FQXi Community

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

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

Contests Home

Previous Contests

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

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

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

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

S Halayka: on 11/4/12 at 21:21pm UTC, wrote Hi Phil, I sincerely regret taking you-know-who's opinion at face value...

Sridattadev: on 8/11/11 at 14:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Phil, If we analyze our selves, we will realize that we are the...

Vladimir Tamari: on 6/6/11 at 8:44am UTC, wrote Congratulations for your win Phil. I hope this encourages you in your...

Dr. Cosmic Ray: on 6/5/11 at 23:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Phil, Congratulations on being among the contest winners! I thought...

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/13/11 at 0:33am UTC, wrote Dear Tom, You are right I just realized the book is entitled "..Massage" !...

Author Yuri Danoyan+: on 4/4/11 at 18:42pm UTC, wrote New Measurement of the Earth’s Absolute Velocity with the Help of the...

Author Yuri Danoyan+: on 3/30/11 at 12:23pm UTC, wrote Gentlemens I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the...

Steev Dufourny: on 3/28/11 at 12:57pm UTC, wrote Hi dear Russel, Sorry for my late answer, I have some difficulties to...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Eckard Blumschein: "Correction: I meant Huntsville, not Huntington." in The Nature of Time

Marcel-Marie LeBel: "“Existence” takes meaning from its logical opposite, nothingness. ..." in The Nature of Time

Muhammad Rumi: "You know your projects stand out of the herd. There is something special..." in Universe of...

Jyothi Matrimony: "I am really happy to say it’s an interesting post to read . I learn new..." in FQXi'ers Debate the Deep...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Thermo-Demonics

Joe Fisher: "Dear Anonymous, Every object that has ever existed has always had a..." in Thermo-Demonics

Steve Dufourny: "The spherisation of our universal sphere is like a foundamental considering..." in YouTube Video Lectures:...

Steve Dufourny: "If this aether is gravitational and correlated with this dark Energy,the..." in YouTube Video Lectures:...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

Constructing a Theory of Life
An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will.

read & discuss all articles

FQXi FORUM

March 23, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: A Universe Programmed with Strings of Qubits by Philip Gibbs [refresh]

Author Philip Gibbs wrote on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 12:05 GMT

Essay Abstract

It has been suggested that reality works like a quantum computer, but such claims are just words if they are not backed up by sound mathematics. In pursuit of the fundamental equations I look to string theory where physicists led by Mike Duff have noticed useful connections between the quantum gravity of black holes and quantum information theory. By building on my earlier work on universal symmetry in string theory and using links between elliptic curves and hyperdeterminants, I find intriguing clues that these connections may be deep as well as useful. Ultimately any theory of the foundations of physics must explain why there are four forces and three generations of fermions. In string theory this would be a consequence of the choice of vacua. If a consistent formulation of string theory constructed from quantum bits can be found, it may be possible to understand the vast landscape of possibilities better and reverse engineer the program that codes our universe.

Author Bio

Philip Gibbs has a PhD from the University of Glasgow in 1985. Since then he has worked independent publishing papers on physics and number theory.

Download Essay PDF File

HHu wrote on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 18:19 GMT

Hi Phil,

Let me congratulate you then. Good luck!

Huping

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 20:56 GMT

Thanks Huping

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev kancharla replied on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 00:37 GMT

Quantum gravity is in our hearts and Quantum information processing happens in our brains. There is a gateway between our brain and heart (worm hole) through which we are in contact with the universe. We are the universe our selves. We can understand the universe in our heart, thats how we started this journey on this planet with our first heart beat.

report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 05:57 GMT

Dear Sir,

Your article is based on “sound mathematics” and “string theory”.

Regarding mathematics, the concepts and conventions of physicists and mathematicians differ. The validity of a mathematical statement is judged from its logical consistency. The validity of a physical statement is judged from its correspondence to reality. Most of the mathematics of modern physicists are not mathematical by the above yard stick. How do you define “sound mathematics”?

String theory, which was developed with a view to harmonize General Relativity with Quantum theory, is said to be a high order theory where other models, such as supergravity and quantum gravity appear as approximations. String theory comes in five different formulations, each of which covers a restricted range of situations. A network of mathematical connections links the different string theories into one overarching system, enigmatically called M-theory. Unlike super-gravity, string theory is said to be a consistent and well-defined theory of quantum gravity, and therefore calculating the value of the cosmological constant from it should, at least in principle, be possible. On the other hand, the number of vacuum states associated with it seems to be quite large, and none of these features three large spatial dimensions, broken super-symmetry, and a small cosmological constant. The features of string theory which are at least potentially testable - such as the existence of super-symmetry and cosmic strings - are not specific to string theory. In addition, the features that are specific to string theory - the existence of strings - either do not lead to precise predictions or lead to predictions that are impossible to test with current levels of technology. With its talk of D-branes, 10 or 11 dimensional universes and a myriad of possible solutions: 10500 at the last count – string theory looks more like an arcane branch of mathematics than tangible physics. It has not told us anything new about the real world, despite almost 40 years of trying.

There are many unexplained questions relating to the strings. For example, given the measurement problem of quantum mechanics, what happens when a string is measured? Does the uncertainty principle apply to the whole string? Or does it apply only to some section of the string being measured? Does string theory modify the uncertainty principle? If we measure its position, do we get only the average position of the string? If the position of a string is measured with arbitrarily high accuracy, what happens to the momentum of the string? Does the momentum become undefined as opposed to simply unknown? What about the location of an end-point? If the measurement returns an end-point, then which end-point? Does the measurement return the position of some point along the string? (The string is said to be a Two dimensional object extended in space. Hence its position cannot be described by a finite set of numbers and thus, cannot be described by a finite set of measurements.) How do the Bell’s inequalities apply to string theory? We must get answers to these questions first before we probe more and spend (waste!) more money in such research. These questions should not be put under the carpet as inconvenient or on the ground that some day we will find the answers. That someday has been a very long period indeed!

The LHC experiment that was designed to verify the validity of the Standard Model has failed to prove the existence of Higgs boson. This means the Standard Model remains a postulate only. Now there is a proposal to upgrade the facility and run it for one more year. How long a few people make merry at public expenses on false premises?

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (4 not shown)

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 10:30 GMT

Hi all,

Dear Basudeba,

It's relevant your words, indeed the maths must be harmonized with the biggest rationality when they want explain correctly our foundamental and physical laws.It exists constants, irreversibilities, and irreducibilities.Fortunally for our evolution.

The strings are falses in the whole simply.

A string is divisible, a sphere no ......when we see the equilibrium of forces.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 14:51 GMT

Many Thanks Sir,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 12:47 GMT

Hello dear Sir,

You are welcome.

Sorry to say dear Basudeba.Here all people says the name as Peter, John,...

You can say Steve you know I am 35 years old.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 05:06 GMT

Dear Sir,

We were not addressing your persona, which is very private for you. We were addressing you intellectual acumen displayed in public, which needs to be respected.

Regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Philip Gibbs wrote on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 10:30 GMT

basudeba, thank you for so many good questions. I will try to answer them in several different posts

"How do you define “sound mathematics”?"

A physicist needs a consistent formalism for calculating physical quantities such as scattering amplitudes or particle masses. It has always been in the nature of quantum field theory that not everything is as well defined as mathematicians would like them to be. The "Mass Gap Problem" is an attempt to encourage mathematicians to make the subject more rigorous. In string theory all the same problems of mathematical rigour remain. String theory is not any different from quantum field theory in this respect.

Despite this there is some sound mathematics in string theory. An example which demonstrates this is the application of string theory to the moonshine conjectures by Borcherds. There are other rigorous applications of string theory to mathematical problems, so I'd say that the maths is sound.

It remains a fundamental problem to find a complete non-perturbative formulation of string theory. Given what has been achieved it would be very surprising if such a formulation does not exist, but it is very hard to find. Mathematics needs to catch up with what physicists are doing and I think this is part of the reason why it is taking so long for string theory to flourish into a complete theory for quantum gravity.

report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 14:29 GMT

Dear Sir,

Your post does not address the point raised by us. How do you define "sound mathematics?" What we meant to say is that the "mathematics" of physicists is unmathematical. It is more of a manipulation of numbers to suit one's convenience. A proof of this is the plethora of theories and interpretations that go in the name of Quantum Theory. Most of what is called as “mathematics” in modern science fails the test of logical consistency that is a corner stone for judging the truth content of a mathematical statement. For example, you do not define infinity - it is not a big number. All mathematical operations involving infinity is void. Thus, renormalization is not mathematical.

The Schrödinger equation was devised to find the probability of finding the particle in the narrow region between x and x+dx, which is denoted by P(x) dx. The function P(x) is the probability distribution function or probability density, which is found from the wave function ψ(x) in the equation P(x) = [ψ(x)]2. The wave function is determined by solving the Schrödinger’s differential equation: d2ψ/dx2 + 8π2m/h2 [E-V(x)]ψ = 0, where E is the total energy of the system and V(x) is the potential energy of the system. By using a suitable energy operator term, the equation is written as Hψ = Eψ. The equation is also written as iħ ∂/∂t|ψ› = H|ψ›, where the left hand side represents iħ times the rate of change with time of a state vector. The right hand side equates this with the effect of an operator, the Hamiltonian, which is the observable corresponding to the energy of the system under consideration. The symbol ψ indicates that it is a generalization of Schrödinger’s wave-function. The way the equation has been written, it appears to be an equation in one dimension, but in reality it is a second order equation signifying a two dimensional field, as the original equation and the energy operator contain a term x2. The method of the generalization of the said Schrödinger equation to the three spatial dimensions does not stand mathematical scrutiny. A third order equation implies volume. Addition of three areas does not generate volume and neither x+y+z ≠ (x.y.z) nor x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z). Thus, there is no wonder that it has failed to explain spectra other than hydrogen. The so-called success in the case of helium and lithium spectra gives results widely divergent from observation.

The probability calculations needed to work out the chance of finding an electron (say) in a particular place at a particular time actually depend on calculating the square of the complex number corresponding to that particular state of the electron. But calculating the square of a complex variable does not simply mean multiplying it by itself since it is not the same as a real number. Instead, another variable, a mirror image version called the complex conjugate is considered, by changing the sign in front of the imaginary part (if it was + it becomes - and vice versa). The two complex numbers are then multiplied together to give the probability. This shows that, truly it is not squaring, but a mathematical manipulation as the negative sign implies physical non-existence of the second term like the physical non-existence of a mirror image. If A has 5 apples and he gives it to B, then only B has those five apples and A is said to have -5 apples to signify his ownership of the five apples physically with B. Similarly, the mirror image does not make two objects, but only one real object and the other physically non-existent image. This is not mathematics, as mathematics deals with numbers, which is a characteristic of physical objects. Similarly, mathematically all operations involving infinity are void. Hence renormalization is not mathematical. The brute force approach where several parameters are arbitrarily reduced to zero or unity is again not mathematical, as the special conditions that govern the equality sign for balancing cause and effect are ignored. The arbitrary changes change the characteristic of the system. If we treat the length of all fingers as unity, then we cannot hold an object properly. There are innumerable instances of un-mathematical manipulation in the name of mathematics.

