Per Florin's suggestion, I thought we should disentangle our conversation from Florin's and Anonymouse's.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Joy supposedly work with an S^7 7-sphere? I figure that the following GA signatures may have legitimate physical analogies with the 7-sphere:
G(4,4) - a complex bi-quaternion.
The only option that does not introduce complex numbers is the G(8,0) 8-ball - which is an 8-D extension of 3-D Euclidean geometry, but nothing here reflects an obvious 7-fold symmetry, or anything resembling the properties of time.
The only option that has a clear 7-fold symmetry and a single time coordinate is the octonion 7-sphere.
The bi-quaternions could be physical, but they all contain 2 or more time dimensions, and do not contain obvious 7-fold symmetries.
Which GA signature are you and Joy using? Choose your poison - I think I can tear down most of these options. Once we understand which 7-sphere we are using, then we can try to deduce the interface between this 7-sphere and 3-D Euclidean space.
Have Fun!
TH Ray replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 16:40 GMT
Ray,
Starting at the end:
You're preaching to the choir about the meaning of theorem and proof. I have no stronger objection to the abuse of those terms than I have already registered in these pages. I will say no more about it.
So far as the introduction of complex analysis, that originates in S^1, not S^7. Joy is using S^7 as the limit -- the most general of the parallelizable spheres (S^0, S^1, S^3, S^7) -- which reflects back to S^3 all the points of S^0 contained therein. Do you not see the completeness? I have not discarded an 'i' -- it disappears and reappears by continuous exponentiation. To the limit of i', however, the results are all in 3 dimensions as demonstrated.
The basis for this geometric interpretation of the complex plane (i.e., 2 dimensional analysis) is older than W.R. Hamilton. It is attributed to Euler (but is probably even older yet) in the form e^ipi = - 1. As a logarithmic expression, e^ix = cos x + i sin x and substituting pi for x, ln(-1) = ipi.
I learned analysis long before I had any interest in physics, so I know how to do rotations in the complex plane without any reference to matter at all. And that's something one has to keep in mind when thinking of Hestenes's geometric algebra and Joy's framework -- a particle trajectory described by vectors is nevertheless CONTINUOUS, i.e. analytical, which depends on only two assumptions: a straight line and a curved line. That's it, period. The straight line is a unit radius and the curved line is the circumference of acceleration (change in the direction of motion). So there is absolutely nothing "illegal" in Joy Christian's two bivector bases -- fixed and fluctuating. A positive change in a particle trajectory's direction is + 1, a negative change is - 1 and an indeterminate result reflects our ignorance of the length of the radius at a particular time of measure.
So while Bell-Aspect predicts a coin toss result on a fixed interval over an aggregate of time, Joy's deterministic result predicts 100% correlation of particle pairs in continuous spacetime, and correlation of time dependent rotations (see my discussion of Einstein's separated clocks from "Geometry & Experience"), on the fluctuating basis.
This is independent of any reference to coordinates, metric signatures, etc. All that matters is the topology and the orientation of the trajectory withn it. The Bell-Aspect result is recovered on the fixed bivector at the rate of 1/2, as predicted.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 19:38 GMT
Hi Tom,
Of course complex numbers begin with the 1-sphere (the 1-sphere is a circle in the Argand plane), quaternions with the 3-sphere, and octonions with the 7-sphere. But Joy declares all of his expectation values are 'real'. I'm not arguing against continuity. I'm arguing for complex analysis - exp(ix) is continuous AND complex.
I'm still not sure about your statement "that vector rotations are all real and 3 dimensional". Vectors can have an overall imaginary phase due to a pseudoscalar Clifford algebra: Cl_0,3 (R), but we need to multiply vectors by their complex conjugates in order to reduce these to real observables. Regardless, complex analysis is introduced, and I think that this introduces a product of SQRT(2) in our mean values due to the extra (complex) degrees of freedom. I bet that David Hestenes could shoot holes in half of these arguments if he so desired.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 20:36 GMT
Ray,
Take the center point of my matrix ( - 1). Knowing that the octonion algebra is closed under multiplication, multiply that center by the outlying + or - 1s on the axes I show in slide 12 of my "experiment" pdf. What do you come up with? What does that suggest to you?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 23:09 GMT
Yeah a spherical party,
here are my new equations.
For all physical spheres in 3D and a time constant, relativistic of course.
E=(c²o²s²)m
mcosV=constant
F= S s1s2/r² ,it exist indeed a force between all spheres, quant or cosmol.
The gravity is explained with a different main sense than hv .The 4 interactions are explained.
The number of uniqueness is precise.Like I said on APS , a single photon is an entanglement of spheres with a specific serie. A photon is like a relativistic foto of our universal sphere and its spheres.
ps eureka
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 12:04 GMT
Dear Friends,
I'm tired of arguing my point. 4-D S^3 Spacetime is more complex than the 3-D Euclidean space that Joy is using. Joy isn't doing the same thing as Bell - he is trying to overthrow Bell by appealing to extra dimensions (that he subsequently ignores and says "the devil is in the details"). I expect a 7-sphere to introduce octonion physics (or at least biquaternion physics), and this 'new' physics has not been adequately discussed.
Romeo Mike over and out!
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 12:33 GMT
Ray,
I'd be tired of arguing a point I can't support, too. Did you do the simple calculation I asked?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 16:14 GMT
I guess Ray isn't going to do the simple multiplication. If he had, he would find the metric signature (- - - - - - - +), clearly showing that S^7 includes the spacetime he demands, and which totally destroys his argument.
As I said, in as clear terms as I think humanly possible, all we need for this analytical (i.e., continuous function) model is a straight line and a curve. That's ALL. And we have them. Because the geometric meaning of a straight line is a special case for a curve, and because Einstein's relativity of motion incorporates the straight line of uniform motion into a general theory of accelerated motion in a curved trajectory, we also have a FULLY RELATIVISTIC dynamic model written in this language of geometric algebra. Joy's model is mathematically complete.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 18:47 GMT
Hi Tom,
I'm tired of repeating myself, finding further problems with Joy's works, and still getting the same kinds of responses. My credit to you is that you have been civil and tried harder to answer questions than has Joy. I am glad that you finally admitted that your 7-sphere GA signature is an octonion G(1,7). I fully expected it to be either a G(1,7) or a G(7,1) depending on your definition of time-like vs. space-like metrics. Complex numbers are all tangled up in this problem - We can break an octonion G(1,7) 7-sphere into two quaternion G(1,3) 3-spheres (basically a Cayley-Dickson de-construction), but we are forced to introduce complex analysis in order to convert a space-like dimension into a time-like dimension (in other words, we are transitioning from a (-------+) metric to two (---+) metrics, so a -1 becomes a +1 and drags in factors of i = SQRT(-1) throughout our model). To further complicate matters, octonions also introduce non-associativity - that sounds like a lot of "i's to dot" and a lot of "t's to cross" - Joy has barely begun to develop the sort of rigor that he needs to convince critics.
Furthermore, Joy is then collapsing his 4-D quaternion G(1,3) 3-sphere into a 3-D Euclidean G(3,0) 3-ball and doing something weird with time. It was OK for Bell to ignore time in his 3-D model. However, I don't think it is OK to assume an 8-D model that supposedly contains spacetime, use what you like, discard what you don't like about it, and then compare your model to Bell's - who never assumed spacetime in the first place. Everytime that you mess around with these metrics (going from G(1,3) to G(3,0)), you are potentially adding MORE effects from complex numbers (because spacetime is hyperbolic, but Euclidean space isn't). Your own model had a 'i' in it.
If we can boil this matter down to a degrees-of-freedom argument, it might be reasonable to expect that Joy's mis-use of complex numbers would cause his mean values to be off by factors of SQRT(2) (or more if hyper-complex numbers are involved).
I appreciate your opinion. Just like belly buttons - everyone has one, but some are 'fuzzier' than others. Nevertheless, it will take a very detailed and complete derivation from Joy himself before I consider changing my opinion about what he has done here.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 20:15 GMT
Ray,
Admitted? It was there all along. Because you do not understand the argument, you couldn't even see it.
You are not the only one who is tired of repeating themselves. I am as well tired of pompousness and condescension from people who do not have the character to admit that their arguments do not even address the model in question.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 21:06 GMT
Hi Tom,
Interesting...
It was you who said:
"T H Ray replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 21:44 GMT
Ray,
There is no "octonion like 7 sphere" in Joy's model. We have explained over and over again that the mathematical framework supports only classically real results."
