CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]
TOPIC:
A Universe Programmed with Strings of Qubits by Philip Gibbs
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Philip Gibbs wrote on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 12:05 GMT
Essay AbstractIt 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 BioPhilip 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
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...
view entire post
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
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
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”...
view entire post
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...
view entire post
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
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 11:57 GMT
Hi dear Philip,
I just say my opinion.A critic can be constructive.
I recognize that said a real searcher.And I congratulate you for your essay.
Indeed the roads are different,but universality is universality.
Happy new year also.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
etc.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 12:53 GMT
About half the time the little preview feature does not work, so I can't check these. So if I use the TeX feature there is about a 1/3 chance that the final product will look like crap. That is a problem with these HTML TeX interfaces. So for simple equations using unicode seems easier.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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...
view entire post
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
Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 22:08 GMT
I don't find any of the other examples you give as convincing. Obviously not everyone is persuaded by these mathematical arguments, we don't all follow the same ideas.
I don't expect any effect of black holes or holography to show up at currently accessible energy scales.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 22:45 GMT
Dear Phil,
Your essay is interesting, and your comments even more so. You clearly state that the paper is speculative, and your comments are very open minded.
You state above that "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 my paper I remark that "potentials derive from 'point particles' and from the fact that scattering data fixes the strength and range of the nucleon potential, but not its shape. As a result:
The Lagrangian formulation provides a convenient technique for inventing new types of fields and investigating their properties.
The mathematical invention of fields offers no guarantee the fields physically exist. But it does allow the invention of Higgs, axions, dilatons, inflatons, anyons, instantons, WIMPs , sphalerons, gluons, and SUSY particles. None of these have ever been seen.
Because academic physics employs this Lagrangian approach to invent new 'fields', it is not really surprising that "all these remarkable theories" end up looking the same. It's less coincidence than a foregone conclusion. And the common characteristic seems to be that all address a relatively minute problem and ignore most of the rest of the universe. For a different approach that addresses current problems of physics I invite you read my essay. In particular, I invite your attention to a very specific set of problems I list that seem to offer a 'testing ground' for any theory of particle physics.
I also commented that a Phys Rev Lett paper I received yesterday implies that the C-field is responsible for recent measurements that show a difference from general relativity predictions. By submitting early, I missed the opportunity to incorporate this info in my essay, but it is relevant.
Thanks for your fascinating comments here.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Ervin Goldfain replied on Jan. 2, 2011 @ 00:05 GMT
Phil,
With all due respect, I am confused by your arguments. Your reply reads:
"I don't find any of the other examples you give as convincing. Obviously not everyone is persuaded by these mathematical arguments, we don't all follow the same ideas."
Are you implying that beauty and logical completeness of a mathematical theory ought to be enough to secure validity of that theory and replace experimental falsification?
"I don't expect any effect of black holes or holography to show up at currently accessible energy scales."
But if this is the case and holography is out of reach, how can one be convinced that AdS/CFT makes contact to reality?
report post as inappropriate
Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 2, 2011 @ 16:47 GMT
Ervin, I don't think it "ought" to come out that way, but I think it might. Do you think it couldn't?
The AdS/CFT correspondence only works for supersymmetric theory. For non-supersymmetric QCD it may be an approximation but I doubt it would lead to anything other than qualitative results.
Verifying the holographic principle by direct observation may never be possible, just as we may never be able to detect Hawking radiation from a black hole. These things might be forever theories which are necessary to accept for consistency. I am not saying this has to be the case. There are other ways things could pan out.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 2, 2011 @ 19:52 GMT
The general thinking is that above the symmetry recovery energy, where the Higgs condensate produces particles, physics should exhibit conformal scaling up to the string length. So in a nutshell the physics we observe at the 10 TeV range should then be generically similar to physics up to the string length scale. Further, since the amplitudes scale logarithmically with the energy |A|^2 = probability ~ g^2/4πlog(Λ/E), for Λ = cutoff in scale ~ string tension, the departures at our modest LHC energy are not terribly significant from much higher energy.
Of course nature could pull little tricks on us, where things radically change at some energy between E_s and E_{LHC}. It is my hope that further into this century we become good enough at cosmic ray physics to look at least approximately at 10^3TeV energy particle physics. Yet still nature could have some unobservable change at the 10^{10}TeV scale or so. In that case we are fooling ourselves. Yet if that happens though there might be some signatures of this at the energy scale we can probe.
In this way we may get indirect measurements of physics involving the holographic principle and Hawking radiation. The recent observation of the fluid-like properties of quark-gluon plasmas is being investigated as a “soft black hole” physics of Hawking radiation. It could also provide signatures for how gluon chains are equivalent to the graviton.
The one sad fact of life is that our power to measure and observe nature at these most extreme scales is rather indirect or “oblique.” Lawrence Krauss mentioned something similar to this last year or back in 2008 with the lament that this could sign the ultimate end to the foundations of physics or cosmology. Yet, there is plenty of wiggle room to work within for now. Not only that, science is not so much about coming to know everything, but knowing about something relatively well.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 2, 2011 @ 21:43 GMT
In 2006, I predicted the perfect fluid based on my C-field theory. It is beyond me why most physicists would rather speculate on unseen entities based on unreal mathematics instead of examining real fields with real Yang-Mills non-linearities that account for most of the real mysteries of current physics, while not requiring any new particles. I suspect it has to do with both education/brainwashing and with the remark made below that "[one] wonders if theories get shot down for contradicting some minor tenet of a rival theory, and not for contradicting its own premises or experimental results?"
I am also puzzled that so many focus on speculative physics while literally ignoring known facts that are clearly telling us real non-speculative physics. There is clearly as much psychology as physics at play here.
As for science being "not so much about coming to know everything, but knowing about something relatively well" that may be a technologist's perspective but it is certainly not that of all physicists.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
nikman replied on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 05:50 GMT
"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."
Those would be resource-intensive problems that classical computers could in theory solve also but not efficiently. So I believe you're right. The consensus is that a quantum computer is (or would be) a seriously souped-up classical computer. The fact that NP is in PSPACE means (I think) that individual NP problems are "solvable" by brute force iteration, oracular relativization, magic coins, processes that can yield recognizable solutions but not specific compressed information in the sense of algorithms that you can apply to the next problems you confront, much less use to reverse engineer the universe. The fact that P is in NP is trivial, one is told, but surely nothing is more interesting or important or nontrivial than whether or not NP might be P. If that's the case then all information is (or ought to be) compressible. We WOULD be almost like gods. (Aaronson's point there is that he doesn't believe it'll happen ... that's the NP-hardness assumption. Which frankly seems only reasonable.)
Of course the P/NP problem has a precise mathematical formulation and could only be resolved mathematically. Some math that would be. But that doesn't mean it carries no ontological implications. Gödel inferentially touched on that in his letter to von Neumann in the 1950's (unearthed in the 90's after the problem had already been stated). It's worth reading, and Gödel explicitly notes the Entscheidungsproblem:
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/the-gdel-
letter/
report post as inappropriate
nikman replied on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 05:57 GMT
Most readers could probably spot the space, but:
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/the-gdel-letter/
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 15:44 GMT
I have to confess that I am no expert on these matters. I honestly have what might be called an introductory knowledge. To clarify things a bit the bounded quantum polynomial (BQP) algorithms a quantum computer can solve contain P-problems and BPQ is contained in NP, but probably not NP-complete = NP ∩ NP-hard.
I tend to think that P != NP. The reason is that an NP problem will run for a finite time, though it could be enormously large, and if P = NP it would seem to imply that there exists a P-Turing machine which could access the problem and determine the space/time bound of the problem in P. The only way I think this could be done is if there is an oracle input which feeds the solution to the P-TM.
The P = NP problem is important for physics, but it may not be crucial. The reason is that one can largely capture the important elements of physics in ways similar to coarse graining. Statistical mechanics involves a measure over Ω, S = log(Ω). The course graining invokes a “log” which washes out the intractable problem of computing every microstate.
Again I am rather inexperienced with algorithmic complexity theory. So these musings are at best proximal to the subject.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
nikman replied on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 19:53 GMT
P in all likelihood does not equal NP. P=NP implies a universe radically different from the one we know. Aaronson has several excellent arguments, independent of mathematics, for the NP-hardness assumption. One is Darwinian. If P=NP why the hell didn't we evolve to take advantage of it? As things stand we're essentially ginned-up savanna apes staring around at the horizon hoping to see something we can maybe run fast enough to catch.
I'll simply cut to what I see as the real chase, which is the physical description of the fundamental life process itself. That's physics too. It seems ridiculous to talk about decoding or retro-engineering the universe when we can't even algorithmize (physically model) protein folding. The reason we can't has entirely to do with what in computational complexity theory is called its location in NP. Another way of putting it is that our minds are what they are and that simply may not be good enough. But we do need to play games to stay sane, so laissez les bons temps rouler.
report post as inappropriate
Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 22:03 GMT
It's an interesting thought that "decoding the universe" might be a NP-hard problem that we just can't solve. You might be right of course, but I would say two things.
Firstly, assuming we just need to find the right vacuum of string theory, the size of the problem is 500 digits so it might be comparable to factoring a 500 digit number. We can factorise a 232 digit number now. Perhaps a better algorithm would take us up to 500 digits one day or quantum computer might be able to do it.
Secondly it might not be a problem like that at all. It may be more like decoding the human genome which just required the right empirical data to make the process doable, even though the genome is described by a gigabyte of data. Decoding the universe may just be an experimental problem requiring knowledge of particle physics near or above the GUT scale.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 00:43 GMT
Back in the late 1990s I read an article about ant colonies. The author pointed out how ants form pheromone trails which solve NP complete problems. The thing these guys have going for them is large numbers. In effect they form a huge statistical sample space of trails and the minimal paths are the ones which get used the most. The analogue to this is the planning of campuses that start out by letting people walk where they want and then later pave the beaten paths. In physics some theories have similar flavors, such as Maldacena’s AdS~CFT which applies for “large N.” In a funny sense while these are NP hard they are also complete problems so checking solutions is P. The application of large numbers, ants, people or quantum modes, gives the statistics which converge to the proper solution.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
nikman replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 01:29 GMT
We solve comparatively simple NP problems all the time. A sodoku or crossword or jigsaw puzzle are NP problems. Assisted by unquantifiable intuition, induction, creative insight you iterate your way to a solution which, when achieved, can be recognized almost instantly. Negotiating your way through a traffic jam is an NP problem. Sherlock Holmes was pretty adept at solving NP problems. But each case required him to start from scratch. These problems and their solutions are one-offs. You can't compress them algorithmically. You can come up with certain basic strategies which may work for subsequent problems, but strategies aren't solutions and sometimes they don't apply anyway.
The basic genome isn't where it's entirely at nowadays, Craig Venter notwithstanding. The frontier is epigenomics, how specific genes interact in aggregate, often extremely complexly. In some senses the process appears to resemble multiple entanglement where the information is distributed among the quanta. What's junk DNA for, if anything? And so on. And where do these processes devolve from in the first place if they don't emerge from the fundamental physics of the universe? Wouldn't a valid fundamental theory need to comprehend them?
Concerns like that.
report post as inappropriate
nikman replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 01:39 GMT
A sodoku or crossword or jigsaw puzzle "is an NP problem" not "are NP problems" of course, sorry.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 03:25 GMT
I accidently pasted my response to this in the bottom text box.
LC
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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 10
500 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
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 17:53 GMT
HIHI a Theory of Theories.you say dear scientists I have an idea,wait ..I know Let's name it"THE THEORY"
Here is its real name ...THE THEORY OF SPHERIZATION A GUT OF SPINNING SPHERES....EUREKA also of course .
FROM BELGIUM
A simple gauge quantum spheres....cosmological spheres ....UNIVERSAL SPHERE.
I make a little pub for my little theory of evolution.
and of course a string is divisible,a sphere no!!!!
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 22:01 GMT
Lawrence,
You state: "Relativistic QFT of interacting fields describes the creation of particles with some mass gap, which Bohm's approach is not able to work with."
A somewhat related question: A dozen years ago it was realized that the vacuum energy was off by 120 orders of magnitude. Do you believe that all relevant QED calculations (since 1947, or so) have been recomputed to take this into account? Have all 'virtual particle' assumptions been re-questioned? Only a year or so ago physicists were expecting a 'sea of strange particles' in the proton. It's not there. And 3 years ago the expectation of QCD was for a 'gas' when nuclei collide. They found a 'perfect fluid' as I predicted.
Second, for about six months we've known that QED only comes within 4% of the proton radius in muonic hydrogen. Do you have an opinion as to the cause of this?
Third, if, as I believe, the gravito-magnetic field is 10**31 orders of magnitude greater than Maxwell et al believed, then the relative changes between QED and GEM involve 151 orders of magnitude, in favor of GEM as a physically reasonable factor in the universe. Should this be ignored? At what point does one decide to look in new directions?
Finally, my 'pilot wave' is not the same as Bohm's approach. He was not basing it on a very specific 'real' field, like gravito-magnetism, but on a more general 'quantum' field. So the fact that "Bohm's QM has not managed to reduce nonlocal hidden variables to something which is local" may not be entirely relevant to my approach.
Thanks for your consideration.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 16:00 GMT
I can’t comment upon the muonic atom result which got the radius of the proton adjusted. I will offer my suggestion that the large muon has a small orbit and these results reflect the interaction of the muon with the proton. So the perturbation may be reflected by this result. To ferret out the problem requires some very complicated QED calculations with a quark or parton model of the proton.
The fluid properties of the quark-gluon plasma is interpreted as an AdS_4 ~ QCD result. In effect the quark gluon has properties of a BTZ black hole in the anti de Sitter spacetime. There is then some parameter that depends on energy, so that at low energy the quark gluon plasma has properties of a black hole with very weak gravity, but as the energy is scaled up the QCD plasma becomes a real black hole with strong gravity. Nastase and others have written on this.
The value of the cosmological constant means there is some field flux across the Dp-brane of the cosmology that counters the vacuum energy. The AdS has negative Gaussian curvature, which counters the Ricci curvature on the S^5. In the AdS_5xS^5 the boundary of AdS_5 = ∂AdS_5 ~ CFT_4. The AdS_5 has negative Gaussian curvature, which is from a 5-form which has a positive curvature on the S^5. On the boundary the gravitational curvature is zero. So problem involves the incidence of these curvature fluxes on the Dp-branes in the presence of these spaces.
My understanding is that since Bohm QM does not involve Hilbert space, the whole thing lives in configuration space, it is difficult to model the production of particles. One can well enough derive a Bohm version of the Klein-Gordon equation, or the Dirac equation, and even the Maxwell equations. The problem comes when you couple them together. It is difficult to describe the generation of photons, which are massless, and from what I know up to now it is not possible to describe the pair production of particles with some mass --- such as e-e^+ pairs.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 19:38 GMT
Lawrence,
I interpreted your earlier comment following my question as the answer to my question. Thanks for the more direct answer. I generally understand your answer. You and I have a different focus. Believing in 10**500 universes must make it easy not to sweat the details. I believe in only one universe, generally described in my essays, and the real details, especially anomalies, are where I think effort should be expended, but that's what makes horse races. You pays yer money, and you takes yer choice.
I am curious as whether the failure of the Higgs, SUSY particles, or any other conjectured particles to show up will give you pause, or whether the 10**500 vacua remove all such cares.
Finally, I don't know about Bohm's problems, but my theory seems to handle both photons and particle pair creation. I also suggest that if an alternate means of explaining the weak force mechanism and the strong force interactions between quarks, based on the Yang-Mills GEM fields, were to be true, then all justification for more than 4 dimensions would vanish, and a Calabi-Yau manifold would reduce to a torus. I base this on the 151 orders of magnitude change in the QED-GEM energies as well as the existence of physically reasonable, if not mathematically fully developed mechanisms that seem to provide all known particles with no need for Higgs, SUSY, or more than 4 dimensions, while also explaining physically many, if not most, of today's anomalies and mysteries. Of course I would like to have full mathematical backup for these arguments, but it is difficult, in five years, to compete with over a century of math developed by many thousands of bright guys. Yet the 4% accuracy of QED and QCD on 'simple' problems should worry anyone.
Thanks for your response. Probably neither of us will be moving into the others camp.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 03:22 GMT
The LHC is still in its teething phase. There are some signatures of SUSY already. The Higgs will prove to be difficult to detect. Its signature is comparable to other fields. It is not expected to be observed until 2013, though some results from the Tevatron are favouring a SUSY Higgs sector. Some evidence of the 2-doublet Higgs sector in MSSM has been found.
The issue with the 10^{500} vacua does involve the Calabi-Yau space, which in the trivial case is a T^6 = T^2xT^2xT^2. There are entangled states associated with groups of the T^2’s which correspond to the presence of a Dp-brane. The problem is that the T^6 is sort of the ground state of Calabi Yau spaces. The introduction of singular points which transform between each other in conifold extends this to a more general set of CY manifolds. This leads to this landscape issue of 10^{500} vacua.
The question about one universe vs many comes down to the classical measure for each of these cosmologies. A large cosmological constant would correspond to a nucleation bubble that inflates rapidly and correspond to paths in the grand path integral with wildly oscillating phases. These contribute little to a classical amplitude, or any decoherent set of paths which have some WKB or classical-like content. A low cosmological constant is a small vacuum energy leve and is more likely to define some coherent set of “histories.” The idea of there being some extremal condition on complexity is what I would call a condition for a decoherent history that has a classical-like content. Whether there is ultimately one of these or not is unknown. As such this would mean the grand path integral in the superspace consists of a much smaller number of cosmologies which are classical or are proximal to what we call “reality.” The rest of these cosmologies are then quantum corrections.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 21:40 GMT
Lawrence,
Thanks for your explanation. I note the Higgs is now expected in 2013. Just two years ago it was expected (by Peter Higgs) in 2009, and about 2 decades before that by Leon Lederman in the 1980's. It's always "real soon now". Because my theory works so well in explaining known anomalies of experimental physics, and because the Higgs would put my theory out to pasture, I do not believe the Higgs is going to show. We'll have to wait and see. SUSY is another story. I'm not sure that SUSY would wipe me out, but it wouldn't make me happy. I've heard so many rumors in the last year, not just SUSY but dark matter, etc, that seem to blow over, I will again just have to wait and see. You must admit, it's been a really long dry spell in particle physics, which is consistent with my theory -- not sure what it means for other theories. It could be just the obvious problem of not yet reaching the right energy.
If I am correct, then, as I said, Calabi-Yau reduces to a torus in 4-space, which fits my ideas. If I'm wrong, I'll probably just get out of the game. It's too much effort working out details of new theories from particles to cosmology, and I'm already too old to be doing so, according to standard physics mythology.
By the way, just because I believe you are wrong does not mean that I do not very much admire your level of skill, math knowledge, and erudition. You are quite impressive.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 15:15 GMT
Dear Philip,
In your essay, you mention a 4 qubit model. Would an 8 qubit model contain all of Lisi's ideas? I think that Lisi's specific model is wrong (because he included fermions and bosons in the same lattice, rather than in reciprocal lattices), but the idea of a quantum crystal (Gosset lattice in Lisi's E8 model) of information yielding the various particle states is an interesting, and potentially fruitful, approach. As always, the Genius is in the Generalities, but the Devil is in the Details...
Dear Ed (aka Dr. Gene-man),
I expect a TOE to be much grander than all of these "minimal TOE's". As such, your ideas on a classical magnetic-like gravitational field could be one component of the ultimate TOE. As I understand your ideas, your "C" field is a classical field that produces a triality (using Lisi's terminology). Is this a triality of Generations (that the Standard Model desperately needs to explain the CKM and PMNS matrices, IMHO), or a triality of Color, or are the two related via an AdS/QCD correspondence (I think that Lawrence has some ideas along this direction)? Whereas you are focusing on the classical continuous field side of this "C" field, I'm wondering about the quantum discrete particle side of the problem - i.e. the gravitational version of the "magnetic monopole".
You aren't too old to play this game. You and Tom Ray are about the same age, and Lawrence and I are about 10-15 years younger.
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
Ray, the E8 group can be represented by a quadripartite entanglement of 8 qubits. The model presented here is based on bosonic string theory which cannot be used to build a physical theory due to tachyon instabilities, so it is necessary to generalise the idea to superstring theories such as the heterotic string with its E8xE8 gauge group. A more complicated qubit arrangement might be needed to make that work.
However, none of the uses of E8 in string theory and M-theory really match up to the unification idea that Lisi is pursuing as far as I know. I am not aware of any scheme for making the gravitational groups from string theory embed in the E8 group in the way Lisi does it. So in order to make some connection with the Lisi theory the E8 group would have to arise in a different way. In my opinion the use of E8 is too different for the theories to be able to match up. I think Lisi has always seen his theory as an alternative to string theory so I don't imagine he will be disappointed!
Of course your suggested variations may bring them closer.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 17:16 GMT
Dear Philip,
Lisi thinks he is working against String Theory - I think it is all related (as I will present in my upcoming Continuous vs. Discrete Essay). I agree that any E8 model (if it really is E8 and not a crystalized perversion of SU(11)) must minimally be a SUSY E8xE8* because fermions and bosons cannot exist in identical lattices (they must reside in dual and/or reciprocal lattices of one another). IMHO, Lisi should not have had bosons in the E8 that he presented - those extra states should have been tachyons.
What if Hyperspace is a quadripartite entanglement of 8 qubits, and Spacetime is an entangled 4 qubit?
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 21:51 GMT
Edwin,
The Higgs field is really an application of the Landau-Ginsburg potential to particle physics. As such an array of physics follows this type of thing, from the Curie point for ferromagnetism to superconductivity. The breaking of the standard model is then similar to the breaking of the QED field at low temperature in superconductivity. I tend to think that nature has a general repeating pattern whereby a generic law can manifest itself in an array of circumstances. AdS~CFT is showing up in solid state physics, so it too appears to have some universality to it. So my bet is with the Higgs field.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 01:30 GMT
Edwin,
I forgot to say what my take on the history of projections of the Higgs discovery. In the early days people had no clear idea of what the mass of the Higgs was. It was thought it should have a mass of 80-90 GeV of the Z and W, which means the Higgs particle might have been detectable by the tevatron. The mass is expected to be around 115-150 GeV, but it is neutral and for various ways it will be hard to detect. You need to get collision energy up to at least 10 times its mass to get any signal. Also the luminosity of the LHC is less than the 10^33/cm2/sec benchmark. The LHC will close down in 2012 for upgrades which should increase luminosity and push the energy up to the 14TeV limit. We might get signals of the Higgs this year, but 2013 is when the rubber hits the road.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 04:08 GMT
Lawrence,
Thanks for the extended comments. My personal bet is that there'll be a new excuse in 2013, pushing it out to 2016, but that's just cynical old me. I spent enough time working for the government to know how programs are managed. But the key fact is simply that, in my theory Higgs aren't needed and hence don't exist. You might ask yourself, if the gravito-magnetic field measured...
view entire post
Lawrence,
Thanks for the extended comments. My personal bet is that there'll be a new excuse in 2013, pushing it out to 2016, but that's just cynical old me. I spent enough time working for the government to know how programs are managed. But the key fact is simply that, in my theory Higgs aren't needed and hence don't exist. You might ask yourself, if the gravito-magnetic field measured by Tajmar and independently calculated by me, based on reasonable assumptions, is actually 10**31 times stronger, while QED's vacuum energy is 10**120 weaker, could this 151 orders of magnitude shift in the basic energies of the universe have any effect? If you conclude that real change of 151 orders of magnitude in relative field strengths is unlikely to be physically meaningful, I'd kinda like to know what you base that on.
Ray,
Good to hear from you. I consider the only TOE that counts to be one that explains all known particle physics, including real anomalies, and is up-to-date on cosmological discoveries. If it does this, I don't consider it 'minimal'. In fact, I believe that the simpler the theory, the better. I also believe that math and the human imagination can invent untold 'schemes', most of which can never be tested--for energy reasons if for no other--but that the 'grandeur' of these schemes is in the eye of the beholder. Until real anomalies are addressed, and real problems of QED and QCD accuracy are solved, I consider mathematical schemes that have no testable predictions or falsifiable conclusions, to be math, not physics. As I've said elsewhere, "nothin wrong with that", but I'm most interested in known physics, not imagined physics.
I suspect that the FQXi essay contest three years from now may be addressed to "Why nothing new from the LHC?". Whatever the results, there'll be enough egg on faces to go around.
You graciously asked about the 'triality' implied by the C-field. The C-field 'color triality' satisfies the original 'symmetry' problem of the wave function being symmetric under exchange of two quarks, in violation of the Pauli exclusion principle, the original reason that QCD 'color' was invented, while also explaining both asymptotic freedom and quark confinement and jets, as well as the "famous QCD factor-of-3". In addition the C-field does explain the 'generations triality' of three particle generations. This has some significance for the CKM matrix, but I don't claim to have derived CKM from the C-field. Still workin' on it.
I believe that the magnetic monopole is tied up with the 'duality' of the source free electromagnetic field. I do not believe that the analogous gravito-electro-magnetic (GEM) duality exists [this is reflected in my modifications of the GEM equations to include 'curl G =0', ie, gravity is irrotational. This has implications for gravity waves, and also, I believe, implies no analogous 'monopole'.
I'm looking forward to your essay, and glad to see you back online.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 13:50 GMT
Edwin,
Tajmar’s paper references Podkletnov, where his idea of superconducting shields of gravity are not taken seriously by most in the physics community. This paper involves a measurement that is interpreted as a gravi-magnetic field, which differs from the Lense-Thirring or frame dragging effect, a GR analogue of magnetism.
Your paper also references Sweetser’s GEM theory, where he states that spacetime curvature and electromagnetic fields can be interchanged or are equivalent in various ways. There are some fundamental reasons why this simply can’t work. Intertwining internal and external symmetries in this way gives serious violations. This has been known since the early 1970s. I encountered Sweetser on the Physics Forum, where he has an extensive site on GEM. He seemed to constantly be fixing problems with this, and he still is at it the last I checked. As near as I can see GEM appears to be a potpourri of mathematical nonsense. The idea on the surface seems clever, but a deeper understanding of things reveals why this sort of thing simply can’t work.
A deep understanding of things and an hour of thought can save one months or years of toil.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear Lawrence and Ed,
I thought that Podkletnov (and independently Chiao - which is why I suggested that Jason Wolfe should talk to Raymond Chiao) were trying to convert photons into gravitons. IMHO, this is NOT GEM (which should behave like a "rotational gravity" and only involves EM as an analogy), but rather is a potential affirmation of my ideas involving Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (QSGUT) and the Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) boson [please see my latest paper in Prespacetime vol.1, no.9 and my book).
Dear Ed,
I think I understand your denial of the magnetic monopole. If "light" is a quasiparticle involving the union of wave (continuous EM Field) and particle (discrete photon and/or magnetic monopole and/or Z and W) properties, then these characteristics may be so intertwined that we don't directly see the magnetic monopole. Nonetheless, I think it is appropriate to account for these degrees of freedom. If the gravi-magnetic monopole degree of freedom is absorbed into something else, then we need to understand what that something else is.
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 18:59 GMT
In either case with GEM or with Podkletnov there are these ideas about intertwining gravity and EM in funny ways. From what I know Podkletnov’s physics has not measured up to any serious test.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear Friends,
I think that Chiao and Podkletnov are doing similar things in that they are using electromagntic fields and charges on superconducting materials to try to generate gravity. The idea goes back to DeWitt's idea that a spinning electron might couple to spacetime curvature. Chiao is using interferometer techniques that might be more accurate than Podkletnov's. In my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory, photons and gravitons are different quantum occupation states of the Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) boson. The question then arises "How does a GUM boson transition from photon-like properties to graviton-like properties?"
From what I have read of Ed's ideas, I really thought that GEM was a rotational gravitational effect. And though this concept might couple to generational effects and/or QCD, I don't think it is directly coupled with Electromagnetism, but magnetism is a great analogy.
Should we move these conversations to Ed's site?
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 20:21 GMT
Ray,
I suppose this discussion probably more belongs in Ed’s area. I am not much of a partisan of these ideas. For a number of reasons I think they can’t work.
The graviton in the AdS_7 is equivalent to a gluon chain on the boundary ∂AdS_7. This is the case in 10 dimensions where the boundary is a six dimensional spacetime which holds a QCD field.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 15, 2011 @ 01:49 GMT
Ray,
I had decided that I've spent too much of Phil's time arguing with Lawrence, but you are welcome to come over to my site. I do have some comments on your above remarks. Lawrence is welcome too, but he and I see things too differently to agree on much.
Good luck in the contest Phil!
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 15, 2011 @ 13:49 GMT
Hi all,
In fact dear Dr Gene Man,
It seems to me, in sincere humility, that it is sometimes vain to make understanding the generality of the fundamentals to some people who doesn't encircle this global overview,this whole point of vue.
The answer lies to a lack of universal spirituality.
This is a guess of course.
Or focusing on details "lost mathematically".
Entropy, the mother of our equations, seems little understood by the entire scientific community.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 17:41 GMT
Hi all,
All that is cool, but everywhere we listen and read the news about strings, extradimensions and others like higgs .....like what all my prediction,s were ok also.
A micro BH , no but let's be serious please and extradimensions, it's so ironic for rationalists.
You know dear scientists , is it important to invest in stupidities or in the foundamentals???Hope that the LHC has understood and all scientific communities also.
It's probably the reason why the earth has this actual state.
It's simple sometimes.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 18:04 GMT
Ray,
This is one reason we use E_8xE_8 ~ SO(32) which does have a complex representation.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 19:35 GMT
Hi Lawrence,
Yes, SO(32)~E8xE8*=496 could be an important isomorphism. This symmetry is slightly different from the SU(11)~SO(16)=120 isomorphism because it requires a couple of singlet sub-groups (to accomodate a 248-plet vs. a 240-plet). Perhaps these singlet groups are 8-plets each of tachyons and Higgs. IMHO, a proper SO(32) would be Spin(32) with 30-32 dimensions. Now we are approaching 1000 particle states - approx double that required for 10^123 combinatorial possibilities.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 11:26 GMT
ahahahah let me laugh still and always, just a pub for some frustrated who have a specific job apparently,I don't see an other logical reason !!!Here is an explaination of my opinion.
I ask me if You make really foundamental sciences, you just mix a little and make pubs.It's not possible ,for people who know maths like you,to imply these conclusions.It's an other road.It's sure that.
It's not possible Ray, I am frank, it's not possible for a rationalist and a faith people to imply these extrapolations.
If it's a technic of some systems, it's very bizare.I am not parano , just realist about my works and my perceptions of the global system.
Now I am going to say an important thing, perhaps the confusions are programmed for a difficulty of perception for the majority.But it's an other debate in fact after all.
Congratulations for your perseverances.Fascinating in all case.
It's the end, beautiful string the end lalalalalalalala and of course it is the end of lost of monney and stupidities, fortunally for our uniqueness.
STRINGS...HIGGS...EXTRADIMENSIONS..MICRO BH(THERE IT'S SERIOUS REALLY)..MULTIVERSES....TACHYONS....THIS IS THE END .........SEE THE LAST WORDS EVERYWHERE APPARENTLY THEY LISTEN ME THEM!!! HIHIHIHI .Laugh is good for health and I must agree that with you I laugh a lot.and in the same time I am sad.
Cheers
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 19:33 GMT
Ray,
Type II string theory with coupling g is S-dual to the same theory with the coupling 1/g .IIA and IIB are T-dual. An orientifold of type IIB string theory leads to type I string theory in SO(32). The M-theory does require SO(32) and E_8xE_8 .
I noticed you paper made it on the board today. I will give it a look. I generally score these a bit later on as it takes me a while to get to them all. I try to read about 3 or 4 of these a week.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 20:03 GMT
Dear Lawrence,
Yes - The reciprocal lattice argument is equivalent to T-duality, and the Large Numbers/Inverse Large Numbers argument is equivalent to S-Duality. I know that I've said that before in one of these blogs, but I never put it in a paper - What was I thinking? I was trying to find that balance between "enough" vs. "too much" detail in my essay...
My essay is very similar to the one I e-mailed you earlier. I had already read yours' and Philip's essays, so I've already scored you both.
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 10:20 GMT
ahahaha wawwwwwwwww impressing !!!
Details they say, details ahahahha
it's neither a generality and nor detail.
It's true you are skilling in strategy, really impressing.
A new in the team phil but where are the others, th, lisi, and friends ahahahah
THEY NEED HELP IN FACT AHAHAHA
Have fun and cheers they said ahahah
Scored ahahaha but what is the real score .....
Belgium 65 USA 0 LIKE HABIT and furthermore me I am alone.A team of several against a small belgian.You know this little country, weak and vulnerable.hihii but the real score is the real sore.9.6 it's well Ray it's well and quick , ten votes in 1 day , very interesting.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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 don't deny that there certainly is value in the theory, and in maths, but logic reveals shortcomings. Let me explain, after first writing a short section describing an unconventional approach to unveiling unification and offering an alternative to the Higgs boson that relies on gravitational waves.
ALTERNATIVE TO HIGGS BOSON
An important step might be to think of "... the grand design of the universe, a single theory that explains everything" (words used by Stephen Hawking on the American version of Amazon, when promoting his latest book “The Grand Design” – coauthored with Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, 2010) in a different way than physicists who are presently working on science's holy grail of unification. The universe’s underlying electronic foundation* (which makes our cosmos into a partially-complete unification, similar to 2 objects which appear billions of years or billions of light-years apart on a huge computer screen actually being unified by the strings of ones and zeros making up the computer code which is all in one small place) would make our cosmos into physics’ holy grail of a complete unification if it enabled not only elimination of all distances in space and time, but also elimination of distance between (and including) the different sides of objects and particles. This last point requires the universe to not merely be a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; but to be a unified whole that has “particles” and “waves” built into its union of digital 1’s and 0’s (or its union of qubits – quantum binary digits). If we use the example of CGH (computer generated holography, these "particles" and "waves" could be elements produced by the interaction of electromagnetic and presently undiscovered gravitational waves, producing what we know as mass and forming what we know as space-time. Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves, and measurements on the Hulse-Taylor binary-star system resulted in Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993 for their work, which was the first indirect evidence for gravitational waves. The feedback of the past and future universes into the unified cosmos's electronic foundation would ensure that both past and future could not be altered. Our brains and minds are part of this unification too - which must mean extrasensory perception and telekinetic independence from technology are possible, despite modern science's objections to these phenomena which appear to be based on non-unification.
* For more information on the universe's proposed electronic foundation, please see my article and postings at
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/814
STRINGS ARE ONLY PART OF MATTER'S BASIS
Space and time only exist in our experience. They are emergent properties, like wetness and mind. We experience wetness because it emerges from the building blocks of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms which make up water. We experience mind because it emerges from the building blocks of neurons composing the brain. And we experience space-time since it emerges from the building blocks making up the universe. These units are a combination of electromagnetic pulses (forming a cosmic computer which includes randomness and thus the potential to escape rigid preprogramming, and have a small degree of free will) as well as a cosmic hologram (this is produced by the interaction of electromagnetic plus gravitational waves and combination of the holographic aspect with the electronic aspect unifies general relativity with quantum physics). Every physical and nonphysical part of the universal hologram would be a receptor for the downloading of data from the cosmic computer which not only exists in the hyperspace of the large-scale universe but also in the hyperspace of each subatomic particle. (In other words, the holographic universe or spacetime we know is a screen for displaying data from the 5th-dimensional computer.)
It might be helpful to visualise time as the playing of a CD or video tape. The entire disc or tape obviously exists all the time. But our physical senses can only perceive a tiny part of the sound and the sights at any fraction of a second. I believe space and time are infinite, so it might be more accurate to visualise time as that HUGE number - in this case, of CDs or tapes - which some versions of string theory propose (10 exponent 500). My essay tells you exactly how to travel to the future, how to return home, and how to travel into our past. Neither future nor past can be altered (a blow to our belief that we have the free will to shape the future) and my explanation of travel to the past requires re-interpretation of the concepts of "multiverse" and "parallel universes". It also requires the ability to travel billions of light years INSTANTLY - no doubt many readers will instantly dismiss the essay because their preconceptions "know" this simply isn't possible. It indeed sounds like pure fantasy, but I outline an approach based on electrical engineering, General Relativity, and Miguel Alcubierre's 1994 proposal of "warp drive" that makes it logically possible.
My essay explains why the universe is a Mobius loop and how it is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would make this statement ridiculous). Then each fermion and boson would also be composed of the 3 spatial dimensions, the 4th dimension of time, and the 5th dimension of hyperspace. Detectors like the Large Hadron Collider would be unable to "see" the time and hyperspace components of particles but could only see the small (maybe 5% of the whole) 3 spatial dimensions (the time and hyperspace components would be what we call dark matter), erroneously assuming particles are those small fractions of a Mobius loop that physics calls strings. "Dark matter" would exert a gravitational influence because both time and hyperspace, being parts of a curved Mobius loop (whether of quantum or cosmic scale), would push objects together in the same way Einstein's curved space-time pushes objects together. We can speak of the HST now - no, not the Hubble Space Telescope but Hyperspatial SpaceTime. We can visualise the Mobius loop as composed of a hyperspace computer which generates information on how things change from one presently undetectably tiny fraction of a second to the next (we call this time, and it's comparable to the frames in a movie) and transmits the data (transmits dark energy) to the insignificant portion of length, width and depth that makes up subatomic particles ... and the universe.
That's the end of my one-paragraph summary. Now for some extra thoughts -
Preceding the Big Bang (which created this local section of the infinite, eternal universe ... or if you prefer, this subuniverse of the megauniverse) there would have been no space, matter or time in this subuniverse. No transmissions of dark energy (creating time and space/matter) would have occurred - therefore the dark-energy content of the universe would have been zero, increasing to the present 72% as more and more matter was created. How is matter created? Perhaps as cosmologist Alan Guth once suggested -
"You might even be able to start a new universe using energy equivalent to just a few pounds of matter. Provided you could find some way to compress it to a density of about 10^75 (10 exponent 75) grams per cubic centimeter, and provided you could trigger the thing ..."
At the time the Cosmic Microwave Background was emitted (less than a million years after the big bang), results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe say the dark-energy content of the universe was negligible. Space/matter has been increasing since the big bang so transmissions from hyperspace computer (dark energy) which create them are increasing while the volume of the Mobius loop occupied by time/hyperspace (dark matter) has been shrinking as a result - according to the WMAP satellite, from 63% when the CMB was emitted to 23% today. Why isn't dark energy increasing at the same rate dark matter is decreasing? It must be because, as stated earlier, both time and hyperspace exert a gravitational influence, thereby mimicking space and matter to a degree. This mimicry causes the dark matter between the start of the CMB and the present to decrease by only about 40% while dark energy increases in the same period by about 70%. If we were dealing with a simple and ordinary loop, this similarity would cause dark matter and dark energy to be more or less equal and if there was any difference in their amount of decrease/increase, it would be in the same direction. But we’re talking about Mobius loops which are like strips of paper that have been twisted 180 degrees before the ends are joined. This causes their variation to go in different directions (one increases, the other decreases) and the amount of variation is quite significant (+72%, -40%). My guess is that the real-life twist occurs in the temporal segment of the loop, enabling a traveller in time to go in different directions i.e. into the future or into the past.
My essay tells you how to travel into the future, how to return home, and how to take a trip into our past. Regarding travel beyond our start and into the past ... it can’t be denied that these paragraphs imply the possibility of humans from the distant future time-travelling to the distant past and using electronics to create this particular subuniverse's computer-generated Big Bang. An accomplishment such as this would be the supreme example of “backward causality” (effects influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others. However, realising that we live in a cosmic-quantum unification with zero-separation and recalling Isaac Newton’s inverse-square law and what it says about the force between two particles being infinite (does infinite mean 10 ^ 500, the HUGE number of universes proposed by some versions of string theory?) if the distance of separation goes to zero means there's still room for God (another bit of scientifically objectionable science fiction?) because God would be a pantheistic union of the megauniverse's material and mental parts, forming a union with humans in a cosmic unification.
Best wishes,
Rodney
view post as summary
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
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 ...
---------------------------------------------------------
----------------
I fully realise that my essay doesn’t sound like science at all. I can appreciate that many readers think it belongs to science fiction and fantasy. It does have saving graces though. I’m amazed at how well it fits in with the discoveries of the Microwave Anisotropy Probe and with string theory, culminating in the LHC’s experimentally verified strings and my prediction of antistrings. Having said that, I must say this – it’s very strange that the scientific world is so 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 (partial) mistake I have in mind is string theory. I don't deny that there certainly is value in the theory, and in maths, but logic reveals shortcomings. Let me explain, after first writing a short section describing an unconventional approach to unveiling unification and offering an alternative to the Higgs boson that relies on gravitational waves.
ALTERNATIVE TO HIGGS BOSON
An important step might be to think of "... the grand design of the universe, a single theory that explains everything" (words used by Stephen Hawking on the American version of Amazon, when promoting his latest book “The Grand Design” – coauthored with Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, 2010) in a different way than physicists who are presently working on science's holy grail of unification. The universe’s underlying electronic foundation* (which makes our cosmos into a partially-complete unification, similar to 2 objects which appear billions of years or billions of light-years apart on a huge computer screen actually being unified by the strings of ones and zeros making up the computer code which is all in one small place) would make our cosmos into physics’ holy grail of a complete unification if it enabled not only elimination of all distances in space and time, but also elimination of distance between (and including) the different sides of objects and particles. This last point requires the universe to not merely be a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; but to be a unified whole that has “particles” and “waves” built into its union of digital 1’s and 0’s (or its union of qubits – quantum binary digits). If we use the example of CGH (computer generated holography, these "particles" and "waves" could be elements produced by the interaction of electromagnetic and presently undiscovered gravitational waves, producing what we know as mass and forming what we know as space-time. Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves, and measurements on the Hulse-Taylor binary-star system resulted in Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993 for their work, which was the first indirect evidence for gravitational waves. The feedback of the past and future universes into the unified cosmos's electronic foundation would ensure that both past and future could not be altered. Our brains and minds are part of this unification too - which must mean extrasensory perception and telekinetic independence from technology are possible, despite modern science's objections to these phenomena which appear to be based on non-unification.
* For more information on the universe's proposed electronic foundation, please see my article and postings at
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/814
STRINGS ARE ONLY PART OF MATTER'S BASIS
Space and time only exist in our experience. They are emergent properties, like wetness and mind. We experience wetness because it emerges from the building blocks of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms which make up water. We experience mind because it emerges from the building blocks of neurons composing the brain. And we experience space-time since it emerges from the building blocks making up the universe. These units are a combination of electromagnetic pulses (forming a cosmic computer which includes randomness and thus the potential to escape rigid preprogramming, and have a small degree of free will) as well as a cosmic hologram (this is produced by the interaction of electromagnetic plus gravitational waves and combination of the holographic aspect with the electronic aspect unifies general relativity with quantum physics). Every physical and nonphysical part of the universal hologram would be a receptor for the downloading of data from the cosmic computer which not only exists in the hyperspace of the large-scale universe but also in the hyperspace of each subatomic particle. (In other words, the holographic universe or spacetime we know is a screen for displaying data from the 5th-dimensional computer.)
It might be helpful to visualise time as the playing of a CD or video tape. The entire disc or tape obviously exists all the time. But our physical senses can only perceive a tiny part of the sound and the sights at any fraction of a second. I believe space and time are infinite, so it might be more accurate to visualise time as that HUGE number - in this case, of CDs or tapes - which some versions of string theory propose (10 exponent 500). My essay tells you exactly how to travel to the future, how to return home, and how to travel into our past. Neither future nor past can be altered (a blow to our belief that we have the free will to shape the future) and my explanation of travel to the past requires re-interpretation of the concepts of "multiverse" and "parallel universes". It also requires the ability to travel billions of light years INSTANTLY - no doubt many readers will instantly dismiss the essay because their preconceptions "know" this simply isn't possible. It indeed sounds like pure fantasy, but I outline an approach based on electrical engineering, General Relativity, and Miguel Alcubierre's 1994 proposal of "warp drive" that makes it logically possible.
My essay explains why the universe is a Mobius loop and how it is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would make this statement ridiculous). Then each fermion and boson would also be composed of the 3 spatial dimensions, the 4th dimension of time, and the 5th dimension of hyperspace. Detectors like the Large Hadron Collider would be unable to "see" the time and hyperspace components of particles but could only see the small (maybe 5% of the whole) 3 spatial dimensions (the time component would be what we call dark matter), erroneously assuming particles are those small fractions of a Mobius loop that physics calls strings. "Dark matter" would exert a gravitational influence because time, being part of a curved Mobius loop (whether of quantum or cosmic scale), would push objects together in the same way Einstein's curved space-time pushes objects together. We can speak of the HST now - no, not the Hubble Space Telescope but Hyperspatial SpaceTime. We can visualise the Mobius loop as composed of a hyperspace computer which generates information on how things change from one presently undetectably tiny fraction of a second to the next (we call this time, and it's comparable to the frames in a movie) and transmits the data (transmits dark energy) to the insignificant portion of length, width and depth that makes up subatomic particles ... and the universe.
Preceding the Big Bang (which created this local section of the infinite, eternal universe ... or if you prefer, this subuniverse of the megauniverse) there would have been no space, matter or time in this subuniverse. No transmissions of dark energy (creating time and space/matter) would have occurred - therefore the dark-energy content of the universe would have been zero, increasing to the present 72% as more and more matter was created. How is matter created? Perhaps as cosmologist Alan Guth once suggested -
"You might even be able to start a new universe using energy equivalent to just a few pounds of matter. Provided you could find some way to compress it to a density of about 10^75 (10 exponent 75) grams per cubic centimeter, and provided you could trigger the thing ..."
At the time the Cosmic Microwave Background was emitted (less than a million years after the big bang), results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe say the dark-energy content of the universe was negligible. Space/matter has been increasing since the big bang so transmissions from hyperspace computer (dark energy) which create them are increasing while the volume of the Mobius loop occupied by time/hyperspace (dark matter) has been shrinking as a result - according to the WMAP satellite, from 63% when the CMB was emitted to 23% today. Why isn't dark energy increasing at the same rate dark matter is decreasing? It must be because, as stated earlier, both time and hyperspace exert a gravitational influence, thereby mimicking space and matter to a degree. This mimicry causes the dark matter between the start of the CMB and the present to decrease by only about 40% while dark energy increases in the same period by about 70%. If we were dealing with a simple and ordinary loop, this similarity would cause dark matter and dark energy to be more or less equal and if there was any difference in their amount of decrease/increase, it would be in the same direction. But we’re talking about Mobius loops which are like strips of paper that have been twisted 180 degrees before the ends are joined. This causes their variation to go in different directions (one increases, the other decreases) and the amount of variation is quite significant (+72%, -40%). My guess is that the real-life twist occurs in the temporal segment of the loop, enabling a traveller in time to go in different directions i.e. into the future or into the past. To replenish dark matter in billions of years, we merely have to extend Guth's proposal by using the knowledge of that time to create more matter.
A real-life Mobius is by no means a featureless loop, however. If, contrary to our impressions, the universe is unified with each particle it’s composed of; the WMAP satellite’s findings must apply to the quantum world. The figures 72%, 23% and 5% would not only describe the present universe’s content of dark energy, dark matter and ordinary matter but also any particle’s content of space or ordinary matter (5%), time or dark matter (23% - time is considered to be dark matter here because dark matter is regarded as ordinary matter invisible to us since it’s present in another region of the dimension we call time, just as most of a sphere is in another dimension and consequently appears as a dot when first entering Edwin Abbott’s 1884 exploration of other dimensions called “Flatland”), and hyperspace (72%: the transmissions from the hyperspace computer create space and matter, cause expansion of space on cosmic scales where there are no forces to overcome the expansion as there is in matter, and are known as dark energy – creating more matter causes that matter’s repelling gravity to bring about accelerating expansion).
Look at a picture of a Mobius (thanks to the repeating scales of fractal geometry, the apparently empty interior and exterior of the Mobius universe would actually be the same as the visible loop). Imagine the space/ordinary matter to be situated immediately counterclockwise (perhaps on the bottom of the loop) to the hyperspace segment and the time/dark matter portion to be immediately counterclockwise to the space/ordinary matter (time/dark matter would, moving clockwise, be next to the hyperspace segment).
The hyperspace transmissions flow directly into space/matter (all motion - “flow” and “transmissions” – are actually comparable to individual frames in a movie but are spoken of in everyday terms of motion for convenience, like saying the sun rises and sets) and are responsible for the large and unimpeded 72% increase, since the CMB was emitted, of dark energy. This flow rate of 72% also enters the time/dark matter section adjacent to hyperspace … but the loop’s twist seems to be in the time section. If we were to cut the loop lengthwise with scissors, previously varying the number of half-twists results in things such as two rings linked together or a knotted ring. So we get barriers to motion and blockages. Returning to the normal loop and twist, matters are less drastic and motion is merely slowed, resulting in a 23% flow rate.
If we lived in a non-unified universe of materialism, this is how things would remain (dark matter would have increased so today’s content would be a low 23%). On p. 179 of “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (Bantam Press, 2010) it’s stated “One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive …”
The only problem with that sentence, in an “everything is everywhere and everywhen” universe, is the word isolated. There can be no such thing as isolated in our cosmic-quantum unification. Page 179 also says “… if the energy of an isolated body were negative … there would be no reason that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere.” Does this mean you and I (plus all things in time and space) are a union of both positive and negative energy, able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere? Dark matter, not being entirely positive, would be anywhere and everywhere as well as having decreased so today’s content would be a low 23% (which is what WMAP says is the case).
If everything is a union of positive and negative energy, every matter particle and force-carrying particle would be too. And the strings the Large Hadron Collider might detect (being the parts of particles’ Mobius loops it could see since those parts would be space/ordinary matter) might come in both positive and negative varieties. In 1928 English physicist Paul Dirac (1902-84) proposed that all negative energy states are already occupied by (then hypothetical) antiparticles (particles of antimatter). Building on this results in proposal of strings and antistrings.
My essay tells you how to travel into the future, how to return home, and how to take a trip into our past. Regarding travel beyond our start and into the past ... it can’t be denied that these paragraphs imply the possibility of humans from the distant future time-travelling to the distant past and using electronics to create this particular subuniverse's computer-generated Big Bang. An accomplishment such as this would be the supreme example of “backward causality” (effects influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others. However, realising that we live in a cosmic-quantum unification with zero-separation and recalling Isaac Newton’s inverse-square law and what it says about the force between two particles being infinite (does infinite mean 10 ^ 500, the HUGE number of universes proposed by some versions of string theory?) if the distance of separation goes to zero means there's still room for God (another bit of scientifically objectionable science fiction?) because God would be a pantheistic union of the megauniverse's material and mental parts, forming a union with humans in a cosmic unification.
--------------------------------------------------------
view post as summary
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
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:...
view entire post
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
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.