The requirement that all fundamental theories be presented within a concise mathematical framework virtually prevented serious theoretician from ever considering a non-field theory because of its mathematical complexities. The “mathematics” involved in field theories to describe events are simple and concise when compared with the “mathematics” of the same event in non-field terminology. Non-field theories are denied serious consideration because they cannot be given a precise mathematical description. Even if someone was able to develop a precise set of non-field equations, they would likely be so complex, mystifying and un-mathematical that only few mathematicians would be able to understand them.

Kindly clarify the points raised above.

Regards, basudeba

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs wrote on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 11:30 GMT

basudeba says

"[string theory] has not told us anything new about the real world, despite almost 40 years of trying."

Your summary of string theory is quite accurate and it is true that it has not yet told us anything new about physics. Yet there has been much progress and your outlook is too pessimistic. 40 years ago (1970) string theory was regarded as a tentative theory for the strong force. It developed into a theory of quantum gravity in the 1980's. In the 1990's string theorists discovered M-theory which appears to unify the different string theories. More recently we have seen developments such as AdS/CFT and many smaller steps.

I think it is true that progress has been slow, but work has always been ongoing. Some people might compare it with the development of relativity or quantum theory which progressed in steps over similar time periods. The main difference is that string theory has developed without any new experimental input beyond what was known when it started.

I don't think that this is a failure of string theory as some people claim. The reasons why string theory has not been able to predict low energy physics are well known and as you describe them. String theory is a theory of quantum gravity that is applicable to energies well beyond anything we can test directly at present. The fact that it has many vacua means that we cannot use it to predict physics at lower energy. Some people don't like that but the history of discovery in the laws of physics has demonstrated many times over that the universe does not care much for our philosophical prejudices. A lot of people did not like the theory of relativity, and even more don't like the indeterminacy of quantum theory, but they agree very well with experiment.

Personally I am quite comfortable with the idea that our universe is described by some random vacuum of string theory which may be selected on anthropic grounds. I did not want it to be that way, but if physics tells us that the universe works like that then I can learn to appreciate it. This does not mean that string theory will never make a prediction. When we know more about physics beyond the standard model we may be able to figure out the details of the selected vacuum. Even if we can't we may be able to put some testable constraints on it. Even if we cant do that we may be able to find some other testable prediction from string theory such as a signature from the big bang. Even if we cant do that it does not mean that string theory is wrong, just that it is terribly difficult to relate to observation.

The way we have understood string theory over the 40 years has changed dramatically every ten years or so. We still don't have the ideal formulation that string theorists seek so we may see it very differently in 10 years time. I don't think it has a sell by date after which it has failed. It will fail only if it is shown to be inconsistent with observation or if another theory is found to work better. At this time many of the best theoretical physicists still think string theory is the best approach to quantum gravity. I tend to agree. It may take a few more years for the mathematics to develop sufficiently for us to really understand it well enough to see why it is right. Then it will tell us something about the real world. In the meantime, physicists are free to explore any alternatives they can think of, but none have come as near to a theory of quantum gravity as string theory.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Dec. 31, 2010 @ 03:50 GMT

String theory is not without a few indicators. In solid state physics aspects of string theory and even AdS~CFT have been detected and found. Dp-branes are analogous to Fermi surfaces and in condensed matter some stringy analogues have been discovered. Also the matter of extra-large dimensions indicates that BPS-type black holes at low energy may exist if Calabi-Yau compactification scales in a T-dual manner with momentum. So we may get some experimental signatures of this physics in the next 10-15 years.

The anthropic principle, or weak AP, has been around for a long time. Bethe employed it to explore the nuclear force as a source of solar energy. The AP indicated the world or Earth had been around for 100's of millions of years by geology and evolution. So physics had to accommodate that. We have a more subtle form of this with landscape issues. There really is not that surprising about this. I tend to think there is a more general extremization of local complexity principle. The foundations of physics must be configured in some way as to give rise to a maximal complexity in a local region and with a given scale. We happen to be in such a location.

The AP also has a ying-yang element to it as well. We humans are also 7 billion ground apes exponentially rampaging out of control, consuming everything and making garbage.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 14:47 GMT

Dear Sir,

Please pardon us for telling so. But your post is highly optimistic while side-stepping the main issues.

We do not subscribe to string theory in its present form. We do not believe Higg's boson or graviton will ever be discovered. But as we have hinted in our essay, we have developed an alternative model from fundamental principles, which give the following testable predictions:

1. The accepted value of the electric charge of quarks contains an error element of 3%. In stead of +⅔ and -⅓, it should be +7/11 and -4/11. Thus, taking the measured charge of electrons as the unit, the value of the electric charge of protons is +10/11 and that of neutrons -1/11. The residual negative charge is not apparent as negative charge always confines positive charge and flows towards the concentration of positive charge - nucleus. Hence it is not felt outside. It is not revealed in measurement due to the nature of calibration of the measuring instruments. This excess negative charge confines the positive charge (nearly 2000 times in magnitude) which is revealed in atomic explosions. Charge neutral only means the number of protons and electrons are equal.

2. The value of the gravitational constant G is not the same for all systems. Just like the value for acceleration due to gravity g varies from position to position, the value of G also varies between systems. Gravity is not a single force, but a composite force of seven that act together separately on micro and the macro systems. Only this can explain the Pioneer Anomaly, which even MOND has failed to explain. Similarly, it can explain the sudden change of direction of the Voyager space crafts after the orbit of Saturn and the Fly-by anomalies.

3. The value of the fine-structure constant α that determines the electromagnetic field strength as calculated by us theoretically from our atomic orbital theory is 7/960 (1/137) when correlated to the strong interaction (so-called zero energy level) and 7/900 (1/128) when correlated to the weak interaction (80 GeV level). There are 5 more values that determine the structure of the orbitals in the atomic spectra. Hence the physically available values of the s orbitals (principal quantum number) are restricted to n = 7, though theoretically, it can have any positive integer value.

4. There is nothing like Lorentz variant inertial mass. It has never been proved.

5. We do not subscribe to the modern view of fields. We believe in only two types of fields hinted in our essay.

Regards,

basudeba.

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs wrote on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 11:46 GMT

basudeba says

"There are many unexplained questions relating to the strings. For example, given the measurement problem of quantum mechanics, what happens when a string is measured?"

The questions you ask there are not ones that I think are especially troubling for string theorists. There are plenty of people who worry about measurement problems in general but personally I don't think this will be resolved by a theory of quantum gravity, only a few people do. The EPR "paradox" has been shown by experiment to be a feature of the laws of physics. I think people just have to reconcile it with their philosophical views. That is something I did for myself many years ago.

report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 05:17 GMT

Dear Sir,

Measurement problem is one of the most worrying and fundamental problems of quantum physics. If string theorists avoid our questions, then it is all the more worrying. It is like planning to build a castle in the air leaving aside the problem of the foundation. Without a foundation all your planning is in vain. The vital question is are strings real? Without testing this question, billions of dollars of public money should not be wasted in the name of scientific research for the pleasure of a few who call themselves scientists. It is public money and public has a right to know the answer.

Regarding EPR Paradox, we have a different interpretation. You can find it from the posts below the Essays of Mr. Castel and Mr. Perez, in case you feel like considering it.

Regards,

basudeba.

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs wrote on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 12:28 GMT

basudeba says

"The LHC experiment that was designed to verify the validity of the Standard Model has failed to prove the existence of Higgs boson. This means the Standard Model remains a postulate only."

The real hope is that the LHC will tell us what lies beyond the standard model. So far it has just collected a small amount of data as a by-product of the commissioning process that took place this year. Next year it will do much more physics and may provide some new positive results. At some point in the next few years it will resolve the Higgs Sector and however it turns out that will be a successful achievement.

If anything, the standard model has been too successful and physicists are keen to find something that shows it is not perfect. For the last 40 years almost every experimental result has just served to confirm that it works very well. The next few years of the LHC could finally lead to something new.

report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 14:17 GMT

Dear Sir,

Let us make a one US Dollar bet. LHC will not repeat not find Higg's Boson even after 100 years and hundred upgradations.

Regards,

basudeba.

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 14:32 GMT

You are not alone in being skeptical about the Higgs Boson, some high profile physicists are too. Stephen Hawking has predicted its non-existence and Veltman whose Nobel prize was given for work related to the Higgs Boson is said to not believe in it.

If the Higgs boson is not there then the LHC will still tell us that because there are limits to how high its mass cam be. Not finding the Higgs Boson therefore still counts as finding "something new". It would tell us that the Standard Model is wrong in a way we least expected. There are a few theories for how that might happen but none of them are very good.

I don't think it is a very likely outcome but I am not one for making bets.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 13:59 GMT

The standard model just needs an improvement of optimization due to evolution.

Our laws, proportionalities rest in a relativistic rationality.

The strings are lost in an ocean of confusions.

Furthermore it doesn't exist equations interpreting the physics with strings.

It's a kind of fashion which disappears in fact.Logic because they aren't foundamentals these strings simply.

So many hours utilized for nothing in fact.

Cheers.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 14:25 GMT

The standard model requires more than just some evolutionary optimisation. The final outcome must include gravity, but gravity is built into physics in a way that is very different from the forces unified in the standard model. To include gravity you need a revolutionary development. String theory is the best indication that we are intellectually capable of bringing it about.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 31, 2010 @ 18:34 GMT

Never!

The strings are garbages and just a fashion of some universities.A pure joke.

The standard model I insist is foundamental and the gravity is explained with the spinning entanglement and its pure finite number.the sense of rot and the volumes of entanglement.

If strings are the best way, thus of course me I am the queen of england.

The strings aren't foundamental, and its extrapolations are just winds in the whole.

The gravity is the same than all and is the coded system and thus it's the sense of rotation which becomes the key.Thus and it's very important, the codes is intrinsic in these mass(EVOLVING)

Where are the strings in all our proportionalities?answer anywhere.

The standard model respects a precise road.It is like improving the foundamentals towards the Planck scale.But for all that a real form , balanced is necessary.if not it's a joke for our proportionalities and constants.

In fact frankly I don't understand why people focus on these strings.

And don't say me that higgs exist please, these external causes of mass.The gravity possesses the codes of evolution and the rotation imply the specificities.Where are these strings in our proportionalities even our fields and the entropy at this scale.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 09:15 GMT

Steve, I think our views on particle physics are so far apart that I could not find any common ground, but thanks for your comments all the same.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 31, 2010 @ 03:33 GMT

Your paper is remarkably similar to mine. I work out some of the Q-bit theory along the lines of Duff et al.. I work on duality with AdS spacetimes, similar to the case of a BTZ black hole in an AdS_3. The event horizon contains the same holographic information as does the AdS boundary. So the entanglement types ~ black hole types by the Kostant-Sekiguchi correspondence holds for the AdS spacetime, and Dp-branes.