I specifically asked for the 7-sphere's GA signature because I fully expected it to be an octonion G(1,7) based on my understanding of Joy's work, but then you made the above statement. And I gave you the benefit of the doubt because (in bizarro world) the 7-sphere *COULD* have been a biquaternion G(2,6). I simply wanted to make the point that the transition from a GA signature of G(1,7) to G(2,6) [or the mathematically equivalent dual G(1,3)'s] introduces imaginary numbers, and that Joy's claim that he only has real numbers smells 'fishy' to me.
Really - my argument is with Joy, not with you. I can only assume that his silence signals the coming of another blog blitz.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 08:10 GMT
Yes, Ray, why stoop to argue with me? I'm nobody.
But just suppose you did have the capacity to understand the built in dynamics of the geometric algebra framework, here is what I would tell you:
Joy makes no assumption of hidden dimensions. He simply addresses EPR's claim for hidden variables by the same criteria that Bell used, which means that the parameters are classical and the results are real. Complex analysis does not enter the argument. I showed you in clear numerical terms that your spacetime metric is already a feature of the octonion model, and you still don't get it -- the signs are reversible. In other words, if one exchanges the - 1 in the center of the matrix for a + 1, the metric signature becomes time reversible, which is an absolute requirement for classical physics and the analytic functions that describe classical physics. Instead of being written in analysis, however, the dynamic is written in algebra.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 12:10 GMT
@ Tom - "In other words, if one exchanges the - 1 in the center of the matrix for a + 1, the metric signature becomes time reversible"
So - once again, -1 = +1, true = false, yes = no...
I could prove ANYTHING with this sort of logic!
Of course you need to change a -1 to a +1, BUT THIS INTRODUCES COMPLEX NUMBERS! We can't magically wave our wand, and make this change, without affecting something else - call it Newton's Third Law for algebra if you like.
Based on a simple degrees-of-freedom argument (and the Pythagorean Theorem), I would expect this to mess up Joy's mean results by a factor of SQRT(2). It is interesting that this IS the factor with which he differs from Bell. Hmmm...
I'm not opposed to a physics based on 7-spheres, octonions, and E8 Gosset lattices, but I think that Joy needs to go back to his 8 dimensional drawing board.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 12:19 GMT
Ray,
Joy has been unable to convey to skeptics the meaning of the bivector bases -- one fixed, one fluctuating. I am having no more success. That's a great disappointment, but if you understood it, you would find that it preempts your objections.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 12:31 GMT
Then perhaps you have a G(2,6) biquaternion 7-sphere (although I don't see the physical relevance of this), and not a G(1,7) octonion 7-sphere. I understand how Cayley-Dickson construction allows us to build an octonion out of a pair of COMPLEX quaternions.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 13:12 GMT
Hestenes has been so clear in his development of geometric algebra and its application to spacetime geometry. His program does not rely on complex analysis. I've explained the basis, and I've attached some of his work. More, I decline to do.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 14:16 GMT
David Hestenes has been far clearer than has Joy Christian. This is why I requested the Geometric Algebra signatures. The transition from a biquaternion GA signature of G(2,6) (or ------++) to two quaternion GA signatures of G(1,3) (or ---+ each) does not introduce complex phases between the two quaternions (which are - of course - hypercomplex (---+) themselves). However the transition from an octonion GA signature of G(1,7) (or -------+) to two quaternion GA signatures of G(1,3) (or ---+ each) DOES introduce a relative complex phase between the two quaternions. It must in order to change a space-like component into a time-like component. This, at least, is my interpretation of
Cayley-Dickson construction as applied to these GA's.
If we represent these complex numbers within the
Argand plane, then a simple degrees-of-freedom argument (Complex numbers may be represented as pairs of 'real' numbers from Cayley-Dickson construction, thus doubling degrees of freedom) combined with the Pythagorean theorem (the magnitude of any number in the Argand plane requires this mathematics) implies that Joy's results would be off by a factor of SQRT(2) if he did not properly consider a relative complex phase between the two quaternions.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 14:17 GMT
All your reasonings to you Ray, Tom and Florin are just falses maths .In fact you make what, a business it is that. Hre on earthj or after you shall loose and you know why, because god is with me, you do not like that. No probem, he will proove my words soon and be sure you shallunderstand what is the sphere and its spheres.Make business, increase your vanity, play, laugh, ,no problem for me you know I am already dead with all my problems and my epilepsy. You want my prizes and recognizings...kill me , it is the only solution, and still I will come in your dreams. Never God a, me and my friends we shall accept , here on earth or after. And even in a dual, even if I am killed in a dual with guns, I will recome band of comics of pseudos sciences.
Experts in geomatrical algebras, of course of course and my I am the queen of england. And they insist furthermore, logic they must honorate their contracts. You know the world is not the texas.If bad people have built these systems, be sure good people will stabilize all that on this line time. It exists good cowboys and bad cowboys. The bad must disap^pear for the well of all.Don't fear people of all over the world, the death is just a step, Yes I am crazzy and yes it is the beginning. Come dear pseudos, make strategies, kill me, discriminate me, copy...and PRAY.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 15:07 GMT
Ray,
Do you think you might find a clue to what you are looking for, in the reason that Hestenes named his program, "spacetime algebra?" Just a thought.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 18:35 GMT
Dear Joy, Tom, Edwin and John,
Apparently, others - such as Edwin and John, take my silence as defeat. I don't understand why the 'last word' is assumed to be correct.
No - it is no such thing. I am tired of arguing the SAME OBVIOUS POINT with Tom. My logic has clearly outmanuveured both Tom's and Joy's logic (just read this thread). Furthermore, I am DISGUSTED with Steve's INSANE comments - he clearly has NOTHING to add to this conversation.
Hestenes' GA IS a quaternion 3-sphere spacetime with a GA signature of G(1,3) or ---+. If Joy is breaking an octonion 7-sphere hyperspace with a GA signature of G(1,7) or -------+ into two quaternion 3-sphere spacetimes each with GA signatures of G(1,3), then he MUST change a -1 (space-like component) into a +1 (time-like component). This is not legal in Real numbers, and performing this operation in hypercomplex numbers introduces complex realtive phases between the two quaternions.
In other words, Joy is trying to justify his approach by decomposing octonion 7-sphere geometry into quaternion spacetime geometry, but then he discards his overall complex phases, and claims to be following Hesetenes' methods (I don't think so). Then he commits another error by disposing of the time-like radial component (that introduces a relative ict phase), and claims to be following Bell's methods. REALLY? If he was correctly following 'Bell's methods', then he should have reproduced BELL'S THEOREM. But rather, Joy missed it by a factor of SQRT(2) (that I explained within this blog thread as being due to doubling the degrees of freedom with complex numbers, and needing the Pythagorean Theorem to determine magnitudes within the Argand plane).
Joy is absolutely wrong when he claims that everything is real. The only thing that could be interpreted as real would be the relative phases of the hypersurface of a quaternion spacetime, and this is the only way that his argument ties back to Hestenes' work - everything else is 'smoke and mirrors' to confuse the rest of us.
This has nothing to do with my personal feelings or expectations regarding 'local reality', or 7-spheres, or octonions, or E8 Gosset lattices. This is clearly a mistake - even Tom had a factor of i = SQRT(-1) in his model.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 04:25 GMT
Ray,
This blog has gotten overheated. I was surprised by your remark that I "take your silence as defeat". I haven't drawn any conclusion about the correctness of anyone's positions. Geometric Algebra is not my area of expertise, so I am simply reading the comments and trying to understand them all. You know that I am not a big fan of anything 'real' beyond 3 plus 1 dimensions, although of course I recognize the utility of Fourier-type superpositions and other higher dimensional abstractions.
As you also know, I believe that today's problems in physics are based more in physical concepts than in mathematical concepts. I hope you find time to look at the link I posted to "A Physics-based Disproof of Bell's Theorem." It takes a fresh look at Bell's math and asks "what's going on here?"
Anyway, I always have the highest regard for you, for your work, for your style of argument, and for your independence, and I can assure you I don't take anything about you as defeated.
I simply don't feel competent to comment on many of the GA issues that form so much of this thread.
I do feel competent on the physics of Bell's theorem, and will be commenting in this area.
Keep having fun, my friend.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 12:09 GMT
Hi Edwin,
I agree that this blog site has gotten overheated. I have never met any of the people on this blog site, but I like most, and I do feel that I was a little rough on Tom and Steve yesterday.
Tom and Steve - Please accept my apologies.
Edwin - I skimmed your paper the night before last, and thought it was interesting that you were trying to use logic and physical common sense to overthrow Bell's theorem - without using all of the 'wild' mathematics over which Joy has drawn heat. I can't comment on that at this time. It seems to take me a while to get immersed enough in someone else's logic in order to see the strengths and weaknesses.
This whole question of real vs. complex numbers might simply boil down to a degrees of freedom argument that accounts for the factor of SQRT(2) difference between Joy and Bell.
I know that you and several others around here insist on no more than four dimensions. Joy's basic idea requires that we start with an 8-dimensional 7-sphere. I don't mind extra dimensions - I personally think that these higher normed divisor algebras [such as (7+1)-D octonions], Lie algebras [such as the 8-dimensional E8], and regular lattices [such as the 8-dimensional Gosset lattice and the 24-dimensional Leech lattice] imply extra dimensions. Some of these dimensions may be expanding while others are contracting, and this may lead back to some sort of Scale Relativity between the 'large dimensions' (such as the Multiverse) and the 'small dimensions' (such as Hyperspace).
I think we have gotten far enough with this Geometric Algebra that we need an expert such as David Hestenes to clean up the mess. But would he get involved in these heated discussions?
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 14:25 GMT
Come on APS Linkedin ray if you are a rationalist, we shall speak together with some rationalists. We shall speak about your models to you and your friends in total live and transparence.
Steve the real spherization theory
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 14:47 GMT
Ray, you are simply a cowboy , a pseudo searcher.Even the entropy and the thermodynamics you do not understand. In fact you are only interested by monney, power and families capital. I am not insane I just see your comments since several years.You do not evolve you just make a kind of pub, a kind of pseudo strategies. In fact I doubt you have faith simply.It is not possible in fact. But you know the world and people, rational changes and the good always wins with or without your approvements here on earth or after .You are going to understand the real meaning of this entropy be sure, you and your friends. It is like that the life and the universe, the bad must disappear. It is only simple like that.You can say diffamations, or calomnies, that won't change my equations and my theory. When a person says the truth, of course some systems do not like ,logic but we evolve with or without the approvements of bad people. The world and the planet are not to sell, the thing must be clear, this planet will change with a simple evidence of universality and spherization. If the world is sick, it is due to these comportments by pseudo educated persons whom imply an ocean of confusions for investments and funds.
You can say all whjat you want, that won't change. Invite me, eat and drink with me , it is that, it was for that your emails.And after you win my capitals. Well come on APS linkedin, we shall discuss with Ruby Raheem,Riccardo Melchiori,Dr Ray Lesage,Peter Dierh,.....
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 15:18 GMT
Edwin
Your post 16/11 04 25.
I like the sound of 3+1, seems strangely like reality! I posted earlier today (11.04) but it might be lost in that sub-thread, so here is a copy:
Time is an inherent quality of reality. We are only able to infer it logically through our experience of change to existent entities, which implies there must be a dimensional quality in reality which ‘accommodates’ this process. However, time is not a spatial dimension, because change does not necessitate space. Reality only exists in one state at any given point in time (ie last state of everything at that point). Previous ones having been superceded, and subsequent ones yet to exist. Reality exists completely independently of us. In the context of the perception of reality (see, hear, etc) then the timing of events, and their relationship with the point in time of the existence thereof, is dependent on a whole set of variables within the process of experience, eg light speed, relative movement, etc, etc. The fundamental constitution of reality, and our relationship with it, does not alter as a function of atomic size. What applies to elephants applies to electrons, the perception of the latter is just somewhat more difficult!
My point being, whilst everyone is concerned, understandably, with the intrinsic validity of their mathematical constructs, are they extrinsically valid? There is nothing wrong with a mathematical narrative, but it must relate to the reality being defined, and not contravene either the logic of its existence, or our existential relationship with it.
A more specific form of this question which I have previously posed (picked up by Eckard) is: What determines when ‘local’ becomes ‘non-local’, what is the value of that ‘tipping point’, and why is this so? Answers in terms of reality please anyone. I do not want to hear about mathematical devices which ‘make the sums work’.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 15:34 GMT
Hi Steve,
I lived in Texas for four years, and might have a little bit of Cowboy attitude in me, but I am a real searcher of the truth - not simply a pseudo-searcher. Please consider that David Hestenes uses a 4-D quaternion spacetime 3-sphere, whereas you seem to be using a 3-D Euclidean 3-ball. All of my ridiculously complex models decompose into Hestenes' model - not yours.
Talking about power and money, did you hear the rumor that Mohamed Saladin El Naschie is running for the Egyptian Presidency? We live in interesting times...
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 17:21 GMT
A sure thing me I become crazzy, already advocates and a judge want take our house( me and my mom.) already i have people against me in belgium since several years and anybody to help us.Yes I suspect systems against me. If you knew our problems in belgium.
All that becomes ironical. Never people spoke about spheres and now all you want be recognized like squales of business. It is what that? Frankly is that USA Ray, for me USA is a wonderful country but why some systems corrupt this universality and freedom? Have you seen the competions between universities and labs??? Your country fight with itself in fact. The past is of course a parameter. If wall street is in this state, if the planet is on the chaotic road, it is just due to a bad governances of several systems. We are at a time important. The global sciences community must take its rational and universal responsabilities. The monney is a tool, it can't be taken like a play or without this essential consciousness.
Ray I am parano indeed, I am tired by years of problems. I can't accept people profits of my theory and ideas. I can understand the human nature and the stupidities but it exists limits at all. I am nice, I am parano I agree but I can't accept all.
You are in the most beautiful country of this Earth, why some systems imply a chaos.The Earth is not a game at my knowledge.
I thought you were my friend when you had contacted me several years ago. Why you make that Ray? it is sad in fact with your friends, Lisi, Joy,TH,Florin,Lawrence,you,....what is this sad strategy??? For what, this papper and its power. It is not the meaning of universalism.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 18:00 GMT
Hi Steve,
You said "I thought you were my friend when you had contacted me several years ago. Why you make that Ray? it is sad in fact with your friends, Lisi, Joy,TH,Florin,Lawrence,you,....what is this sad strategy???"
I'm not sure that all of the people you listed above count me as a friend. I know that Garrett Lisi defriended me on Facebook about a year ago. I also thought that you were my friend. It seems that "you have to be a friend to have a friend", and we need to be more tolerant of each others ideas, because these ideas are at the core of who we are. It really doesn't matter if we agree with each other or not - it matters how the community views us, and I wouldn't want to be viewed as the 'crazzy' guy based on my actions or my friends' actions.
What will become of you and your Mom if they take the house?
Please stop talking about politics and economics like I have an iota of control over it. I don't have any more control over what happens in Washington DC or on Wall Street than you have over Greece.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 22:51 GMT
Paul,
You say "A more specific form of this question which I have previously posed (picked up by Eckard) is: What determines when 'local' becomes 'non-local', what is the value of that 'tipping point', and why is this so?"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by " 'local' becomes 'non-local'." I suspect many here could answer the question in different ways. I believe the question is basically "where is the dividing line between microscopic quantum phenomena and macroscopic classical phenomena?"
John Bell states "Nobody knows just where the boundary between classical and quantum is situated [or even if it exists]." And he appears to view this as one of the major problems with quantum mechanics. Bell discusses the 'Heisenberg rule' which is to "put sufficiently much into the quantum system that the inclusion of more would not significantly alter practical predictions." This is a recipe, not an answer to the question. The problem is that quantum mechanics "requires for its formulation 'classical concepts'--a classical world which intervenes on the quantum system."
So if this is your question, the answer is no-one knows. If you want a more specialized answer to 'local' in terms of the Bell Test, this problem goes away if my treatment of Bell's inequality is correct.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 23:30 GMT
Dear Edwin,
I hope this helps. Just because somebody can measure a spin up of an entangled electron, and conclude that the other electron must be spin down, even if it's at the other end of the galaxy, is nothing special.
Photons carry information in a process called signalling. I can't use quantum entanglement to signal an observer, who is far way, because information only travels at c, not faster.
What determines when 'local' becomes 'non-local'. If you expect to receive a signal 30 light seconds away, it's non local if you only wait 29 seconds or less. If you wait 30+ seconds, the signal has time to reach you. How long you want to wait for the signal is really what determines locality/non-locality.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 23:47 GMT
Jason,
When you say, "Just because somebody can measure a spin up of an entangled electron, and conclude that the other electron must be spin down, even if it's at the other end of the galaxy, is nothing special," you are assuming 'local realism'--that properties exist when particles are created and are conserved throughout the journey.
But what people have concluded from the so-called 'violation of Bell's inequality' is that these properties don't exist until the measurement collapses the wavefunction, and then come into existence. That is the non-local problem of quantum mechanics as it is understood today. That is why I discuss the logical error that Bell made in deriving his inequality. If he made no error, then such violations are meaningful.
Your choice of sub-luminal or super-luminal signaling is related to the definition of the problem, and would probably be the answer that many prefer, but I think the problem Bell is most concerned with is the classical/quantum dividing line. There are many potential answers to Paul's question, and yours may be the one he was looking for.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 23:49 GMT
Paul,
you said "However, time is not a spatial dimension, because change does not necessitate space."
Are you sure the kind of change you are talking about does not necessitate space. I can see two kinds of possible change.
1. How the observer observers. IE what he is doing in space to alter the sensory data intercepted. This is his reference frame and depends upon how he moves through space. He may consider himself stationary but from other observer perspectives he may appear to be in motion.So it would be wrong to assume him to be absolutely stationary in space because he thinks he is.
2. Change in arrangement of the universe in space. Unobserved but the arrangement being the source of the sensory data intercepted and processed into observed reality.
Both necessitate space.
I do not know how you can designate something as a change if there has been no change in appearance or no change in position or arrangement in the object universe.
The Collins conisise dictionary of the English language:
1. To make or become different. 2.to replace or exchange for another 3. to transform or convert or be transformed or converted.
How is this possible without space. If something appears just the same in form and location and also has not moved in absolute space or altered in form or configuration with other objects in absolute space, then there is/has been no change. If you just say it has moved in time it is applying a totally evidence less assumption onto something for no reason other than to fit with your belief.IMHO.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 00:50 GMT
All is said Ray. I have understood why you are all on FQXi, it is sad in all case. Beautiful strategy that said but of course the truth is the truth. I have friends.
Furthermore about physics, the work of florin, Joy, You or Tom or Lawrence are just an ocean of confusions. In fact it is just a team of extradimensionalists.
In fact you add several maths and in fact all is false. You...
view entire post
All is said Ray. I have understood why you are all on FQXi, it is sad in all case. Beautiful strategy that said but of course the truth is the truth. I have friends.
Furthermore about physics, the work of florin, Joy, You or Tom or Lawrence are just an ocean of confusions. In fact it is just a team of extradimensionalists.
In fact you add several maths and in fact all is false. You try simply to convice who? In all case I do not see an evolution in your ideas but just an ocean of confusions. I suspect the taste of monney and the taste of vanity and power. The rest is vain. We see always when people are universalists or no. In fact you speak about physics but I do not see the thermodynics, the entropy, the evolution....just a pure joke. A real searcher analyzes in generality and in all centers of interest. You and your friends, you rest just in your errors and your pseudo strategy of hormons. Let's me laugh. Even my new equations you do not accept with your friends, just because 1 you do not understand,2 it is a business and strategy .....and I do niot speak about jealousy.
In fact all here on FQXi , you try to be recognized , and that decreases your open mind. Because instead to study the real genralists and real innovators. You rest in your errors , and that's why you repeat always the same. In fact you want all be recognized for an exeptional thing but in fact , with humility I am th only one who has really invented real important innovations.If you can't recognize that, then there is a problem. If your tastes of monney and for the recognizing is so important, i suppose you do not see the genrality simply. Never I have listened for example from you or tom or lawrence or joy or florin .....words of universality respecting the entropical distribution.Or words about evolution. Or about the pure thermodynamics. No I see always the same confusions of pseudos maths.
Me my equations are reals like my correlations. My intuitions are corrects.
Now let's be serious still more. All people rational understands the potential of my theory and its applications. Don't say me it is not possible to have people who wants my prizes and recognizings.Frankly let me laugh. Even in 100 or 1000 years or more we shall speak always of this spherization.And what I must give my future capitals also no, nicely and with stupidity. Let me laugh.I am not here to laugh, Ray you know it. Come on APS , we shall see what are the persons who shall agree with your ideas to you and friends. It is what all that???
Never you thought that my theory was so complete, never you thought that my maths were corrects. See my new equations. E=(c²o²s²)m ; mcosV=constant ;
F=S s1s2/r². 3 news equations more my theory of evolution more this and that.Frankly we are in a film or what???
For our house, yes people wants take it now?? It is what all that, a strtategy to destroy me, frankly for my mother it is sad, me frankly I am already dead due to all my problems but her, she is sick and weak. And anybody to help us, it is what all that??? It is from where all that? Who implies us so many ^problems .For my theory. It is incredible. This Earth begins to disgust me. But I will fight even very weak and even dead.
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 01:51 GMT
Edwin,
I agree with local realism. In spite of this, I can still come up with a way to construct a faster than light drives. But quantum entanglent is not how it's done. Photons always travel at velocity c through ...
I'm an electronics technician. I troubleshoot circuit boards all day long; not a lot of RF. When I have a board that fails a test or doesn't work, there is always a copper wire that goes from the source of the problem to everywhere the problem is manifested. I can generalize this daily experience into the realm of physics in the following way:
There are events (in the space-time interval sense of the word). An event happens somewhere in the universe. Light from the event travels away at the speed of light to some observer. It is as if the observer is attached to the event by, not a copper wire, but a wire or fiber made out of something that, in large quantities, becomes the space-time continuum.
E: "But what people have concluded from the so-called 'violation of Bell's inequality' is that these properties don't exist until the measurement collapses the wavefunction, and then come into existence. That is the non-local problem of quantum mechanics as it is understood today. "
These fibers extend from point A to point B, even when A -> B is a very long distance. Conserved quantities ARE conserved by these fibers like kinks in a telephone cord. Information can travel no faster than c; another way to say this is that I cannot signal an observer any faster than c. Even if some measureable quantity exists somewhere along the length of the interconnecting fiber, there is no way to measure it until its signal reaches the other end. These fibers are also what gauges distance between two objects.
I'm not sure that Bell's theorem (or it's violation) are directly related to signaling with information.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 03:29 GMT
When we model relativity using interconnecting fibers made out of space-time, we solve our causality question. Information (photons) can go back and forth between particles as much as they wish.
And if the universe is a giantic bowl of spagetti like fibers, then these fibers, will behave like both a space-time continuum and a quantum vacuum.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 06:12 GMT
Edwin
Your post 16/9 22.51
It should have said ‘local/non-local reality’, one of the concepts being used here.
There can be no ‘dividing line between microscopic quantum phenomena and macroscopic classical phenomena’, in reality. Because reality is only constituted, vis a vis us, in one form, whether micro or macro (whatever that actually is). And us, is all we have! We cannot transcend our own existence, so reality is all that is potentially experienceable by any organism. The processes of which are all the same. Therefore science is locked into this existential closed system, just as we are. Religion, philosophy, etc can consider metaphysical possibilities. Another way of addressing that micro/macro differentiation, is to ask a similar question again. So, if in reality this division is believed to exist, what factor determines it, at what value, and why? Of course, if this macro/micro division refers to different explanations of reality, the difference being driven by underlying assumptions as to the nature of its fundamental constitution, then the problem there is that one is wrong.
I don’t think it was the answer to my question, but that was my fault. Anyway, I have commented on what you did say, though I think you agree with this.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 06:42 GMT
Jason
Your post 16/9 23.30
Whilst not wishing to imply that you did not know this, especially given the words you use, I will just point out that you are referring to observation/perception, not reality. And indeed, a light based perception. So, just following this line, then what is the factor, and its value, in hearing, touching, etc? One cannot have a differentiation, if indeed this is correct, that does not have consistency across the entirety of possibilities. Then, of course, I can ask, why that particular value for this factor. What happens at the point of 1 unit below this value that does not trigger the tipping point?
But, let’s assume the time delay between existence and receipt (that would have to be defined, ie eyeball contact, etc) of information is what differentiates local/non-local reality. Then we could find out what that means, in practical terms. Massive, virtually impossible, job though, since c is affected by circumstances. So we would have to translate this, to make it operational, into an observer distance at an average. Local reality becomes non-local reality when the observer is n+1 units of distance from the reality. This cannot be so, because observation has no influence on reality. Apart from anything else, any observation is of an existent state that has ceased to exist.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 07:05 GMT
Paul, Edwin,
IMHO, physical reality probably become non-local at distances less than the electron compton wavelength and is simply due to relativistic effects. If we take Hestenes' zitterbewegung interpretation of QM to be correct, then something involved with the "structure" of an electron is moving at c. At this point I imagine a brane-like existence of the "free" electron. The point-like entity is everywhere at once within the confines of the compton wavelength sized brane. Then you have an interaction and that interaction singles out a point so we have "collapse of the wavefunction". And the electron seems point-like. But the electron's brane-like existence also has a type of circulation within the brane structure (the zitter) so a source of real wave properties. And we can add surrounding virtual fermionic pairs which are also of course brane-like so things become complicated fast.
So I suspect there is a local/non-local dividing line to physical reality but of course it is going to be a bit fuzzy. :-)
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 07:29 GMT
Georgina
Your post 16/9 23.49
Change only has one logical form, it comprises:
- sequence, which is a number of discrete states in a specific order
- rate, the speed at which any given state replaces its predecessor
The number of states depends on the given sequence of change, as too does the rate at which a state replaces its predecessor. Across the entire sequence, that rate could vary in any permutation.
Change refers to anything. Dog barking, electron spinning, river flowing, etc, etc. Every existent entity is changing, and in a multitude of ways. So, at any point in time, reality will comprise all the last existent states of everything. After n units of time, reality will comprise another set of states. Some will be the same, others changed. But only one state exists at a time, it’s just that the duration of their existence varies. No space is required. We have a three dimensional reality that is constantly changing.
What happens in observation, is an entirely different matter. We have the vagaries of the various mediums that convey information from reality to us. Then we have the variables inherent in processing that information, which is effected at the individual level. But this is not reality. To discern that, we have to regress the process, starting with the end perception.
Although I have covered the point above, to overtly address your last two paragraphs. A leaf turning brown. It changes state, gradually. There are, depending on how this sequence of change is defined, n states. They all existed, but only one at a time. So the dimension, which is a logical deduction, which we label time, is not spatial. There is only ever one state to ‘accommodate’. Contrast this with the spatial dimension. At any point in time, reality still reveals three dimensions. Your ability to sense dimension through movement has been curtailed, because at a point in time, there is no movement, but it is still experienceable through shape. Nothing ‘moves in time’ (your phrase), it just moves. Things just change.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 07:52 GMT
Jason
Your post 17/9 01.51
The real question underlying this is: can any matter travel, or exist in a way, that light cannot detect? Or at best, not fully detect.
We are dependent on light for a sight based experience (then there’s hearing, etc). Light has properties. Logically, both the maximum number of states and the fastest rate of change potentially experienceable, of any given entity, is a function of the maximum frequency with which the medium conveying the information is able to differentiate them. This could differ from what actually exists, which might be inferable.
In simple language, reality might comprise more than we can see. Which is why it is imperative to understand that we do not see reality. We see a light based sensory representation of it. We might be stuck with this, but from the scientific perspective we need to recognise it. And that is why the definition of reality is all that is potentially experienceable by any organism. The key word is potentially. [This must not be confused with the metaphysical logical possibility of other existences, which we, obviously, cannot experience].
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 08:13 GMT
Fred
Your post 17/9 07.05
Hmmm, don’t like ‘fuzzy’! I am in no way qualified to comment on the substance of what you say, I will leave that to others. But, as I hope people appreciate, I am not being mischeavous or whatever.
If someone postulates a state of ‘local reality, then there is ‘not-local reality’. Hence, what is the difference, and why, in reality. I thought it might prompt some interesting answers. This being a specific form of the question, how does any given mathematical construction which purports to depict reality, actually do so. Just the sums working is not sufficient.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 08:17 GMT
Dear Paul,
"In simple language, reality might comprise more than we can see. Which is why it is imperative to understand that we do not see reality. We see a light based sensory representation of it. "
That's where I'm going. I wish to coin a new word. I call it the fiberino (little fiber), inspired by fiber bundles. All of the mathematics of the standard model, the Einstein equations, QM, etc., are attempting to mathematically model the only fundamental particle that ever really existed.
Take any two particles from the Standard model. Between those two particles there exists a fiberino which connects the two particles. Fiberinos transmit force carriers (bosons). They have unlimited bandwidth in which to transmit light, forces, action-at-a-distance phenomena, and relativistic relationships.
Fiberinos transmit causality and information at the speed of light.
All particles in relative motion are interconnected to each other with bundles of fibers called fiberinos.
Fiberinos implement the four forces. There may be ways to produce other kinds of forces, or even block the passage of light between two particles.
Do you get where I'm going with this?
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 09:09 GMT
Jason
Your post 17/9 08.17. I thought that, because you are using words which differentiate (what I label) reality, and sensory representations thereof. both being existent, real phenomena, which are independent of us. Of course, comments are sometimes 'aimed' at a wider audience than the addressee.
Ok, but I am not capable of commenting on the substance of your point. Others can do that. All I can say is that the process is: Reality instigates a sensory representation which is then experienced by organism. In the case of sight, obviously, the medium conveying that sensory representation is EM. Now, if because of the practicalities of observation (or any other form of sensing, in the context of elementary particles, we cannot effect this separation, then we will have to model it. Albeit based on as much validated experience and rules, as possible. The point is about practicality, not metaphysics. And the rule is not to allow concepts to become reified. So, if your concept is hypothetically vaild, or at least has a reasonable probability of being so, (after all: nothing ventured nothing gained), then good. The label is of course irrelevant, though obviously it's best to pick a word that gives some clue as to its deemed existent reality.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 10:07 GMT
P: "The point is about practicality, not metaphysics. "
Fiberinos provide a very easy way to interconnect all particles (and larger massive objects) with interconnecting fibers that transmit the four forces. Fiberinos implement relativity by imposing a speed limit c between all masses. Fiberinos ARE quantum entanglement. Fiberinos settle the Bell's theorem debate: two particles can be quantumly entangled and far apart; the fiberino will still enforce the speed of light restriction for information.
Large accumulations of fiberinos become the quantum vacuum.
Fiberinos are practical because they are so simple to understand (the basic idea), yet they explain so much.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 05:36 GMT
Jason
Your post 17/9 10.07
At the risk of opening a real 'can of worms', I suppose I could ask, given your phrase, what is relativity? You see, I thought about the nature of reality when it was topical 40 years ago at uni. Hawking's book got me 'pissed off' (technical phrase!). Something along the lines, 'hang on, I might not ubderstand the content, but the form contavenes the nature of reality and our relationship with it'. So I then read original papers, the Net being a wonderful resource and it didn't occur to me to read other people's representations. Which leaves me in a slightly wierd position, no baggage/some knowledge. The key references are: Lorentz 1892, paras 3 6 7 8. Lorentz 1895, section 6. Lorentz 1904, paras 1 8 10 11. Poincaré (July)1905, introduction. Einstein 1925, para 4 5. It is about dimension alteration caused by movement. Albeit that has an effect on light which they missed. And of course light is not always c, but they made an overt assumption about that.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 06:00 GMT
Hi Paul,
I'm not sure I understand what "pissed you off"; although I will admit that the Michelson-Morley experiment is over-rated. M&M disproved the existence of a "point-particle" motionless aether. However, they did not prove the absence of a "light bearing" medium. I don't know all of the details of Schiller's Strand model; however, I do know that the fiberinos which I describe, as the connections between two particles, fix the speed of light to c, for the emitter and the observer. The speed of light is fixed by the fiberino, even if that results in time dilation, length contraction, and other other such "funny business".
I have heard of a couple of instances where the speed of light might be a little slower due to an index of refraction, or a very strong gravity field. I can only shrug and attribute such a measurement to complications in the fiberino interconnections. I do not support the idea of a variable speed of light. Instead, the path that light has to take might have obstacles that seem to slow down the light.
What is relativity? Relativity is the very bizarre observation that the speed of light is c for all observers. The only way this can be implemented is if all observers are connected to fiberinos, and the fiberinos fix the speed of light to c by inducing time dilation and length contraction upon the observer.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 06:40 GMT
Jason
Tee hee. Generally, all these great minds, etc, but they had lost sight of/contravened the essential nature of reality. Specifically, his relentless and gratuitous inclusion of comments about a god. Every chapter, which then led at the end to, 'you don't need one, we have the answer'. Now, I am not religious. But the simple fact is that we are aware of our existence, so there is always the logical possibility of 'not-existence'. One feature of which could be an entity god, or indeed any other such mechanism. That there is a logical possibility of a 'god' is an objective fact. Any statement that it does exist, or depictions of it, or a denial of the possibility, is metaphysical (ie unprovable, or wrong if judged from within the confines of existence).
Assuming Peter Jackson is watching, he would explain light.
Relativity is not that. Perversely it does happen to be like that, given how light actually works. But they made an overt assumption about light speed, which is a perfectly acceptable procedure, ie neutralise one of the variables to isolate the effect of others. Einstein was trying to explain something else, albeit in terms of consequences. Somewhat like a medical man explaining measles in terms of external symptoms. Have a look at those references, but not today, the sun is shining!!
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 12:35 GMT
Incredible ?? And you say what with Hestenes now ? Well you are numerous in fact to stole me . I am honored in fact, me alone and you, wawww more than 10. Interesting strategy of New York. Well , don't forget one thing,I arrive in New York and California, I am going to tell you, be sure , the truths in live and trasparence. And whe shall discuss with Oprah Winfrey about important things about USA,I like . Even the president I will discuss with him in the future you know, and what you do not like that. No problem. I am a person of well. And all your strategies or others, shan't change this evidence. I love FqxI, but I think their governances must to rethink some essential universal basis.Like their members and their tastes of monney, vanity and pseudo recognizing. They search simply a pseudo recognizing. I think frankly that some scientists are not really scientists but strategists. If they confound sciences and business, there is a big problem. Now I will explain to Oprah why the investments go in the bad ^part and I will explain her also why it is important to stabilize all that quickly. We are not in a film where all can to speculate on what they want . The investments must be rational and universal.
To you
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 16:58 GMT
Hi Steve,
As long as you are making your grand tour of America - New York, Chicago (Oprah's home), and California - you should drop by and visit me in Florida. I would enjoy showing you the town and the beach.
My wife is a fan of Oprah's. On one of our visits to Chicago, we sat in on an Oprah audience. The TV cameras showed me in the audience, but missed my wife. In fact, I was on TV again last night when the Florida State Seminoles tied up the Oklahoma Sooners 13-13 in the middle of the 4th quarter - the camera turned to video some fans, and I was there!
Joy starts out with an 8-D octonion hypersphere with a time-like radius, breaks it into a 4-D quaternion hypersphere with a time-like radius, and then works within the 3-D Euclidean spatial hypersurface of that 4-D hypersphere. One of my complaints against Joy's work is that these dimensional manipulations do not seem to be spelled out clearly enough. I understand that professional journal articles do not typically show minor mathematical steps, but I think that the collapse of 8-D to 4-D to 3-D is critical to Joy's argument. If Joy is accidentally introducing complex numbers, then that could account for the factor of SQRT(2) difference between he and Bell.
Regarding your spherical ideas, please recall that I was working with close-packing 3-D spheres before I met you (see Section 7.2 of my book), and I have since expanded the mathematics that I am willing to consider physically-relevant to the close-packing of 8-D octonion 7-spheres into an E8 Gosset lattice. Yes - my models might have as many as 120-D, but all subsets can be reduced to 8-D or smaller. I am not trying to destroy Joy's work, but he and I both work with 8-D hyperspheres, you and he both work with 3-D Euclidean space, and I would like to understand the transition from one to the other. It is not sufficient to declare that "the devil is in the details".
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 21:38 GMT
I am disgusted Ray by your words to you and friends, it is incredible. You are a band of stealers in fact simply. Before you met me, really??? Ray , pray and be sure, learn the sacred books and pray.
In fact it was for that your mails and when you were nice with in explaining for example your personnal problems and others. I am disgusted by your words to you and friends, you are just a band of stealers.
You fear to come on APS Ray.
Well I have even been contacted by the CBIZ of new york and the maccann system .And also the new yok sciences academy??? it is what all that???
I repeat I have found that alone !!! You are several in this project of steal. In fact Lisi, THRay,Lawrence,Jonathan,Florin,You,Joy,Hestenes .....you are a band of stealers!!! In fact you thought what dear pseudo scientists??? Since the begining I have seen your play. Sad reality, it is due to this kind of comportment that the world is sick.
At the begining when I was on FqxI several years ago, you said me, I don't understand why I have not thought about your theory before?? Never the spheres were utilized before.And now you copy all like poor squales , frustrated by lack of recognizings. You have problems of monney or what with your friends, you have then choosen this solution with my theory.It is what thazt.And now you are going to make what???
Can you look at yourself in the mirror ? And you insist furthermore like a fighter, it is that your education Ray.A cowbow vanitious without faith.I am going to explaibn you be sure the real meaning of this faith, here on Earth or after, it is not a problem, and be sure you can take all the guns you want, that won't change your case,because there you know in this pure entropy,the confusion is not a reality. Eat with me , laugh with me, drink with me, travel with me, and after kill him it is that your school, your heart.No problem Ray , you can laugh, be sure, laugh and profit ray with your friends. You are going to really understand what is the spherization theory. Make surf and make it well.
Come on APS linkedin if you are really a man with your friends in total live and transparence.You know to be or not to be !!!!
I don't see you on APS linkedin you and your friends, WHY ? Because you fear simply?
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 22:14 GMT
Dear Steve,
You have a copy of my book. I published the first edition in January 2008, and the second edition in May 2008. Lisi's ideas inspired me to add Section 7.7 to my book, and that is the primary difference between the first and second editions, but my ideas on a Face-centered-cubic-close-packing 3-D lattice were part of Section 7.2 long before we contacted each other on FQXi.
It is true that I incorporate bits and pieces of other people's ideas: Garrett Lisi's E8, Mohamed El Naschie's E-infinity, Laurent Notalle's Scale Relativity, Subir Sachdev's Graphene Holography, and other mathematical concepts from Lawrence Crowell, Joy Christian, Dray & Manogue, and others. But I don't 'steal' people's ideas. You can have your spinning 3-balls (which are unstable due to the Hairy Ball Theorem). Personally, I would rather try to represent reality with quaternion 3-spheres. They may have some similarities, but they are definitely NOT the same. In fact, my models include time and even multiple time dimensions, whereas you do not consider time a 'real' dimension. So how did I 'copy' you? How did I 'steal' from you? I am being nice to you because I understand that you are going through difficult trials with difficult infirmaries, but you are way off on this one - not everyone around you is an enemy trying to make an easy Euro off of your misfortune. You have to be a friend to have a friend.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 12:06 GMT
My spinning balls now instead of spheres.Frankly it is what that? I am disgusted by your words and strategies.Fotrtunally it exists good people on this Earth, fortunally they exist.
I am disgusted, my balls now .Incredible of lack of competences and incredible of taste for monney.And we ask all why this eart is like that. It is well ray, you and your friends, you are very super and nice, congratulations for your faith and sincerity.Congratulations for your strategies and your vanities.Congratulations for your heart and your universality.Sleep well, see well your face in the mirror.Congratulations you are all people of well .And be sure , speak between you in private, drink alcohol between your friends, go to las vegas and laugh Ray.But laugh well be sure.And also congratuilations to you and your friends for your relevances in sciences.
Just a band of pseudo scientists with a plan of strategies.Now you are at the end of your business plan.If you take that like a play, me no.it begins only you know.You think that the colomnias and diffamations are accepted by the international commission of human rights.Let me laugh.
To you and come on APS linkedin, there are several universalists there, known and respected by the global sciences community. We are going to laugh you know in live. The only solution is to kill me.And still i will be theere with my spheres, not balls RAY ......spherization theory in 3d with quantum spheres and cosmological spheres and an unique universal sphere.Now study my equations but I am persuaded that you and your friends you do not understand jsut because you are not generalists.Even your details are falses.A big joke of business and strategies by frustrated .
Come on APS linkedin ,you also Florin and Joy , yoyu can come with your others pseudo scientists you know. We shall see your international credibility but perhaps you prefer to go to Las Vegas to play at games like you like the games.
ps I have composed 3 songs and 12 poems about you and your friends and soon I will be at the oprah winfrey live and you know what, all people from all over the world will understand my theory and its universality. I don't fear to die you know, I am alre"ady dead ahahah
To you for your credibility ...
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 12:22 GMT
I say me if Eckard Georgina are with you.It is bizare anybody supports me. It is really sad all that. Never I imagined that from You and friends. It is sad in all case your comportments. A friend he says ,no but frankly ??? Quaternion 3 spheres and you Georgina of course you agree with your prime qyuaternion model, it is that the last strategy, a woman to decrease the hormons. Let me laugh ,you are so frustrated???
And you Ray , speak a little about my 3 new equation with MY SPINNING 3D SPHERES? You said what for the proportions....
Ironical is a weak word
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 12:28 GMT
It is what also these people who contacts me? The Academy of sciences of New york, the CBIZ mahoney cohen ? It is who these people whom wants meet me?
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 12:42 GMT
Jason,
You wrote: "And if the universe is a giantic bowl of spagetti like fibers, then these fibers, will behave like both a space-time continuum and a quantum vacuum."
Yes, that's how one gets the string theory extension of quantum field theory. Filling in the details, though ...
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 13:41 GMT
Steve,
Did you see this article by
Richard Elwes that I linked earlier? It should inform you what a mathematician (specifically, a topologist) means by "sphere."
Frame your work inside that meaning, and you have a chance that someone will understand what you're trying to say.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 14:24 GMT
Dear Steve,
A 3-ball is a short desription of a 3-D sphere. We could also call it a 2-sphere, but that might imply something other than 3 spatial dimensions. For example, Joy Christian emphasises the parallelizable 7-sphere, 3-sphere, and 1-sphere. If we use these parallelizable spheres to represent Normed Divisor Algebras (some of the most fundamental of Clifford Algebras), then the 7-sphere is an octonion with 7 space-like hypersurface dimensions and 1 time-like radial dimension. Similarly, the 3-sphere and 1-sphere correspond to quaternion and complex algebras - but with 3 and 1 space-like dimensions, respectively. You represent the sequencing of time with your spinning spheres, but do not represent time as a 'real' dimension - such as the 7-sphere, 3-sphere, and 1-sphere examples where time is the hypersphere's radius.
A spinning 3-D spatial sphere is unstable due to the Hairy Ball Theorem - which was proven by the Dutch Mathematician Brouwer in 1912. I expect the instability to be proportional to (spin speed)^2/(surface tension). If your spinning balls are steel ball bearings, then we may have to get them up to a very high spin speed to deform them, but spinning water droplets would fall apart much faster. In 3 spatial dimensions, the more natural shape is the 2-torus or donut.
You might ask why an atomic S orbital has a stable spherical shape? But what about atomic D orbitals that start to show some toroidal shape? Please recall that the S, P, D, F, G atomic orbitals represent increasing angular momentum.
I am not saying that the Hairy Ball Theorem completely kills your idea - perhaps your spheres are like the steel ball bearings that do not deform easily. Nonetheless, I think you should build this instability into your model, and see if it introduces new physics.
The easy way out is to consider parallelizable 4-D quaternion 3-spheres that are naturally resistant to the Hairy Ball Theorem (because a 3-sphere can be combed without creating a 'cowlick'), but such constructions imply a radial time-like dimension - something to which you seem philosophically opposed.
Remember - You have to be a friend in order to have a friend...
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 17:11 GMT
Disgusted is a weak word. Come on APS linkedin if you are real men !! But I am persuaded never you shall come !!!
Remember what ? We are not in the far west here, I repeat you are you and your friends a team of professional stealers.
In fact you are all of you not skillings, it is the reason why your only solution is to steal a young theorist and its revolutionary theory.You say balls now. Well it is interesting to see that in live. In fact you are all so much frustrated and you like so much monney, that you are ready to make all to arrive at your aims. Like a team of super hormonal vanitious who laughs together around a belgium beer. It is so ironical to see your comportments in fact.
You and your friends, you do n,ot understand nor the relativity, nor the entropy, nor the gravitation, nor the evolution,nor the foundamentals,nor rational maths correlated to physics. That's why your only solution is to make business and strategies to steal the real searchers of truth. In fact the most impressing is that you like that and you are happy for yourself in fact.We return about this vanity of course.But the real problem is more that this still. In fact you try to be with your friends like real searchers, but of course it is like comparing a water drop and an ocean. In fact you profit just of a revolutionary discovery to win a little of recognizing and a lot of monney.
Frankly when I read your ideas to you and friends, it is so ironical. In fact You are not real scientists, but just frustrated whom have not the general books. A real comedy.
Well I repeat EUREKA from BELGIUM. And come on APS linkedin, why you fear to speak with rationalists.
In fact I am laughing so much. Just a team of copycats.
PS the friendship is a sincere act of heart !!! I am not here to laugh with virtual friends and their hypocrisis !
And you TH ? return at school because your ideas are an ocean of stupidities and irrationalities.
And yes still one thing, SPHERES SPHERIZATION UNIVERSAL SPHERE not but frankly band of stealers professional and intelligent, what ??? Kill me , really , it is the only solution to stop my words.And be sure that begins only.
Come on APS
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 17:46 GMT
Steve -
The people on this blog site know that you 'cracked' some time ago. I have mostly tried to remain friendly to you because I realize that you are probably smoking marijuana rather than taking the sort of psychiatric medicine that you really need. At one point, our conversations were so silly that I was embarrassed to use my real name, and used the sock-puppet name "Dr. Cosmic Ray". But you really try my patience. Either you have a terrible memory or you are purposely trying to provoke me.
It would be easy enough to prove in a court of law that I developed Section 7.2 of my book before you and I ever blogged each other. But really - That is not even the point! Spheres have been an important part of Natural Philosophy since at least Aristotle, so neither of us 'owns' exclusive rights to the idea. Furthermore, your idea of spinning 3-balls completely ignores the Hairy Ball Theorem (it is a real mathematical theorem despite the silly sounding name).
And what do you mean by APS Linkedin? Are you on the American Physical Society's Linkedin blog? Send me the link - I don't see you. If you Google APS Linkedin, you will see that there are many companies on Linkedin with the initials APS.
And would I want to visit a blog site that had so many undereducated scientists or crackpots that they do not recognize the fact that the Hairy Ball Theorem creates a significant problem for your model?
You have to be a friend in order to have a friend.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 21:16 GMT
Dear Steve,
I am not in league with anyone but have been talking on this site to many different people. Mostly John Merryman and TH Ray. I mostly understand what John is saying and his insight has been very helpful. TH Ray has been a harsh critic but also very helpful in making me think very carefully about what I am saying and how I am saying it.I have also appreciated the comments, both agreeing and disagreeing, and the helpful advice and encouragement of others. Some people are difficult to converse with as they think in a very different way , or have English as a second language, or speak mostly in mathematics, or have very different personality traits to my own. Thats OK, it is nice to occasionally share a few words and to listen to what others are doing and consider important and to think it all over.
Yes I liked the idea of a quaternion object of nested 3 spheres but in the end it doesn't really work and sequential iterations of 3 spheres would be better, it seems to me. Though I don't know how many dimensions an unobserved object ought to have. As it is the observer who imposes the 3 dimensional structure upon the manifestation he creates IMHO.I suppose it is what ever works best mathematically to generate the reality that exists and eventually leads to what is observed.I am not a mathematician so I do not presume to know the answer to that. Mathematicians, some on this site, are working on that conundrum. It may be that the mathematics at the foundational level bears little resemblance to the mathematics of the observed reality.
The ideas I have been discussing more recently have progressed a long way since I first came in the site. The model I had then does not work as well as what I am arguing for now. As you have frequently said "we must evolve". It is only worthwhile hanging on to ideas if they can not be improved upon. It is up to you to evaluate your own ideas in the light of the comments received. As John Merryman has said there is no objective judge here.
In the end either the ideas we present here are compatible with observation and fit with basic accepted physics and offer some kind of improvement in understanding of the world /universe or they don't. Whether they find wider acceptance only time will tell. It would be helpful for you to explain more of your approach. I have read some brilliant posts over the years but I still do not know much about your model as you seem on the one hand to want it accepted but on the other reluctant to share your insight. Please do not waste your valuable time, and intelligence, in fighting imaginary conspiracies. If what you have to say is not about the science itself then it would be better not to say it here,IMHO.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 23:13 GMT
Without real sense, you are just a band of poor thinkers focus on your own vanity.Furthermore you profit all of my ideas and you are all under a specific strategy to steal me inteklligently.
Come on APS linkedin Georgina, Ray also. and you also the pseudo mathematicians, the pseudo experts in nothing, just in strategy .Come on APS Lawrence, Florin and Tom and Ray and Lisi and Jonathan, and Joy and who also ? Oh the poor thinkers frustrated by lack of recognizing.They publish books but of course they are not read in universities and by rationalists.
Copy indeed dear all, after all you are not competent to make an other thing than that . I am laughing Ray so much , you are ironically ironical.
Georgina, not you it is not possible?
I insist Ray you steal me with your friends. Since the beginnig it was your strategy with your friends. Because you have seen my works probably on the net before when I was moderator of some groups on xing. It is sad all that.Even my personal problems increased .It is not logic and normal all that. All that to have my prizes and recognizings because you know all the real importance of my general theory of spherization. I didn't imagine that of you Ray, and you speak of frienship.And you want to pass for the good person also perhaps with your friends.Perhaps also you have invented also my musical compositions or my inventions. Or perhaps also you think for me, you are in my head also.Perhaps also you are a real universalist also and you like Africa and you want help them like me. In fact me I critic and you and your friends you say diffamations about me. The real difference is there. Me I like sincerelly people, the difference is there Ray, and you have proffitted of that since the begining with your friends. Ypu profit of my kindness, my economical catastrophic situation,my health also, and my theory also...it is frankly sad.And you say you are a christian Ray. You say you are a good person Ray. In fact all your mails were for what???
It's incredible. How I can be so stupid ??? Me who thought you were all my friends. I am disgusted by your taste for this strategy.What can be your heart if you act like that? I say me you are not good persons simply.And Me who beleived in FQXi. All that for this papper and this vanity, I am disgusted by your comportments. You prove in live why your country have some problems int he high spheres. And tom who says furthermore the definition of sphere now and also he have invented a kissings spheres models now .I am dreaming.
if Lisi is not your friend on Facebook, perhaps it is because he has understood him that it was time to be reasonable!!!I am persuaded that Lisi and Georgina are intelligent to accept to be reasonable. The otehrs I doubt.You like too much monney and power and this vanity.
COME ON APS linkedin,
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 01:56 GMT
Dear Georgina,
If I understand him correctly, Steve is trying to model reality with rotating 3-D Euclidean space-like 3-balls. He claims that the rotation motion of the spheres generates an origin of sequencing (time) and an origin of mass.
In contrast, I think that 4-D quaternion 3-spheres are more relevant because they include the Minkowski spacetime metric with 3 space-like hypersurface dimensions and one time-like radial dimension, and not simply the Euclidean space and sequencing of Steve's model. I tend to agree that a simple 4-D quaternion 3-sphere cannot - by itself - represent reality. If such were possible, then Amrit Sorli's block model might be correct, but reality also includes 'entropy' and time reversibility is a broken symmetry - both at the level of Thermodynamics and Charge-Parity Symmetry Violation.
A single 3-sphere may not be a sophisticated enough model, but close-packing of 3-spheres can build up a 4-D 24-cell lattice that represents the F4 Lie algebra group.
1-spheres, 3-spheres and 7-spheres are all very important because they are parallelizable, and thus stable against hyper-generalizations of the Hairy Ball Theorem, whereas Steve's 3-balls are not.
I have similar ideas about octonion 7-spheres with 7 space-like hypersurface dimensions and one radial time-like dimension. Close-packing of these 7-spheres can build up an 8-D Gosset lattice that represents the E8 Lie algebra group.
The question is whether or not octonions are required to represent reality? Joy Christian uses octonion-like 7-spheres, and my
latest paper with Jonathan Dickau uses both quaternion and octonion physics.
Quite frankly, if octonion and quaternion physics are both involved, then it may get too complex for my math skills. The details of the 7-sphere decomposition are part of my disagreement with Joy and Tom.
But I see a couple of problems with Steve's model: 1) the Hairy ball theorem should cause his spinning 3-D 3-balls (or 2-spheres) to decompose into 2-tori. A simple example is to compare and contrast atomic S orbitals (with zero angular momentum 'spin') with atomic D orbitals (angular momentum of 2 h-bar) - any Chemistry student is aware of the differences; and 2) using a 'centripetal force' model to 'create' mass and gravity relies on an a priori assumption that angular momentum exists, but how can angular momentum of L=mrv have a non-zero value if mass does not (yet) exist? The entire argument consists of circular logic - its "turtles all the way down".
I hope that you understand enough of what Steve and I are each doing, to know that I am not copying or stealing anything of his.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 04:03 GMT
Dear Ray,
from your descriptions of Steve's ideas and your own, they do seem rather different. I doubt anyone thinks badly of you because of Steve's comments, so don't take them to heart. Hopefully the clouds will pass soon.
Did you see Tejinder Singh's essay? It was too complicated for me to fully understand but he was talking about a universe with multiple levels of dynamics. I am talking about different levels of reality. The foundational object(source) reality, continuously changing , the potential sensory data in the environment, -input- (spreading out from the source) and the observer created -output- reality produced from sensory input. Dependent upon observer reference frame.
Rather than trying to cram all of the structure of reality into one geometric structure or pattern I think recognizing the differences in the dynamics of the different layers of reality and how they are related to each other may be the way to go.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 12:21 GMT
Dear Georgina,
Yes, I read Tejinder Singh's essay during the contest a few months ago. As I recall, he has 3 and a half layers of reality. Have you read Laurent Nottale's work? He has 4 self-similar layers of reality based on Scale Relativity. And my essay implied 4 or 5 self-similar scales based on anticipated fundamental intrinsic spin values of 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, and 2 (for Higgs boson, Fermions, Photons, Gravitinos, and Gravitons, respectively). The question that I'm not sure of is "Are spin-0 (origin of mass) and spin-2 (origin of gravity) equivalent?" If so, then we have a modulo arithmetic that continually cycles: 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2 = 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, ... and Laurent Nottale is correct about 4 layers of reality. But if spin-0 and spin-2 are distinctly unique, then we have at least 5 layers of reality, and might not be able to truncate these layers of reality into a simple modulo arithmetic.
Big Bang cosmology relies on Inflation - which is a phase transition. The interesting feature about phase transitions is that they can create self-similar scales. If the Big Bang was infinite (simple gravitational arguments say that (inverse-radius-squared) tends towards infinity as radius tends towards infinity), then reality should likewise be infinite. But we don't see an infinite reality, do we? The Universe appears finite (although billions of light-years is quite huge). But do the many possible quantum probabilities and measurements lead to infinity, and do those probabilities/possibilities exist somewhere? Does this imply an infinite Multiverse?
These other levels of reality are not our own, but they somehow 'connect' with our level of reality. At this point, I think we have some sort of mixing matrix similar to the ideas of Dray and Manogue (they are FQXi members with blog pages on FQXi). The modeling of this matrix is where I start getting into a ridiculous number of dimensions, say 120 or more. Everything gets complicated enough that it no longer seems 'fundamental'. I am in a transitional stage of this theoretical development where I am trying to simplify this into 'fundamental' ideas.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 13:43 GMT
Oh you are so nice Georgina, wawwww real gentleman and gentlewomen. Many politness for nothing. Just a dance of copycats. Like a quiet strategy of a kind of team. Come on APS also Georgina.
You know dear all, many people reads your posts now , that 's why of course show us to all in live and transparence your sciences and your copycats.
The good people now are the bad and inversally, let's me laugh.
Then we rebegin , how many are they in this team, that is the question, me I am alone !!!
ps your models to both of you , I am frank and direct, are weaks, subjectives and not rational. The problem is the lack of points of vue of the whole. You confound too much the things to ponder deterministic universalities. In fact you speak, that's all.Like Tom, Florin or Lawrence.
You make a kind of publicity mixed with a strategy mixed with a superimposing of maths,but the real generality has no meaning.
Long phrases without real innovations. I can understand people wants to be recognized, but please let's be serious about our foundamentals.We are not on a stupid platform. We are on a platform of sharing of foundamentals.
The rest is vain and the rule of rationalists is to say the good critics about some works.Indeed students can't learn these stupidities.And the teachers also can't teach these stupidities at school or at university.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 02:14 GMT
Dear Ray, All,
I think the problem with deciding on suitable dimensions for foundational reality might be because it is possibly better described by something very different from space or space-time with dimensions. It has to do with dynamics on various different levels. The space-time is a "separate but co-existing" level of reality but built upon what is happening at the foundational level.The movement of observer and the observed, giving reference frames and so relativity, just an added level of superficial complexity.So space-time does not have to be incorporated into the foundational level of reality.
At the foundational level there is spreading out of data from its source in all directions and affects upon that transmission. (Thinking about EM waves and sound waves.) There is also the "universal trajectory" of the source objects. The default change that will occur without any other energy input. Why?, because an object in motion will continue in motion unless acted upon by another unbalanced force. An unbalanced force will have to overcome inertia/momentum to alter the default universal trajectory.It will be altering the existing relationships with surrounding objects or medium. Any such alteration will give change of pattern rather than just the same pattern unaltered but undergoing default rotation, translation and scaling transformation between uni-temporal iterations.
Its as if the relationships of all of the existing objects, giving the object universe pattern make the imagined unobservable space; and the change of the whole pattern gives passage of time. Not the space and time independently existing and defining what/where/ when the objects are....The relationships of the source objects allow space to be imagined and are the context giving time. The relationships within the arrangement also determine the changes that will occur. As it is the newly formed relationships that create the variables that prevent, constrain or allow certain further changes to occur.
The space and time do not necessarily have to be given as a dimensional context in which the objects exist. Where/when something is in foundational reality depends upon where everything else is around it. The context is the interrelationship and continual change of everything- the "how or direction/which way" of the change" is determined by the variables arising from the continual changes in the the relationships. Which might sound entirely like pointless philosophy but I am not convinced that it is.Part of the problem could be trying to determine what is happening in reality with excellent mathematics that doesn't fit with the reality being investigated.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies