hadrons and leptons. After some of the pressure from the curvature was relieved, the higher dimensions that were forced into the brane, didn't go very deep; where deep refers to scale.

I think I read somewhere that the Cosmological constant is something like ~0.6. It's the zero point energy pressure. Maybe it suggests that space itself (whatever the heck that is) has its own energy content.

None of this is very exotic or helpful for a hyperdrive. However, I think it could be a helpful interpreation to Cosmology.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 22:10 GMT
Using the Einstein equations, let's imagine that we had (were handed or found) a p3-brane 3D space with a speed of light of 1nm/second. It's probably dark at the surface. Maybe somebody put it in a coffee cup, as a joke, on somebody's desk at the LHC. It's an unsuspecting cosmologist who needs a cup of coffee. He looks down and says, "Gee wiz, that is the worst cup of coffee I've ever looked at!" Then he says, "What is that?" He sticks a spoon into it. The spoon moves faster than light through the "space". It generates a huge gravitational wave and temporary wormhole. The cosmologist says, "It's goopy and doesn't smell like coffee at all." Oddly enough, he's late for a 2 months Christmas vacations. He leaves it on his desk, more mysterious reasons only a Cosmologist could understand.

Two months later, he comes back. There it is, on his desk. Then he notices that his cup of coffee is not moldy. But it has just started to overflow the coffee cup (because it's curved space). As a cruel cosmic joke, he dumps the "coffee" down the sink. A tiny universe with billions of galaxies is instantaneous destroyed by hyperspeed fast forces beyond the understanding of the few sparseley populated worlds within it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Sep. 22, 2009 @ 00:13 GMT
Jason,

The "relationship" of the real world and the shadow world of spherical music harmony is too "platonic". Where is the sex and drugs? Information exchange makes evolution sexy. Inspiration is everywhere for your muse. I would use the state of flow like previous rebels to incite the evolutionary paradigm. Cyber punks get it, we know Gerhard's paper is not composed with ideal notes designed by the musical dictator. The paper is a combination of the wise retro psychedelic quantum music with a new generation that wants to tear down Plato's wall! Most science philosophers have sat down to ponder the universe and each independently discovered the universality of the eclectic ensemble interpretation. A connection with the evolving shades of gray gives the best physics high.

I think science education prepares us for memetic combat. We should also teach asymmetric tactics. At the battle of Pelusium Cambyses II was able to herd the cats against a common enemy, he also used the enemy memes to his advantage. Quantum memes have been stolen to create a cult of mystical mechanics.

We should counterattack with a classical example such as a shield up state for alive and the shield down state for dead. The cutting edge of science is the place where the scientific shield wall of logical reason collides with the wall of religious superstitions. Byte into the apple from the tree of knowledge. Taste the relative duality and use that energy to push science forward. Support the Ionian revolt and fight for the demos. Remember great scientists, like great generals, are good but imperfect exemplars; and any scientist who wants to be deified into a pantheon of gods is a tyrant.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 22, 2009 @ 01:01 GMT
Brian,

I liked the music. The Einstein equations are giving me ideas. It's like placing the laws of physics themselves under conditions of extreme temperature and pressure (the mind of man); trying to bend them until they break; and then rework them into new form.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 11:08 GMT
Hi Jason and Brian ,

Well explained all that Brian .

You are a rebel .

hihih

I invite you in our movement to fight the real problem in Africa with real dictators .It's evidently not a film but a reality .

These kinds of system don't understand the universality and its creations because their only desire is the power and the monney ,and the check of these chaotics things .Their technic is simple ,weapons ,monney and unconsciousness ...thus chaos !

Do you know the Darfour ,Sierra Leone ,Haiti ,Madagascar ,Zimbabwé ,RDC ....innocents without nothing ,misused ,reduced by famine ,without helps and needs ,childs in the wastes ,...it's inadmissible and the responsability of scientists is essential and even primordial to harmonize these systems .

The sciences are there for that ,to improve ,to optimize ,to harmonize ,thus the civilization and the sociability too is correlated in this logic ,universal .

There is a big difference between human inventions and universal creations and its laws ,invariants ,coherents ,constants .

The system and its habits train on the bad road .

And the vanity indeed helped by hormons don't help the evolution and our young age .

The bad governance is an enormous problem of our Earth system .

But that ,all knows the human instinct .But we evolve fortunally .

The only problems is the risk of exponentials due to an add of chaotics inventions at this moment 2009 and its ten years to come .

We must indeed stabilize this sphere ,Gaia our Earth .

The spherical music of spheres harmonizes chaotics systems since 13.7 or 15 billions years .The human is a catalyzer of creations and not a destroyer .

The human inventions which are chaotics ,training sufferings, must disappear ,it's like that .

The time constant will tell us ....Where the general relativity and its gravitation ,these mass which evolve ,curve and still curve with this increase of mass in an Ocean of gravitational and spherical waves ,the songs of spheres is a reality .

Let's return of this entanglement.

The entanglement of spheres is specific ,the number of cosmological spheres is relevant .

Let's take our galaxy ,we are far of the center ,in the sagitaria direction,27000 AL ,but what I find interesting is not that but the fact we have about 250 globular piles in our galaxy ,and a number of stars ,planets ,moons .

If we analyse this serie ,thus it's interesting with the quantum link correlated with this number .

If we consider of course the number one for the main central sphere thus the serie is specific ....the globular piles are relevant and the number about 250 too .It was just a suggestion.

Jason ,for you how could be the effects of gravitational waves with a wormhole ,the vaccum and the Black Hole ,just curious .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 19:40 GMT
Hi Steve,

I need to rework my theory. There are things I like about it. Two hyperspheres of space, both trying to expand in opposite directions in a delicate balance is a good idea. I also like the idea of multiple geometrically flat hyperspaces. I like the idea that the Planck constant may vary from universe to universe. But the details about higher dimensional space are tricky. I want to familiarize myself with Tensors and Lie Algebra so I can speak the mathematical language and convey my ideas more precisely. As for manipulating dual pocket universes, I haven't figured that out yet. It's still necessary to be able to look and see into the 4th dimension. That, in and of itself, is a precarious undertaking; it would involve watching proton bombardments for hours and days. One would have to step back from the single bombardment of protons, and watch thousands of bombardments spread out in a 2D space, over time. One would have to look for movement of edges and discontinutities in the wide screen of high energy bombardments. We would be looking for the movement of macro sized objects with the high energy bombardment field. Time is the closest way we can represent the 4th dimension. If there are 4th dimensional objects floating around, then they will have an effect upon the largest 'forest' of bombardments. Right now, the physics community is looking at individual 'trees' inside of a short time period. We need to find out what's going on in this 4th dimension.

As for Sierre Leon, Darfur, African dictators, starvation and misery, sending US marines to fight and bring order has been a very painful process. Personally, I think it's helpful, but I'm a minority in that opinion. Check with the Christians. They usually do well in these situations. I will hold these situations in my prayers.

Georgine,

I had to think about what you were saying, about looking for some kind of organizing force within the universe. Biology is a good place to find such organizing forces. Beyond that , I can't give you any other ideas that you would like. Everything else I have would sound like crazy talk. It's not that strange things don't exist, the problem is that their existence tends to be unsettling. when their presence is noticeable enough to challenge our world view, but subtle enough to be scoffed at by others, it can drive some people loopy.

By the way, I still need two pocket universes. We can start by looking into the 4th dimension in the way that I explained. That should give us results in about a hundred years. We should get started on that. In a nutshell, we need to be able to bombard protons over a wide area and over a long time. Then, we need to look for edges and discontinuities. Once we find them, we need to see if they trace out a trajectory in space and time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 23:09 GMT
Jason,

There are no strange organising forces within biological organisms. They still function using the same laws of physics. Gravity, concentration gradients, electrostatic forces, dynamics etc. The biological organisation has however evolved to harness those physical phenomenon for its own development and internal processes.The citric acid cycle for energy release in aerobic organisms, which may seem amazing and mystical as it provides the energy for life itself, still comes down to simple chemical interactions which can be considered in terms of the physical interaction of the individual atoms and ions and their charges. All growth and development is the change in quaternion spatial position of matter and the corresponding energy changes. There is increase in matter in some areas due to growth and death and removal of matter from others.

Biological organisation is the pinnacle of development and complexity. It is not necessary to speculate that such complex organising occurs in the universe as a whole. Gravity, dynamics and the fundamental forces are enough in my opinion. The matter must come together though in order to be organised. Gravity acting along the 4th dimension on all matter will provide the necessary driving force. Perhaps change in position along the 4th dimension causes a 3D vortex in the medium around the mass which gives a spherical area of disturbance around that vortex which can be observed in the motion of attracted bodies. This is in agreement with the description of gravity I have previously outlined. The material universe is coming together as it must according to the laws of physics, giving on-going creation by self assembly.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 09:59 GMT
Hi Geaorgina and Jason,

Thanks for your answer ,and indeed let's pray for this Earth ...or let's act perhaps too .

I like read your ideas ,both of you ,very creatives .

Georgina ,

Could you develop a little please ,it's relevant about the memory what you say

"There is increase in matter in some areas due to growth and death and removal of matter from others."

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 16:47 GMT
Steve and Jason,

Does it seem strange that I am attracted to your ideas on humanity? The corporate culture is in love with Plato's executive spheres of control. They are living a lie, the representative dynamic microstates are in control. When the profits of scalability fall and stay with the few instead of many then the entire system efficiently collapses from the greed induced heat stroke. They are irreversibly buried in holes blacker than their souls.

Time is the only thing that is real because irrational change is the constant. In natural human units money is time. We all have the same amount of time in a day, Lenin's idea of communism it is worth following his example. Some have time that is weighted heavier relative to others because their time is worth more. Those weights are dependent on where time was previously irreversibly invested be it education, health care or physics. Although there are still inefficiencies and some weights are heavier than they should be.

You want to invest in something nonlinear because it creates a lot of time (wealth). Thinking in small amounts of time prevents the exponential nonlinear payday. If we are living on a debt of borrowed time then that time should be invested in science.

I believe in reciprocity since you gave me some of your time I'll give you some of mine, we have a functioning economy. However, it is only sustainable if we are nonlinear or renewable time machines. Give me some time and I'll give even more back.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 18:22 GMT
Brian ,

it's interesting all that

,don't confound the universality and its faith with our Earth system .

The communism ,not for me ,the capitalism ,not for me ,the socialism ,not for me ,marxist Leninist not for me .

Platon is a greek philosophe and we evolves Brian hihihi FORTUNALLY

The time is a constant and the irational is a human invention like the chaos in its short time .

Monney ,borders ,differences ,weapons ,check ....dedicated to disapear with the wish of humans or without .

If you have times to help our fellow man with me and my friends in the future ,it's the most important .You are welcome because the complemenatrity is fundamental.

Sometimes I am frustrated with my english ,that will be easier for me to explain all my ideas .But unfortunally it's like that .I dislike study the languages hihihi I prefer the sciences .

My only condition is the difference between the universality and the habits of our Earth .

Thus I will tell you when this center will be created .It's difficult to create this center but I will arrive .

This earth will shine one day ....when any control will disapear ...and it's well like that .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 20:21 GMT
Brian,

Let me give you an idea. People are like particles in a system. They are attracted to stuff and repelled by other things. They are fermionic in their ego identity; yet can be made bosonic when they conform to the simple orderliness of religion and ideology. The culture war is the constant explosion of two ideologies; ever so delicately balanced, these two wild horses struggle in an eternal tug of war. But to cut them loose would be to destroy our civilization; something that we need. In Africa, these horses are allowed to run free, untamed. Simultaneously, there is war, starvation and rampant human rights abuse and vulgur misery. We may not like it, but it is better to let the horses run free for only a day, to rest, to fulfill their physical desires, before they must come back to the struggle of daily life.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 16:56 GMT
All people are uniques,precious and complementary.

Anybody is better than its fellow man .All is there ,the humility ,the real humility is to see above you before acting or thinking .

The humans are like our Universe ,all is linked ....towards an ultim physical aim .

It's not our choice but the choice .

It's not our whish but the wish .

What are we ...only creations of love .

Catalyzers of the truth .

Vanity of vanity all is vanity ....but all is unique and precious .

Take care thus in total sincerity

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 22:49 GMT
Steve,

Link to BioChemWeb for info on apoptosis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 23:14 GMT
Thank you very much Georgina ,

it's nice and interesting.

I am a very tired with all that on FQXi.I must sleep a little .

What a bizarre planet really .

Jason ,please give me you hyperdrive and I leave this Earth .It's impossible to live here ,impossible .This Earth is a sin city .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 05:27 GMT
Jason,

I disagree because religion is used to create holy wars which profit the rich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 07:33 GMT
Brian with self-observation of the observer religions will dissaper. Science will integrate religion as an individual research on the question: Who is the observer ? Self-consciouss observer is not a believer, he is the knower.



yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 10:59 GMT
Hi Brian ,

Indeed ....unfortunally ....what I find very dangerous is the fact what a weapon ,a gun ,don't be decomposed itself in the soil ,we can kill with a gun from 1200 or 1500 or 1700 or 1900.......If I can resume the bad of this Earth ,it's that ,the monney and the weapons with the vanity and the unconsciousness......thus how do ? Perhaps unite systems and pray ......only a minority check this crazzy world and the majority undergoes .....the eyes in the sky and their hope of a harmony but the others OH My God.

Take care all

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 19:50 GMT
Perhaps entanglement and relativity derive from the same source--the same fundamental universal invariant? dx4/dt=ic.

That would be MDT's simple postulate and equation: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, or dx4/dt=ic.

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. –Einstein

A physical theory can be...

view entire post


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

report post as inappropriate


songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 07:07 GMT
cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat

Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat

manfaat qnc jelly gamat

Obat Tradisional Kista Nabothian Tanpa Operasi

cara menjadi agen qnc jelly gamat

cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat

cara mengobati gondongan pada anak

cara mengobati kanker nasofaring secara alami

obat pembersih sisa janin setelah keguguran

cara mengobati kanker pankreas secara tradisional

obat tradisional benjolan di leher sebelah kanan

obat tradisional tipes untuk orang dewasa

obat tradisional untuk menghentikan haid berkepanjangan

Obat Tradisional Pembekuan Darah Di Otak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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