From G_abcdψ^aψ^bψ^c = 0 and for M^{ab} = G^{abcd} ψ^bψ^c the elliptic curve is defined from the hyperdeterminant

y^2 = det(M)

This will be modular of course due to the A. Wiles proof of the Tanayama-Shimira conjecture. An explicit realization of this modularity comes from the equivalency with the AdS_n, and in particular with the near horizon condition AdS_{n+2} - -> AdS_2xS^n, which is conformal QM SL(2,R). This is the modular group, or its discrete subgroup SL(2,Z) defines the braid group.

Certain orbits of modular functions are identified with the Riemann ζ-function. My paper makes connections with discrete path integrals, and it is my suspicion that this may connect with general ζ-function realizations.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Dec. 31, 2010 @ 15:42 GMT

Sounds Good. Have you posted it yet?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 00:27 GMT

No I have not posted it yet. I might send it to you first and see initially what you think. I intend to post it early next week.

The thought occurred to me that the quantum computer technology might get its start through quantum gravity and SUGRA string theory. I must confess I question whether I would want to live in an age where quantum computers are ubiquitous. Things are pretty fast paced already, and a quantum computer world would make the pace of life now look like a Sunday afternoon nap.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 11:23 GMT

You should use the equation feature for your latex

$G_abcd\psi^a\psi^b\psi^c = 0$

$M^{ab} = G^{abcd} \psi^b\psi^c$

etc.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Kea wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 00:29 GMT

Phil, it's not String Theory! Your appreciation of hyperdeterminants is wonderful, and quite relevant to M Theory, but you have to give up the idea that traditional stringy physics is correct.

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 09:36 GMT

I think it is all part of a bigger picture. Your QI work is still very interesting to me even if you don't see it going in the same direction.

report post as inappropriate

Kea replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 20:29 GMT

Phil, if you just shrug your shoulders about the existence or non existence of SUSY partners, you are not doing physics. You have to decide.

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 21:08 GMT

As I've said on vixra log I am quite optimistic about SUSY to be found at the LHC in some form, but it is far from certain. It would not directly affect any work I have done if it was not there.

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Tamari wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 02:07 GMT

Phil, I enjoyed reading your very lucid essay, although the technical bits about String Theory were beyond me. Your relating a possible basic structure of nature to Information Theory and to qubits was inspiring. The Fermi photon findings are new to me and I will have to study why it is believed they disprove a basic granularity in space-time if I understand the argument correctly. Could that be (to use your words) "a product of years of education which brainwashes us" about something basic which turns out not to be so basic? In any case, don't qubits need to be embodied in an 'it' ? This recalls the well-worn arguments about how e/m waves need an ether to propagate in! String Theorists as a group have been criticized as being close-minded, but I found your approach the opposite, as you thoughtfully examined in turn various topics related to the theme of this essay .

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 02:55 GMT

It is better to say that spacetime is embedded in the Qubits. A quantum wave function exists in configuration space. Configuration space is the standard position coordinate space. So a wave function with many eigenstates has many copies of this configuration space. The configuration space has a cotangent bundle T*M which consists of the coordinates and their conjugate momentum. This then defines a symplectic structure. Every cotangent bundle is a symplectic space, but not every symplectic space is a T*M. So symplectic structure is more fundamental than coordinates or momentum.

So the entanglement structure corresponding to a black hole type contains many copies of the configuration space. In fact this has to be, for the correspondence is a real to complex valued relationship. So the wave function, or equivalently quantum bits, is what construct spacetime.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 10:40 GMT

Vladinir, yes we all spend many years in education and almost everything we learn is correct, so it is easy to put too much faith in the formalisms and extrapolate them to new areas as if things have to work the same way. To do fundamental physics it is important to have a good feel for why we believe in certain things. If it is because mathematical logic or experiment confirms that they are right, then that's fine. If it is just because we have grown used to the formalism then we need to question if it is the right way to go forward.

I think the choice between continuous and discrete mathematics in theories of quantum gravity is a good example. Classical physics gets us used to working with continuous functions and it is only when we do quantum physics that some discrete theory comes in. Even then the formalism is usually portrayed as continuous with discrete aspects arising from solutions to differential equations of bound systems. People who have come through a physics education tend to favour continuous formalisms because that is what they have always used

Some people who are less steeped in physics as their education take the opposite view and think that things have to be discrete ultimately because infinities are illogical. That is not really correct either. There is nothing logically wrong with continuous mathematics or infinity.

I don't know whether the laws of physics will ultimately be expressed using continuous or discrete mathematics but aspects of both seem to be important at our current level of understanding so it is important to keep an open mind.

The Fermi findings which rule out some discrete theories are an important clue that must be taken into account, but so is the holographic principle which seems to point in the direction of discrete bits. We have to find a way to incorporate all the indicators we get.

I don't think that string theorists as a group are close-minded. I don't personally fit the profile of a typical string theorist, but I have talked with some and read the work of others. They all seem willing to consider new ideas. They are just unwilling to look at alternatives to string theory that seem less promising.

There are some powerful arguments that string theory is the right road to quantum gravity. There must be some logically consistent description of the interaction between particles and gravity in the limit of weak fields and almost flat spacetimes. Perturbative string theory is the only solution we have for that. It's not a watertight argument, but until someone provides an alternative that achieves the same thing I think we will see people continuing to do string theory.

Personally I do like to look at the alternatives even if they do not succeed where string theory does. You have to understand the failures to know how to succeed. Loop Quantum Gravity does not work at a perturbative level but it provides some pointers about the kind of mathematics that applies to non-perturbative gravity and its origins are close to those of string theory. Its offshoots such as spin foams, group field theory, quantum graphity etc have some nice mathematics that may be clues about how to formulate string theory non-perturbatively. I find it more sad that people working on these things reject string theory than that string theorists reject the alternatives. Everybody seems to work in a very narrow band of ideas. Instead they need to stand back and take in the big picture, think about what works and what does not work in different approaches, then consider how lessons learnt can be brought together.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

ervin goldfain wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 14:01 GMT

Phil,

Quantum gravity theories are based on two underlying assumptions:

1) classical gravitation can be quantized and consistently treated as a quantum field.

2) its effects become perceivable at some large energy defining the unification scale.

The question is: What evidence there is that these two assumptions are on the right track?:

1) there is no direct evidence for gravitational waves, let alone for gravitons. I am not talking here about indirect evidence from binary stars but observations from LIGO and similar detectors.

2) there is no direct evidence that gravitation survives as an interaction field below an experimental limit of about 50 um or so. It is only inferred from what we know today that this indeed must be the case. But how solid is this hypothesis?

We just started to explore physics on the TeV scale. At least from where we stand today, it seems to me that the two assumptions I listed do not have a strong experimental support.

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 14:46 GMT

Ervin, you make some very good points.

I would be very surprised if gravitational waves are not detected with a future generation of detectors. The indirect evidence from pulsars is very hard to explain any other way. When physicists applied for funding for the first LIGO runs they were a little optimistic about what gravitational wave sources there were likely to be. As a result LIGO is starting to look like it has failed. I think they just need more sensitivity.

Even if there are gravitational waves it does not mean that gravity necessarily has to be quantised, but it is difficult to work any other way. If quantum gravity is hard then having no quantum gravity is even harder. The assumption that gravity must be quantised leads to string theory. Where do you get if you assume it is not quantised? I think physicists have been happy to play around with any set of modified assumptions but they have ended up writing about the possibilities that lead somewhere and kept quiet about other choices they tried. What else can they do?

Although there is not much experimental support for these assumptions and extrapolations, the requirement to consistently combine quantum theory with gravity seems to be such a restrictive constraint that we can make some progress without it. I hope that when we fully understand the theory we will be able to make some predictions that can be tested without a Planck energy accelerator.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 2, 2011 @ 04:12 GMT

We might wonder whether gravity is at all completely quantized at all. I think that gravitation is actually an emergent effect. More to the point the near horizon condition of an AdS_4 decomposes into AdS_2xS^2. The AdS_2 is the geometry for the sine-Gordon equation, or soliton wave, which is S-dual to a fermionic theory. So I suspect that spacetime is largely a classical field, with quantization at the tree level or O(ħ). Of course Feynman pointed out that general relativity at this level is formally the same as the classical theory! The quantum mechanics behind gravity exists on an other “substratum.”

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 15:23 GMT

Phil,

But the lingering question remains: do we know enough about Terascale physics to hope that our current understanding will stand as is? History of physics has repeatedly taught us that new and unexpected layers of reality emerge as we probe deeper into its structure.

How about if the fundamental premises of lagrangian field theory will break down around, say, 10 TeV or so? Early findings at LHC and elsewhere point to anomalous observations that cannot be easily accounted for with current theoretical models.

How about if reality is a dynamic complex structure and a multifractal at its core, in accord with a wealth of findings in all branches of fundamental and applied sciences?

report post as inappropriate

Ervin Goldfain replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 15:25 GMT

The reply above is mine. Sorry about not entering my name.

Ervin

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 16:41 GMT

I know the feeling. It could be the case that physics above some scale is completely different from anything we have seen so far. Without much hope of experimental input we would never figure it out. We would have no more hope of understanding the laws of physics than a cat has of understanding quantum mechanics.

I am more optimistic than that and I will tell you why. When we try to bring together quantum mechanics and gravity we find that black holes must have entropy and temperature that extends the laws of thermodynamics in an unexpected and surprising way. To understand how this can work we need to invoke a holographic principle that nobody would have anticipated any other way. When we look for a perturbative theory of quantum gravity we find that we can do it with a theory of strings which turns out to be something we can use to solve deep problems in pure mathematics. Then we find that in this string theory the holographic principle applies just as it needed to for consistency.

If physics beyond some scale is something else then the existence of all these remarkable theories is just a crazy coincidence that has led us all astray. I think there is too big a set of coincidences for this to be likely. In the past when the maths has turned out to work it has later been verified by experiment. The Dirac equation which predicted antimatter is the canonical example, but Maxwell's equations and relativity were similar. With quantum gravity we have pushed out further into unknown territory with no experimental feedback, but the network of mathematical theories that hang together unexpectedly is also bigger and more impressive. I think this is because it is right and the assumptions that have been made were the correct ones. It is still incomplete but progress is still being made. I don't know how long it will take, but I think the signs are that it is something we have the capacity to comprehend.

I think that results from the LHC are likely to help us understand a lot more. I'm not sure which anomalous observations you are referring to but it is early days. I hope the gap between these energies and the Planck scale can be bridged in some meaningful way with a combination of theory and experiment but it is impossible to know how far there is to go.

report post as inappropriate

Ervin Goldfain replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 18:38 GMT

Phil,

You say,

"In the past when the maths has turned out to work it has later been verified by experiment"

There are many counterexamples where reality either already fails or may fail to follow appealing mathematical frameworks: chirally symmetric field theories, SU(5) GUT, Deformed Special Relativity, preons, large extra dimensions, Fermi liquid behavior in strongly correlated compounds, spin-statistics connection in fractional Quantum Hall effect, Navier-Stokes equations of fully developed turbulence and so on.

Is there comprehensive evidence that holography works as advertised in strongly coupled field theories? Is there convincing observational evidence that black holes and exotic thermodynamics are able to fully and successfully account for physics of the Terascale sector?

I am not pessimistic when I pose these questions. I want to caution about extrapolations based on beautiful mathematical structures that may turn out to be wishful thinking after all.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (6 not shown)

T H Ray wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 17:04 GMT

Nice job! I especially appreciate your faith in the ability of M theory to produce a complete algebraic theory. I agree that continuous function physics is so ingrained in our consciousness that it's often hard to escape.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 21:54 GMT

Yes, some people want physics to be purely geometric. prefer it to be purely algebraic.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 3, 2011 @ 11:09 GMT

The geometry and the algebras are purely linked in the sphere.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 19:21 GMT

.. Still fresh from the old cyclotron...

Philip,

I think the highest and most fundamental symmetry is from the existence/non-existence duality. From this binary symmetry, I can see the Weizsaker approach exploding into a whole universe. Assuming we start with nothing, a whole universe may start to exist from this one cubit. But, as explained in my last essay, only an evolving time can exist at that "moment" and forever after without failing the rule of non-contradiction.

p.s. for other essay writers: don't forget page numbering as this is important for reference in discussions..)

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 21:52 GMT

I like it!

So are you doing an essay this time round?

Oh yeah I should have put page numbers, but you can see them in acrobat reader.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Jan. 2, 2011 @ 05:38 GMT

Philip,

I have not decided yet. I have a problem with the question. It shows a philosophically challenged attitude. In my essay about physics and metaphysics I explain the difference and importance of a fundamental approach based on logic

applied to ontology. I take nothing away from physics, but physics must recognize its limits and they are real. I might come with further arguments but with nobody

at the receiving end, I feel it is somehow pointless.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

nikman wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 19:40 GMT

" ... and reverse engineer the program that codes our universe."

A couple of questions:

(1.) What's the basis for assuming that the computation analogy is valid in this context? Does the fact that we think in terms of "programming" mandatorily mean the Universe does?

(2.) NP-Completeness. This is an issue for quantum computation just as much as it is for classical. Could the proposed reverse engineering even be conceivable unless P=NP? Does it?

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 21:29 GMT

nikman, there is certainly not anything mandatory about the proposal that the world works like a computer. It is just a hypothesis that we can follow in our pursuit of better understanding. A statement like "the universe is a quantum computer" is currently just a motivational buzzphrase. It does not mean a great deal until we can find a concrete mathematical theory for which it is a reasonable interpretation. It may lead to the development of such a theory.

The justification for considering it is certainly not that we think in such terms. Usually that is not a good guide. The justification is that the mathematics of information and especially quantum information comes up in string theory.

It is not obvious whether or not an answer to the problem P=NP would have any implication for physics. Perhaps if we had a better idea of how the computer "analogy" is realised it would be possible to say more about it.

report post as inappropriate

nikman wrote on Jan. 2, 2011 @ 05:39 GMT

To the extent that our many confusions and impasses devolve from limitations of the human mind, if P=NP the implications for physics would be beyond anyone's imagination. Mathematical creativity could in theory be automated. Almost all questions that might be asked could be answered. We'd even have a step-by-step quantified physical model for protein folding (surely next to nothing in the great cosmological scheme of things) instead of probabilistic diagrams per statistical physics. The Theory of Everything might be within our reach. What's not to reverse engineer? As Scott Aaronson puts it: "We would be almost like gods."

Or as Frank Wilczek replied when asked what yes-or-no question he'd ask a super-intelligent alien if he were allowed only one: "P versus NP. That basically contains all the other questions, doesn't it?"

If P doesn't equal NP a lot of bets could be off. This is independent of the issue of whether or not the universe computes in any meaningful sense. Is computation itself -- classical, quantum -- robust enough to compress and make comprehensible the fundamental information we hope is out there?

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 11:34 GMT

It's certainly an interesting question. I agree that if P=NP the implications for computational algorithms are huge. I am not so sure that it would affect physics in a profound way. The P=NP question is about algorithms which search a large space of possible solutions, so that a solution may take a long time to find, but once found it can be checked quickly. If the universe operates like a computer or quantum computer it is unlikely to be running an algorthim of that type. More likely it will be just constructing solutions to some kind of evolution equation. This could take a lot of computation, but the only way to check the answer is to rerun the whole thing in full. P=NP does not tell you anything about that kind of algorithm.

In any case, most people believe that N!=NP. It is just too much to hope that a discovery could be made that would make us "almost like gods". It is a question that will be very hard to settle because it says so much about so many different things.

report post as inappropriate

nikman replied on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 17:35 GMT

Part of the problem for me is that you're "going inside" the qubit and assuming (because the mathematics of ST encourages one to do so) layers of information and information processing which we simply cannot detect in physical reality.

A guy I profoundly respect, Hans C. von Baeyer, gets rhapsodic about the qubit. He sees a peeled grape, translucent, shimmering, pregnant with mystery, possibly comprising a literal microcosm. It's all there! Then you measure the thing and, as he says, "All you get is one lousy bit. It's such a waste."

Of course it is. But he's of the IQOQI school and realizes that what you get is what you get.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 03:30 GMT

It is likely that the landscape problem is NP. The possible configurations on the landscape determine different actions, and the Euclideanized path integral or partition function e^S is similar to the problem of ordering the set of possible microstates uniquely instead of coarse graining them up. The attempt at a proof P!=NP by Deolalikar uses thermodynamic or stat mech arguments. I am not aware of the status of this proof at this time, though I think people did find problems with it.

The quantum computer does not make P = NP, but rather quantum computers solve bounded polynomial problems in PSPACE that most likely do not intersect the NP set of problems. I have thought that generalizations such as the Tsirelson bound and the PR box would maybe solve NP complete problems. However, this is a problematic structure --- though it might play a role in quantum gravity. Quantum mechanics has this Fubini-Study metric for the fibration of the Hilbert space with the projective Hilbert space. This results in the Berry phase and the uncertainty principle, which gives rise to the nonlocal properties of QM.

With respect to the landscape problem, which might be NP, the grand quantum computer is probably some pure state with a very small summation of eigenmodes. After all string theory has far few degrees of freedom than LQG, and strings as quantum bits means the actual computation space is very small. So while we may observe from some local perspective that these problems seem immense, in fact the total number of degrees of freedom is actually very small and only appears large because we are observing nature partially in some entanglement. By T-duality the number of modes corresponds to winding numbers on compactified spaces, such as Calabi-Yau manifolds. However, the singular points or cusps on those spaces may just be entangled states within a quantum computation which transforms between these spaces as conifold maps --- quantum conifolds!

There is a hierarchy of problems, which leads all the way to the undecidability problems of Turing’s Halting problem and Godel’s proofs. The matter of P != NP are lower on that hierarchy. The matter of “being as gods” would to my mind be a time where there is some unification of mathematics which removes the barriers to Hilbert’s 23 problems presented by Godel. I doubt that will happen.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (9 not shown)

Vladimir Tamari wrote on Jan. 2, 2011 @ 13:40 GMT

"...If it is because mathematical logic or experiment confirms that they are right, then that's fine. If it is just because we have grown used to the formalism then we need to question if it is the right way to go forward..."

True, Philip, but the trouble is that we have become so clever at mathematics it is possible to frame experimental results in many different ways that seem to point in contrary directions. That is when the second part of your sentence kicks in..the formalism we have been educated in blinds us to other views that may be equally valid but not as 'fashionable'. I am far from being an expert but wonder if theories get shot down for contradicting some minor tenet of a rival theory, and not for contradicting its own premises or experimental results?

Sorry this is off-subject, but it is unfortunate the that name of the black-hole related "holographic principle" has sort of upstaged another possible holographic principle. Holograms have a unique property that if you cut a small portion of the film it will encapsulate the larger picture but at lower resolution. As in fractals, and sort of like how nature seems to work- the universe in a grain of sand sort of thing!

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 2, 2011 @ 16:57 GMT

"I am far from being an expert but wonder if theories get shot down for contradicting some minor tenet of a rival theory, and not for contradicting its own premises or experimental results?"

Yes, this happens. New ideas are sometimes hard to accept because they contradict an old dogma. My series of blog posts about "crackpots" who were right provided a number of historical examples. However, these cases are rare, usually the expert consensus is right, but not always.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 3, 2011 @ 01:04 GMT

Phil "...the expert consensus is right, but not always"

A consensus could be very wrong - vide a whole gamut of ideas from the phlogiston to you name it . And what about now - is there an expert consensus? From all that I gathers physics is like the Tower of Babel, people talking in different language. Nature cannot be that multilingual, I think it acts in a simple direct way - like your qubits for example.

report post as inappropriate

Kilgore Trout wrote on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 10:52 GMT

Excellent paper, a work of science and not science fiction. It is nice to read a paper written by someone with a full grasp of current theory that is intended for a general audience and is sufficiently technical to justify its statements, but not so technical as to lose its dramatic story.

My question is whether you think one could see the appearance of effects analogous to gravity for quantum computers with 4N qubits?

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 15:37 GMT

Kilgore, thank you for the compliments.

It's an interesting question. The sober answer is that a quantum computer running a program that simulates the universe would show gravitational effects in the same way that a classical computer simulating Newtonian gravity does, but is there a deeper answer?

It is possible that some class of algorithms with high complexity running on quantum computers might show a collective behaviour whose universality class is described by string theory. That would be beyond what I suggest in this essay, but not much beyond stuff I wrote in the past about the "Theory of Theories". Perhaps that is the kind of idea you are hinting at?

If the choice of vacuum is analogous to the program for the quantum computer of the universe then it can be described using 200 bytes (I am assuming the current estimate of 10⁵⁰⁰ vacua is correct ). It does not sound like a very complex program, even if the information in the program is highly compressed. Of course the "data" consists of many more bits so collective behaviour is still a possibility.

report post as inappropriate

Kilgore Trout replied on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 11:26 GMT

I must confess that I wasn't thinking about a "Theory of Theories". My only thought at the time of the question was whether we would expect a quantum computer to produce results that include effects of gravity as an intrinsic output. For instance, if we were able to have sufficient precision, would a simulation of H2 using a quantum computer have gravity effects including into output even if the specific quantum algorithm was not designed to include those effects? It would seem that if we are to link spacetime to entanglement then we can not remove effects of QG without an appropriate correction (not sure if that is simular to the correction codes you are referring too).

Theory of Theories idea is interesting, and I would offer that one unifying concept in a theory of theories is that of ordering. Any non constant variable using any set of values that can correspond to numbers can be placed in some order. A cumulative sum of the values of the variables will always have some curvature (possibly none).

I think the idea of understanding vacua as programs is interesting. The notion that there is a code for the vacua is also interesting. I have to admit I didn't think about it along those lines until reading your article. I agree that a 200 byte program is not particularly complex, and certainly the set of meaningful programs can only be addressed by understanding the language or semantic problem associated with communication theory. To that end I can only offer the suggestion that its a question of the effectiveness of the information in the program. In that sense, we should think that there should be some language that maximizes the effect of the program in question, and it would seem that if we know that language, we could understand better what choices of programs are possible. In some sense we may need to look at approaches that maximize redundancy. I am not sure how far that treads into anthropic notions, where the observer in effect is somehow choosing the language and program that makes themselves possible, but again, we have to remember that the universe is what is ultimately observing itself, so it isn't really a question of human perception.

Just my thoughts.

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Tamari replied on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 16:50 GMT

Phil

Kilgore

When you reach the last Theory and the last smallest byte in the chain one can paraphrase the phrase

[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message_(phrase)]"t
he medium is the message" to read "nature is the theory". Does this help?

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 17:11 GMT

Oops sorry I sent a post with html tags by mistake and it was garbled.I meant to say:

Phil "...Theory of Theories"

Kilgore ".. the universe is what is ultimately observing itself, so it isn't really a question of human perception."

When you reach the last theory and the 'last' byte in the chain one can paraphrase McLuhan's phrase "the medium is the message" to read "nature is the theory". It has to be that simple.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jan. 18, 2011 @ 17:09 GMT

The title of McLuhan's book is actually _The Medium is the Massage_, implying feedback between the medium's message and the recip[ient, rather than identity between language and meaning. In fact, it is the very disjointedness of language and meaning -- i.e., between nature and our description of nature -- that allows feedback to affect, and be affected by, our involvement with it. Objective science, though, follows Einstein's prescription for what is "physically real:" That which is " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself affected by physcial conditions." (Meaning of Relativity, Princeton 1956). Contrary to Bohr's opinion, Einstein was not really one to "tell God what to do."

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 00:33 GMT

Dear Tom,

You are right I just realized the book is entitled "..Massage" ! I like the common aphorism though because in my theory it is the physical nodes (the medium) that create the universe that we see (the message). I feel that, working back from our experiences of the world, we can propose an 'absolute' medium, even though we perceive it as a 'message'.

Your quote of Einstein's implies he thought there is an absolute universe out there. But the whole thrust of SR is that our perception of it is absolute (the speed of light is constant) while the universe itself (space and time) are relative. I think it can and should be the other way around - the speed of light should be variable with a maximum of c in an absolute universe. My (made-up, I assure you) anecdote in my paper about Einstein and God is in the spirit of Einstein's own gentle humor about the 'Good Lord' and no disrespect is meant to either.

Best wishes from Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Roy Johnstone wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 01:38 GMT

Hi Philip

Very good essay offering quite convincing arguments for a speculative look at reality.

I am wondering if there might be a possible compatibility between this idea of fundamental quantum information as you have described it and the proposal of David Bohm dating back to 1952 of "active information" which might exist as a sub-quantum field which would "inform" the QM wave function via what he calls the "quantum potential? It is an extension of DeBroglie's "pilot wave" theory and is starting to receive a bit more attention lately, mainly because it has the capacity to treat quantum theory in a physically real way, very naturally explaining what conventional quantum theory can't, EPR, wave function collapse etc. It also has the advantage of very simply removing notions like "superposition of states" (and therefore "collapse") via the non-local field.

Do you see your fundamental qubits as generating only a geometry, ie spacetime/Calabi-Yau M, or as you seem to indicate in your section on the Holographic Principle, can it also apply to matter? If so, it could I think connect with Bohm in that the wave functions of elementary particles could be "formed" and "guided" by the information contained in the sub-quantum field of Qubit interactions.

Just some ill-defined initial thoughts but I thought it might be interesting to relate the two concepts?

Congatulations on your essay and good luck!

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 01:58 GMT

Roy,

Thanks for asking these questions. I'm also interested in the answers. FYI, my essay addresses some of these questions, and I would appreciate your thoughts.

Also, I'd like to point out that Brian Whitworth's essay follows the logical implications farther than perhaps anyone else has done. I think both you and Phil would find his essay very interesting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 10:14 GMT

I like the idea that Bohm anticipated the holographic principle a couple of decades ahead of the quantum gravity version. His motivation for it was very different but since 't Hooft is interested in alternative quantum theories I am sure it must have had some influence on his thinking.

I agree that other erssays such as Whitworth's and Klingman are interesting in regard to Bohm's work

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 16:15 GMT

It is my understanding the difficulty with getting QFT to work with Bohm’s interpretation of QM remains. Relativistic QFT of interacting fields describes the creation of particles with some mass gap, which Bohm’s approach is not able to work with.

Goldstein, I believe at Rutgers, has been trying to push this. I am not aware of his progress. However, at the end of it all Bohm’s QM is still nonlocal, and the quantum potential has nonlocal properties. Bohm’s QM has not managed to reduce nonlocal hidden variables to something which is local.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (18 not shown)

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 03:23 GMT

I think the level of complexity in the world is some sort of extremal condition on paths in a Feynman path integral. Each path here corresponds to a particular “universe” or nucleation bubble. The vacuum configuration of each of these universes is determined by the compactification on a Calabi Yau space. Strings which wrap on these spaces have a duality with their mode index --- T duality. We are all of course familiar with path integrals and how very high frequency stuff or wild phases tend to cancel themselves out, so that you tend to get WKB behaviour or classical systems. My conjecture is that the huge degree or measure on the NP-completeness of the landscape (the extent of its space or need for qubits) is reflected in the complexity of the classical world. If so then of the 10^{500} or so landscape “realities” that exist there is a far smaller number of them which are classical. The “worlds” are those which satisfy an extermal condition on their complexity. This complexity is determined by the n-form flux through Dp-brane coincident with these wrappings.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 03:51 GMT

Thanks, I can see how from this level of comprehension one would not worry about things like real physical anomalies, hundred order of magnitude errors, 4% accuracy of our best theories, or other such trivia.

report post as inappropriate

nikman replied on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 22:04 GMT

Or then there's Tegmark's conjecture ("Does the Universe Contain Almost No Information") that the classical complexity in the midst of which we live is basically empty calories informationwise. He uses Mandelbrot fractals as an analogy. You have a simple formula/algorithm which contains initial conditions and iteration instructions. Then you let 'er rip. Same thing for the Big Bang.

It might be difficult enough to reverse engineer a fractal if you lived inside the thing. We should probably assume that the universe, which there's no indication is even recursive, is more complicated. But maybe not insurmountably so. Tegmark anticipates the ToE by 2056 if I recall correctly. He'll only be 89.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 21:53 GMT

Phil & Ray,

The major problem with Lisi’s irreducible representation theory is that he frames things in funny ways. In particular he frame the SO(3,1) for gravity with the rest of the gauge fields. A global transformation in the unification group means that internal and external symmetries transform between each other in ways which lead to unphysical results. For instance a black hole could be transformed away into gauge fields so that its internal configuration could be specified. In more generality this violates the Coleman-Mandula theorem. He also frames bosons and fermions by multiplication by Clifford basis elements. This runs into trouble IMO, for these really need to be Grassmannian elements in a SUSY which correspond to SUSY generators with some Clifford content. The E_8 is 8 dimensional with 248 (or 240 depending on how you count) elements, and this does have a correspondence with CL_8 with 2^8 = 256 elements in 11 dimensions.

The SO(8) corresponds to the 4 qubit entanglement situation. E_8 decomposes into O(16) or SO(16), which is half of the Clifford --- given abuse of terms here, which in turn decomposes into two SO(8)’s. The 4 Q-bit has G_{SLOCC} flows or orbits of the state ψ_{ABCD} SO(4;R) ~ SL(2;C), and we can convert the SL(2,C)^4 into SO(4)^4 and use SO(4;C) = SO(4)^2. The orbits of the G_{SLOCC} are the an SO(8) conjugacy class. The set of nilpotent orbits is a classification of SO(8;C). The complexification of SO((8,C) means it occupies the same space as SO(16) ---- 4 qubit entanglements have 16 complex elements. For the 8 qubit entanglement situation we “double down” our bet here. The 4-bit system is the quaternionic structure, Cayley number 2^2 = 4. The 3 qubit system is related to the complex field, but instead of pertaining to 2 bits (2^1) for an 8 charged black hole it there are 4 D3-branes where charges may combine into 5 dimensions (NS5-brane) with the Clifford basis in 5-dim corresponding to 2 + 3 = Cayley plus 3 => Cl_2. Going up the Cayley ladder involves states ψ_{ABCDEFGH} and we are talking about products of 8 SL(2,C)’s for the octonions or E_8.

The other approach, which is what I have been primarily pursuing is the E_8 -> E_7 -> E_6 decomposition. This has a triality condition on the G_2 automorphism of E_8 and leads more naturally to the Jordan matrix algebra and Freudenthal theory of general determinants. The cubic structure of G_2 also gives the elliptic curve structure to the theory. I would in some part be interested in knowing if this connects up with the orthogonal group decomposition I outlined above.

My paper got hosted finally, where this is an overview of this work. I am working out more of the maths and crafting a more detailed paper. When it is done I will attach it to my paper site.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 22:35 GMT

Dear Lawrence,

I agree that Lisi framed it wrong - bosons and fermions should not reside in the same representation. Yes - E8 has an order of 248 with 240 roots and 8 basis vectors. The roots have fundamental symmetries of 240=8x(5x3x2) with the '3' triality of generations, '5' pentality of 'flavor-helicity' (including tachyons), '8' octality of color/anti-color (red, green, blue, white, magenta, cyan, yellow, anti-white), and a '2' duality of SUSY (Lisi's E8 240-plet should have included 120 fermions and 120 bosinos, but no bosons). However, these symmetries are similar to an SU(11) with an order of 120=10x(4x3) with a '3' triality of generations, a '4' quartality of color (red, green, blue, white), and a '10' decality of flavor/antiflavor-helicity. It looks like Lisi 'forced' some of the particles into his E8 Gosset lattice. If those particle states weren't properly framed then he could have been using a goofed-up SU(11) 'theory' with an E8 lattice.

If a 4 qubit is a quaternion, then is an 8 qubit an octonion?

I was sloppy with some references, and it has delayed the posting of my essay.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 00:43 GMT

The problem is that Lisi is trying to pack "too much" in the E_8.

An 8-bit system is octonionic. That does seem to be the next big step we should take. This is a part of my work with the G_2, which is the automorphism of E_8 and centralizer with F_4. F_4 contains so(9), which is an important group in holographic theory.

I have a description of this on my essay page that I just posted. The paper just discusses qubits and the connection between AdS_7 and the 3 & 4 qubit theory of Duff et al. There is a whole lot more involving geodesics on moduli spaces, fixed points and their connection to the nilpotent points on the SO(4,4)/SO(4)xSO(4) moduli space for black holes.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 15, 2011 @ 14:01 GMT

hihi you are funny in fact with all your mixing non sense.

Really funny.

I offer you the nobel prize of fun and no sense ,

to the team th , lisi , ray and lawrence and friends ahahah

Cheeeeeeeers

Steve

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

Russell Jurgensen replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 18:40 GMT

Dear Steve,

You seem to voice the frustration that probably a lot of others feel. Some math solutions get pretty far from the thing trying to be solved. For example, this essay describes a 4th order polynomial with each coefficient being another 4th order polynomial to form a hypermatrix. It is interesting to try to model any physical system with a standard 4th order polynomial because solving for the coefficients leads to math that is only a tool to calculate coefficients rather than a fundamental description of the original system. For that matter does even the original polynomial describe a fundamental operation of the system as opposed to just fitting to a portion of it?

I'd like to invite you to read my essay about an exploratory model with a single potential propelling particle motion. I'm curious if you think it is logically presented and sticks close to the things (photons, electrons, and protons) being described.

Kind regards,

Russell

report post as inappropriate

Steev Dufourny replied on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 12:57 GMT

Hi dear Russel,

Sorry for my late answer, I have some difficulties to answer to all my net at this momment.

Your post is interesting,, you know I don't understand sometimes why they focus on these confusions implied by maths. The realism is objective. It is not they aren't skilling, just they don't understand the generality and the globality.

I am going to answer on your blog.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

JOE BLOGS. wrote on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 08:54 GMT

Express a circular earth orbit of 360 days in 11 dimesions of M theory.

Then convert the circular orbit into an eliptical one in three dimensions plus one of time.

Reverse the eqaution to convert the equations for Einsteins 4D space time into 11 dimensions...................

This the the computer program that unites Einsteins gravity with string theory..............And you can unite strinmg theory with quantum gravity.

Which is totally right Stephen.

Indeed this program is totally right for a theory of everything.

report post as inappropriate

Steev Dufourny replied on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 10:12 GMT

Any sense.

I don't see a logical reason for these extrapolations.M Theory is just a fun from Mr Witten, who I agree is skilling.

But the conclusions frankly let me laugh please.

It's not sciences that but sciences fiction.

Cheeers

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 10:22 GMT

It's just reverses of equations, but do you understand the symmetries or our foundamentals, invariants, coherents, constants???

Frankly I doubt.

You can't make what you want with our maths, sorry but it's the reality when you want explain the physics correctly.

A symmetry for that , a translation for that a central symmetry for this, a serie there with infinites limits and after an oscillation here.

No but we speak about what, maths or physics without any sense???

It's tiring to explain always our foundamentals.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jan. 18, 2011 @ 02:44 GMT

Phil,

I have attached a rough draft that is somewhat sketchy, on more mathematical detail with the physics here. It is found on my paper site.

This expands some on the triality conditions. This extends into the Freudenthal determinants, and I think the elliptic curve condition on the hyperdeterminant for the 3-quibit case.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 18, 2011 @ 20:56 GMT

Thanks I will take a look at it. I read through your essay and understood more than I thought I would, so I'll try to read this too.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 03:14 GMT

I noticed that you got into that latest collosal time sink "physics.stackexchange" That is sort of fun, and a bit hard to stay away from. I'll have to pull back some more after a couple of day and suffer a bit of withdrawal.

This goes a bit more into detail. On the physics.stackexchange Motl posted the question about T-dual with Witten's Twistor B-topological field. That gets a bit close to this in some ways. I was going to write up on E_6, and might still, but things are a bit premature. The E_6 is a good subgroup for particle spectra since it has a complex irrep.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 14:31 GMT

Hi Lawrence & Philip,

A while back, Lubos was beating me up over the fact that E8 is a strictly real representation. Back in the 1990's, the expectation was that a GUT/TOE must have complex representations. But I thought (mistakenly?) that the implication of right-handed neutrinos at Super-Kamiokande would allow these spinors to exist in a real representation - as long as right-handed neutrinos were properly accounted for (as I think I have with Hyperflavor).

I like E8 (240 real roots plus 8 basis vectors) because of its lattice form. By itself, E8 could represent Hyperspace, but not Spacetime. Lubos cast enough doubt on E8 that I started looking at alternate symmetries: SU(11)~SO(16) with 120 complex dgf's or E6xE6* with 72 plus 54 complex dgf's may have similar symmetries.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (7 not shown)

Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 07:58 GMT

Dear Dr. Gibbs,

I find it very strange that the scientific world is obsessed with mathematics (admittedly, my essay did dabble with it when offering a version of E=mc2 to suit the digital world - but I kept it very simple ... so simple it might be regarded as wrong). Math seems to be regarded as infallible, even though it leads to mistakes. The mistake I have in mind is string theory. I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 03:31 GMT

I know I can't submit another essay. I don't plan to - these are just some comments that came to mind after thinking about my essay. They don't seem very relevant to the topic "Is Reality Digital or Analog?" but writing them has given even more satisfaction than writing the essay, and I'm in the mood to share them with the whole world. So if you've got time to read them...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 03:03 GMT

According to the Community Ratings, my essay in the 2011 Essay Contest is sliding further down the ratings each day. But I'm having more luck with a science journal called General Science Journal - comments of mine inspired by the essay (which are nearly 20,000 words long and include comments about "The Nature of Time" as well as "Is Reality Digital or Analog?") were published in the Journal on Feb. 6 and may be viewed at http://gsjournal.net/ntham/bartlett.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 01:55 GMT

Hello Phil

I am grateful to you for creation viXra.org.

This inspired me to become active and take part in this contest.

You did good job.

All the best.

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

author Philip Gibbs replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 13:28 GMT

Thanks and good luck for the contest

Phil

report post as inappropriate

Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 20:13 GMT

I view what you put up as a " This is the limits of string theory" monikor, with an outline as to the promises and perils of takign the string theory monikor literally.

What I would like to see would be a description as to what forms strings and brane, from emergent space time.

When that is done, then the digital versus analog nature of reality will reveal itself

report post as inappropriate

Author Philip Gibbs replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 08:01 GMT

Andy, I agree that knowing where the strings and branes come from is crucial to making further progress in this theory.

I know that many people are not keen on string theory these days so I dont expect my essay to score high points, however I still see it as the correct appraoch to understanding the principles of nature. My reason is that there must be a description of nature when looked at perturbatively around nearly flat spacetime and weak fields. String theory is the only solution for that.

report post as inappropriate

Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 20:50 GMT

quote:

What about space, time and matter, are they discrete or continuous? Again the answer is open to interpretation. Space and time could emerge from interactions between discrete entities, yet their symmetries are continuous and perfect.

end of quote

Please outline how you came to this conclusion.

What you put up is the heart of your essay and affects its adherance to the topic. thank you for your essay. I enjoyed it immensely

Andy

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 08:08 GMT

Continuous symmetries are very important in everything we know about physics. You cant approximate them well with discrete symmetries so I assume they are exact. The Fermi observations also seem to show that Lorentz invariance holds even beyond the Planck scale.

With qubits we can keep the exact symmetries even when the information content is discrete and finite, so there is no reason to abandon these symmetries.

I don't agree with people who say that symmetries are emergent from equations. I think they are fundamental. Without invariance principles such as the invaraince opf the laws of physics at different times and places we could not make sense of the universe.

Good luck with your essay too.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 14:57 GMT

I second your assessment. Discrete structures play a role with quotient structures or Galois cohomologies and with conformal completion of hyperbolic symmetries. This plays a role with the conformal complete of the AdS. However, a pure discrete symmetry can only define a charge, but not a current. You can’t have Noetherian conservation principles with only a discrete symmetry. The only exception is with E_8, where the root space structure (a discrete symmetry) is equivalent to the continuous group of E_8.

I have been a bit out of action this month, for I have been terribly ill. I think the light is at the end of the tunnel --- though it could be a freight train coming my way. So I have not been commenting much on FQXi.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 02:06 GMT

Dear Philip, Lawrence and Guest,

I also agree. In my essay, I concluded that nature is both continuous and discrete. That is the way that we observe nature because of wave-particle duality. The discrete properties are expressed by quantum charges, such as color, electric, and weak charges. But the continuous properties are expressed by fields (and waves or classical strings) such as electromagnetic and gravitational.

Qubits of Strings are the best of both worlds: "discrete" quantum charges and "continuous" strings.

I think that this contest had three legitimate answers, either:

1) Nature is fundamentally discrete, or

2) Nature is fundamentally continuous, or

3) Nature is fundamentally both discrete and continuous.

Perhaps Qubits of Strings and the third answer aren't popular because:

1) Strings aren't popular, and

2) "both" continuous and discrete sounds indecisive

But I honestly don't think that popular "democratic" science is the best science. I would prefer that we work out all of the details, and see which approach best fits all data and details.

Lawrence - I hope you get well quickly.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (4 not shown)

Author Philip Gibbs replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 15:56 GMT

I agree that democracy is not what determines science but for the record I make it 24 essays for Analog, 50 for Digital, 37 for both and the other 50 were not committed.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 01:45 GMT

WOW! 50 uncommitted out of ~160? What was the primary purpose of the essay contest? Isn't it better to say both than to remain uncommitted?

report post as inappropriate

Author Philip Gibbs replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 11:18 GMT

Many of the "uncommitted" authors discussed the question and concluded that it is too soon to tell, or that the question does not have meaning, or that it is neither. These seemed like reasonable and interesting arguments. There are really just a very small number that did not seem to address the questions at all.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 17:20 GMT

The question is not likely ever answerable. The reason is the question involves an existential problem. Normally in physics we do not ask analytical questions about the ontology of things. We do not really have a mathematical prescription for such concepts. What is interesting to note in reading some of these papers is how people can argue in an adroit manner both sides of the dichotomy: nature is digital or nature is analogue. The relationship between the two borders on the metaphysical, for we have little physical idea of what we mean by ontology and epistemology. Quantum mechanics by Bell’s theorem on inequality violations tells us that the universe fundamentally is not realistic in a classical sense. So wave functions are considered to be epistemic, and they do not have exactly the same ontology of a particle --- in fact no ontology. The measurement produces a particle which we register as a discrete “click.” We can point to that and say “it exists.” However, to interpret all that discrete stuff we need to think according to all that continuous stuff. Noether currents are not conserved in discrete structure, only in continuous ones. So we are left with a question on existentialism, where we ponder whether something which is purely epistemic can have the same existential categorical status of something ontological.

So the question is to my mind more properly about the relationship between continuous and discrete structures. That relationship is presented within the formulation of a theory, or hypothesis, or as some has written within a philosophical setting. I am less interested in philosophy, and I must confess I have certain jaded opinions of philosophy. I find myself largely in disagreement with virtually all papers I have read here which propose to prove the matter one way or the other. In fact one paper which argues for a discrete world, “Could Infinity Solve the Analog-Digital Dilemma?” by Antonio Leon attempts to illustrate how the whole foundations of mathematics are wrong. An argument on page 5 sets up a flawed argument and then claims a contradiction. Conversely the paper, “There Are No Pea Shooters for Photons” by Marty Green argues for a continuous world based on electrical engineering arguments ---- there are no photon particles. Never mind that Feynman admonished us to think more of the particle than the wave in the quantum picture. David Tong’s paper is curious as well. There are about 6 papers ahead of mine which I find “funny,” where one of them is near to top. I also think some reasonable papers beneath mine have fallen a bit below where they may deserve. I think it most likely that modern physics is not a subject which concerns itself in some “hard” or proven exclusive way with matters which are ontologically external to us. There is this epistemic aspect to modern physics, which involves things like waves, fields and other quantities that are usually modeled as continuous structures. In the case of quantum mechanics the wave is something which can’t have “reality” in a standard sense. The discrete aspects of nature pertain to particles and events, where n-tuples of numbers can be put on a list.

Cheers LC

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 05:30 GMT

Hi Phil,

Just finished reading now. I like how you string all of the interesting concepts together (pun intended). It is remarkable the way some of the Math comes together so nicely. But that fact becomes a lot less remarkable if you take the quantum computing universe scenario seriously.

Since I'd read your paper on Elliptic curves and Hyperdeterminants, the portion which might have been too Math heavy was pretty easy to follow. And I agree; your event symmetric concept closes the loop nicely, to allow a complete symmetry to emerge.

I think perhaps nature exploits decoherence for natural computing, rather than using error correcting codes, but then again if my premise is right nature would use whichever route is more computationally efficient. I guess that's part of what makes dualities like the holographic principle significant too.

If the universe is a quantum computer, it makes sense part of its root function would be to determine the most efficient means to proceed with its task. This essay looks like a winner to me. I'll say more if there is time.

All the Best,

Jonathan

p.s. - I also wish Lawrence a speedy recovery. - jjd

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 20:50 GMT

Phil

On 2nd slower reading I followed your logic, but I couldn't help feeling I hadn't arrived anywhere solid, and couldn't derive the same conclusion as you from the Fermi results, in fact taking that along with other incoming anomalies I'd rather tended to conclude the opposite! Could you explain your logic there?

I do however fully agree that space and time themselves are quantified into discrete units, not just the macro discrete inertial field manifolds I refer to but Planck scale 'stem cell' type quanta, condensed only to implement change of motion (E). This gives a = g. (acceleration = gravity) but as quantised mass.

I'd greatly appreciate your criticism of the logic of my own essay, though again it cannot be scanned but the implications considered at each stage. I believe it proves our failure has been purely in power of logical thought. I've focussed on pure empirical logic but unfortunately few seem to have the power of logical thought to follow it and derive the implications! I hope you can, and can find any logical flaws. You never know, there may even be some stringy interlacing in the PMD and diffraction inside the stem cell (ion)!

I suppose I'm suggesting the reason Eddington let that duck fly past instead of shooting it was because he couldn't see it waddling or hear it quacking!

Best wishes

Peter

PS Was the 'nots' in the last para a typo? or if not do explain!

report post as inappropriate

Author Philip Gibbs replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 10:46 GMT

For the logic behind the conclusions from Fermi I can best direct you to the paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2913

The basic logic is that their observation indicates that the speed of light does not vary with photon energy up to a very high precision, so any theory that predicts such variations at the Plank scale is falsified. Some theories of discrete spacetime would be ruled out. The paper argues that this confirms Lorentz invariance. That is true up to a point but it is a model dependent conclusion.

I'm not sure where you saw the word "nots" but it sounds like a typo.

I will look at your essay soon.

report post as inappropriate

Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 05:15 GMT

Dear Philip,

You write

-"String Theory and its offshoots such as M-Theory are the most advanced theories we have for unification of all the physical forces and matter including gravity. But string theory is not without its problems."-

If in a universe which creates itself, particles have to create themselves, each other, then (the properties of) particles must be as much the product as the source of their interactions. Though the same then holds for the force between particles, to be particles, requires a backbone to their properties so they can absorb and emit energy in a change of their kinetic energy instead of changing their properties continuously, in which case they couldn't have any property at all, have an identity, exist as particles. This 'backbone-requirement' in fact is the reason for the discreteness of particle properties.So within the conditions particles can exist, are stable in, they attract or repulse only as far as needed to conserve their rest energy. This means that though these properties appear to be autonomous, as if they don't depend on any interaction, they only are 'switched on', so to say, when preserving, protecting their rest energy, and, obviously, only for as long as they exist, that is, within the conditions they are stable in. This means that they have no infinite 'bare' mass or charge 'of their own', so forces never become infinite at infinitesimal distances. It is because we assume that particles have passively been created in some mysterious way that we regard their properties to be only the source of their interactions. As such infinity problems are of our own making, they cannot be solved by any theory. What's more, I'm afraid that any such theory only worsens the problem by making the misconceptions it is based upon more respectable. For details see my essay (forum/topic/838).

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 17:22 GMT

Phil

Thanks for the Fermi link. It did what you said in the packet, but only on the basis of as assumption which is not the only one possible. Conceptually, if an inertial frame is represented by a London bus, we could find that both postulates are complied with inside it, and similarly for all buses, but also for the backgrounds they're moving in. The real difference then is, if we have a bus within a bus, the same is true within the smaller bus. The background itself is then local, overcoming the problem of a single 'absolute' field. The windows of the bus do the same transformation (n=1.5) whether glass or plasma. (Thus my earlier reference to Eddington and Ducks). This avoids inequalities by the same token to allow Local Reality.

I agree when you say; "It is a widely held view that spacetime is not fundamental, but instead emerges from a description of interactions between particles that remains somehow free from the constraints of placement in a background spacetime."

Also; "It is possible to imagine a model of reality in which the vacuum emerges from a sea of interacting spacetime atoms, just as a continuous fluid or solid is made of molecules, but in such a picture the discrete atoms would affect the passage of light waves in a way we could detect. Just as we can probe the structure of a crystal using diffraction, we should be able to probe the structure of spacetime using the passage of light or other waves."

The Fermi results wouldn't falsify the London bus approach. No-one has (yet!) falsified the logic, but I'm struggling to get many to take it seriously enough to try. It seems only to resolve empirical issues (identified in the previous papers you know). It only needs Doppler equations, but it still also needs some kind of maths basis developed, which is not my personal bag so needs help.

I do hope you'll be able to perceive the quite testing initial dynamic relationships conceptually, and let me know if there are any problems you can find. I'm kind of getting desperate for someone to find something not based purely on prior beliefs.

In terms of the essay subject, it says the continuum )(or dis-continuum!) is continuous up to the point where change is needed and matter condenses to implement the change, i.e. initially a plasmasphere or fine structure cloud/halo.

Very many thanks. Well done with your own essay, not as obscure as I'd feared.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Philip Gibbs replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 18:31 GMT

Peter, thanks for your nice comments. I agree that the conclusion from the Fermi results makes some assumptions. This is always the case for any experimental observation. All you can really do is falsify any model that would predict variations in light speed that are not observed and thus strengthen belief in the models that are left standing.

It is good to see that your essay is doing very well in the ratings. Good luck for the final round.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 20:24 GMT

Phil

Thanks. I hope you make it to the last 35 too, very interesting microstructure approach, an area I feel bound to get more in vogue soon.

I think mine's doing well as, despite my non classical (meant non non classically) approach, an increasing proportion are now able to upgrade their conceptual dynamic visualisation skills to see how it produces some pretty exciting results.

I look forward to your own views, if you get to read it. But I warn you it's demanding in very different ways. Do look at the logical analysis, thought Gedankens and comments in the strings too.

It it proves correct, it was on viXra first, and may just prove how bad the mainstream publication system is!

Best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 08:13 GMT

"String Theory and its offshoots such as M-Theory are the most advanced theories we have for unification of all the physical forces and matter including gravity. But string theory is not without its problems."

Sophisticated argument.

Requiring many dimensions and utilized for Multiverses and recycled galaxies and universes, string theory and its adaptations make it seem analogue to me. The vast possibilities you speak of grow more vast.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Philip Gibbs replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 12:14 GMT

Most people have a conception of string theory that emphasis's its continuous side, but there is an underlying discretness too.

I remember being at the string conference in 1997 and after the main scientific sessions on the last day there was an evening of public lectures. These can be interesting because they are less mathematical and physicists reveal more about how they see things philosophically and what motivates them.

Two of the lectures were by Ed Witten and Brian Greene who talked of strings and spacetime entirely in continuous terms. The two other talks were by Gerard 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind whose gave a contrasting picture based on discrete string partons and holographic bits of information.

The public audience may have wondered how these speakers could have been talking about the same subject, but of course there is no conflict between these continuous and discrete viewpoints. The mathematics behind them are the compatible.

While the discrete and continuum are both present we should continually ask ourselves if one is more fundamental than the other. In my view the discrete bits are fundamental but they must be seen as quantized qubits. The quantization dresses them with real number amplitudes for states in Hilbert space. This is where the continuous side comes from. Continuous space, time symmetries and world-sheets must all emerge from the algebra of these qubits, turning them into a perfect embodiment of continuous geometry, not merely a discrete approximation to it.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 17:35 GMT

I like to think of strings as discrete according to the vibration modes they support, where the tension in the string is given by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The continuous aspect of the string, say that it is a cord or a loop is such that as it evolves in time it sweeps out an area, which is the string world sheet. This sheet is a continuous space, actually 2-dimensional spacetime. What this continuous aspect of string theory gives us is that when two string interact they define connecting world sheets. The scattering of two closed strings (loops) is a plumbing job of connecting four pipes together at a junction. Now that junction is not a point, which it would be if we had point particles. This vertex for a point particle interaction is not covariant in a spacetime setting, it is an “absolute point” and not a transformable, but the sphere at the junction of 4 string world sheets is. This gives a vertex function, or Veneziano amplitude, that is well behaved.

This permits us to compute the spectrum of the string, and we get this plot between mass and J = spin, sometimes called the Regge trajectory. So this means those vibrational modes correspond to particle states, and these interact nicely by these vertex functions. So string theory is this interplay between continuous and discrete structures.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Philip Gibbs replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 18:42 GMT

Lawrence. What you describe is consistent with my old necklace algebra formulation for string theory. The string can be divided into partons each of which has Fermi like statistics and half spin. The graviton is therefore made of four partons to give it spin two. This is consistent with the four qubit picture of the one loop bosonic string.

However, you can also q-deform the necklace algebra to change the statistics and spin of the partons to be fractional. A continuum limit can be reached by taking the fractions towards zero while keeping the overall spin and statistics for a string finite. In the target space you do not see the fractional statistics because these can't work in more than two dimensions. But on the string worldsheet they make perfect sense.

I hope to revivie that work at some point now that it looks promising again.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 23:20 GMT

Read a reply I gave to Tejinder Singh March 7 on my area:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/810

where Tejinder’s paper is interesting. I talk about what I think is the substructure to string theory. It is similar in a sense to what you mention.

Curiously a long time ago I suggested the idea that strings were “loaded chains.” The example in classical mechanics is a discrete version of the classical string. My idea was that each node had a Lie algebraic action and there were connection terms between the nodes which reflected the phase across this system. I was told the idea was crazy.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Philip Gibbs replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 15:01 GMT

The idea is not crazy. You should try to formulate what it means and we can compare notes.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 19:35 GMT

This idea could come in a number of forms. We might think of the string has having a discrete number of elements, so it is similar to a loaded chain. It might also be that at the Hagedorn temperature that open string link up in a fashion which is similar to a set of interacting nodes or masses. These nodes are similar to particles, so that at the Hagedorn temperature field theory is described by a long chain of strings, where the D_0 branes or endpoints (Chan-Paton factors etc) are “partons” that have flux tubes of fields that connects them together.

Assign φ_i as the field that connects SU(n) and SU(m) (or SO(n) and SO(m)) at the i^{th} side, and ψ_{i,i+1} as the field that attaches SU(m) at the i^{th} node to the SU(n) at the i+1^{th} node. The S matrix is then defined as

S_{i,i+1} = g_s< |φ_iψ_{i,i+1}| >.

A local gauge transition on this matrix is then determined by the SU(m) groups at the vertices of the edge link by g_i^{-1}S_{i,i+1}g_{i+1} and S_{i,i+1} is an mxm matrix of bosons. These bosons are then “link variables” for the chain. When the gauge coupling g_s becomes large there is a confinement process that defines a mass, and by necessity breaks any chiral symmetry. We set the renormalization cut offs for confinement by the two groups defined as Λ_n and Λ_m, where free fermions and their gauge bosons (e.g. quarks and gluons) are free from confinement for E >> Λ_n, Λ_m. Under this situation where the strength of the SU(n) is small the differential of the scattering matrix in a nonlinear σ-model is,

D_μS_{i,i+1} = ∂_μS_{i,i+1} - ig_sA_{μi}S_{i,i+1} + igS_{i,i+1}A_{μi+1},

and the effective Lagrangian for the field theory is then of the form

L_{eff} = -(1/2g^2)sum_i F^a_{μνi}{F^{aμν}}_i + g_s^2 sum_i Tr|D_μS_{i,i+1}|^2.

This is the Lagrangian for a five dimensional SU(m) theory, where the additional dimension has been placed on the N-polygon. The last term in the Lagrangian determines a mass Lagrangian of the form

L_{mass} ~ g_s^2 sum_i(A_i - A_{i+1})^2

This mass matrix then connects this with the loaded string or loaded chain.

The theory is simplified of course when the n = m and the interlinking group is the same as the group at the nodes. This might then prove to be interesting in the context of the BFSS theory where there are D_0 brane interacting by SO(9) in the infinite momentum gauge. The SO(9) is an interesting group, for it shares with the SO(8) subgroup status in the F_4 heterotic group. The SO(8), which is the 3 and 4-qubit group (or the split SO(4,4)) for the SLOCC. The exact nature of this relationship I as yet do not understand well enough to construct qubits from.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Philip Gibbs replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 15:35 GMT

That's nice. When I do it I start one level up the quantization ladder, so instead of having amplitudes on sites and links round the string I have amplitudes for the whole configuration of the string. So the field variables look like

$\phi_{ijkl...n}$

and you can have any number of indices. The amplitutdes are commuting if the number of indices is even and anti-commuting if they are odd. There are cyclic/anticyclic rules

$\phi_{ijk} = \phi{jki}$ etc.

With these amplitutudes you try to build a super lie algebra and surprisingly it turns out to exist in an elegant form.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 20:28 GMT

In effect the S matrix produces essentially this state as

|k_1,k_2,…,k_n> = S(φ_1ψ_{1,2}φ_2ψ_{2,3}, …, φ_{n-1}ψ_{n-1,n}|p_1,p_2,…,p_n>

The state vector |k_1,k_2,…,k_n> is the set of entries determined by the application of a field φ(k_1,k_2,…k_n) on a Fock basis element. The fields φ_a, where I drop the two indicial notation define a boson vertex operator ∂X^μφ^a exp(ikx), where the string term ∂X^μ ~ ψk^μ. The field has a superconformal weight (0, 1/2) and defines the current G_{-1/2}φ_a = j^a. This field and the current obey the standard operator product expansions. The ordering of these elements which make up the S matrix, or equivalently define the state φ_{ij...k} is then dictated by the superconformal algebra and the graded Lie algebra.

I think in a way this discrete approach leads to much the same construction you indicate. The difference might be a difference in perspective with “quantization,” but I think it leads potentially to the same or a similar result.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Shawn Halayka wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 14:12 GMT

Haha Phil. What, wait?? This is MY essay! ... well not really. ;)

I'm sure that you-know-who will verify that I asked him every possible stupid question about these very same fundamental topics covered in your essay, and that I got nowhere fast. Where you took the topics is just awesome. I'm so glad I didn't even bother. :)

- Shawn Halayka

report post as inappropriate

Author Philip Gibbs replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 15:54 GMT

I would like to have seen your essay. You should try it next time.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Nov. 4, 2012 @ 21:21 GMT

Hi Phil,

I sincerely regret taking you-know-who's opinion at face value for every question that I had: Anyone who sees a quacking, walking bird and says "I'd bet against the chance that this is a duck because it's clearly not prepared a la orange" has been pampered far too much for their own good.

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Author Philip Gibbs wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 08:18 GMT

There is a podcast available of the 11th Asimov Memorial Debate at http://www.amnh.org/news/tag/isaac-asimov-memorial-debate/ The debate returned to the topic of the first meeting ten years ago to discuss whether string theory is still a viable "Theory of Everything" (This controversial phrase should be read as a "Theory that encompasses everything in physics", not a "Theory that solves everything" which is of course impossible)

The debate was lively and well balanced and worth listening to. Of particular interest here were the comments of Jim Gates who mentioned the idea that information theory is at the heart of string theory. Those who have read my essay will see the connection with Gate's mention of the appearance of error correcting codes in M-theory. One technical article is at http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0051

I was not aware of Gate's part in the research before. It would have made a good reference to add to the essay if I'd known sooner.

In my opinion these ideas build on the observations of Mike Duff and his coworkers about connections between string theory and qubits. This is gaining wider recognition and could be the first hints of a new string theory revolution, but we are still waiting for the main breakthrough that will explain what is behind it.

I wonder if the 21st Asimov debate in ten years time will look back at string theory again with positive answers to some of the questions.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 22:44 GMT

That is a nice overview of the state of things these days. Thanks

LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 15:56 GMT

Wonderful, Phil. String theory coupled to information theory is the thrust of my own research as well, and I am anticipating with you some exciting new developments. Thanks.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 15:08 GMT

Hi Phil,

Saving the best for last, I suspected in advance that you would turn out a superior essay, and I was not disappointed. There are too many good technical points to review in this brief format, so just a couple in particular:

Your explanation of "complete symmetry" is right on. A similar line of reasoning led me to the conclusion, accompanied by a precise numerical model, that the 4 dimension horizon is identical to the 10 dimension limit. (My essay entry doesn't get into the technical; I chose to survey the broad subject of discrete vs. continuous instead.)

I noticed Ervin Goldfain's objection that quantum gravity assumes classical gravity can be quantized. On the contrary, your approach, mine and several others assume that quantum gravity can be classicalized.

I hope you get a chance to read my essay, too.

Excellent work, thanks.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 15:12 GMT

Point of clarification -- the link is a 2008 preprint, not my essay.

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 19:06 GMT

Hi Philip,

As promised on viXra I read your essay this evening, first of all it was very readable to me exept for the pages 3 and 4, formula's are not my favorit sorry although I can understand the beauty of them especially in String theory, perhaps that is the reason that I am not a fan of it (but I respect every possible theory)

As in my essay you also treat the ultimate Planck scale, where we have no more possibillities for measuring/observing, this is the area where your essay and mine take different roads.

You pose that spacetime (even an inescapable conclusion) after the Planck scale is smooth and continuous, for me we enter in the fifth dimension where time and space are no longer causal and deterministic, all possible quanta of all possible universes meet there, perhaps this is a continuum, this is not an inescapable conclusion but just one of the many explications)

The future quantum computer that you compare with the structure of our universe is good thinking but we have to treat the "construction" of this "machine" in a whole new way, each qubit has in principle an infinity superposition ofof possibillities as indicated in the Bloch sphere, this infinite choice gives an infinite source of answers, so ... perhaps we can then create a new form of consciousness (new C-Field ?)

I feel there is a lot of things we have in common Philip , but also a lot of data that we interprete in a different way, I would appreciate if you could take some time to read my essay and you know it is the tension that creates the current and so lights the lamp.

Good luck with the contest and best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 06:52 GMT

Dear Philip Gibbs,

Thanks for your indepth knowledge of string and quantum-information physics.But in the end you are not sure why the reality is both digital and analog.According to me there is a way and on the basis of which we can explain why reality is both digital and analog.To know this,please, go thro' my essay and make comments.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate

Author Philip Gibbs wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 10:34 GMT

Thamas, Wilhelmus, Sreenath, thanks for your comments. i have already read your essays before and am now looking over them one last time. Good luck!

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 10:43 GMT

Phil

Thanks for your note. Glad you read mine. I didn't want to mix the conceptual with this at this stage, but, considering yours, is it possible you could look at mine in terms of a Q-net (as a fibre optic) and quantum registers QUBITS 'lumped' together - "wanderland", or right down to individiual bits ('balls S^3')

I believe SR and LT link to this picture via QC=SR, "2+2=1+3" (Hermitean picture or Klein correspondence).

If you're impressed with that don't credit me, you should read Lucian Ionescue's essay, that's been a bit overlooked and should be way up the list. I only saw it yesterday!

Let me know if that computes. You should spot that it is actually paradigm shifting! Great to see you on a late charge.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 11:02 GMT

Dear Philip,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 12:23 GMT

Gentlemens

I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

http://
bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

Yuri Danoyan

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 18:42 GMT

New Measurement of the Earth’s Absolute Velocity with the Help

of the “Coupled Shutters” Experiment

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-

05.PDF

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray wrote on Jun. 5, 2011 @ 23:02 GMT

Dear Phil,

Congratulations on being among the contest winners! I thought you deserved better than a Fourth Prize (at least you won something - most of my friends were left out again), but lets face it - too many don't believe in or understand string theory well enough to understand the significance of qubits of strings.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 08:44 GMT

Congratulations for your win Phil. I hope this encourages you in your research, and also in keeping viXra.org alive!

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Aug. 11, 2011 @ 14:05 GMT

Dear Phil,

If we analyze our selves, we will realize that we are the quantum computers.

Birth is a white hole

Dreams are worm holes

Death is a black hole

Strings are made of our imagination

Our thoughts are qubits

Emotions are entanglement

I am superpositioned by my self to be me

Love is the absolute force

Singularity or soul or conscience or universal I or god is the operator that runs us all.

I is the absolute truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate