I thought that I should re-state the problem.
If you wish to create a stable system then there has to be a standing wave. The standing waves of the planck scale and of the spacetime are such waves. The standing waves of our universe are rather stable. They have been around for 15 billion years.
(The snake must eats its tail.)
QUOTE
In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length.
Lets talk about the diameter instead of radius. Therefore, 1 Planck length = 2 pi.
Therefore, At the planck scale, (wave/particles) cannot be closer than 2 pi.
Planck scale is the ultimate Schwarzschild radius. Nothing can get in it. It is the inside of nothing.
Here is what a Planck Scale Sphere looks like.
What we really have in the above diagram are 6 points. (Don’t forget the 2 on the Z axis) They cannot get closer than 2 pi.
But points are smaller than the Planck scale, so they cannot exist.
Therefore, those 6 point must be waves and the diagram gets more complicated.
Can a 2D area cover the surface Area of a 3D sphere? When you lay it out flat….voila …. IT’S A 2D MEMBRANE!!!! When you fold it up …….VOILA…. A SPHERE. It would be only at this scale that 2D is equal to 3D.
There is nothing inside the 3D. It is an empty shell.
Okay... what does the 2D membrane look like? 4 circles/spots is what I said... It is what Gerard t' Hooft said.....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length. |
Lets talk about the diameter instead of radius. Therefore, 1 Planck length = 2 pi.
Therefore, At the planck scale, (wave/particles) cannot be closer than 2 pi.
Planck scale is the ultimate Schwarzschild radius. Nothing can get in it. It is the inside of nothing.
Here is what a Planck Scale Sphere looks like.
What we really have in the above diagram are 6 points. (Don’t forget the 2 on the Z axis) They cannot get closer than 2 pi.
But points are smaller than the Planck scale, so they cannot exist.
Therefore, those 6 point must be waves and the diagram gets more complicated.
Can a 2D area cover the surface Area of a 3D sphere? When you lay it out flat….voila …. IT’S A 2D MEMBRANE!!!! When you fold it up …….VOILA…. A SPHERE. It would be only at this scale that 2D is equal to 3D.
There is nothing inside the 3D. It is an empty shell.
Okay... what does the 2D membrane look like? 4 circles/spots is what I said... It is what Gerard t' Hooft said.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
QUOTE
In physics, the Bekenstein bound imposes a limit on the information that can be contained within a three-dimensional region of a given surface area:
S<A/4 where S is the entropy and A is the two-dimensional area in units of the Planck area, .
(The bound was originally found by Jacob Bekenstein in the form S<2piEL, where L is the linear size of the region, and E is the energy of the contained matter as measured when the matter is moved to an infinite distance, i.e., accounting for binding force potential energies. Gerard t' Hooft later generalized it to the form involving A/4.)
I hope that this helps
jal
QUOTE (jal+Sep 3 2006, 08:41 PM)
Okay... what does the 2D membrane look like?
Hey jal, 5D, C2, et al.
jal, glad to see you are not really ready to admit defeat!
jal, glad to see you are not really ready to admit defeat!QUOTE (jal+ from way back on the first page)
third step
Three dimension
A "true" 3d object is a "solid ball." Our universe is not "solid".
Therefore, to get to a new dimension/equilibrium it is necessary to break the symmetry of 2d.
HOW?... BY OPENING A DOOR/punch a hole in the 2d membrane.
This is accomplished by having one of the instantons/"spot" spinning at right angle to the 2d membrane. I think you are admitting defeat too soon!
The result would be a cascading of "instantons/spots" into a 3d configuration - spheres. Therefore, what appear to be the beginning from one instantons is really a whole lot of instantons/spots coming from the same area out of 2d space and into 3d configuration. The size of the door only needs to be the size of a "instanton/spot".
Over the last few pages we have been talking about only one Planck Sphere. What if we pack a bunch of these spheres together, in a larger sphere, of course
. Assuming that energy can only move "on" the surface of a Planck Sphere, how do we get the energy to propagate in 3D? Through the SPOTS connecting the spheres?
Moving forward, the next possible sphere would be have a radius of 3Lp and an area of 4pi 3Lp^2...yes?
By the way, I don't think you should go from radius to diameter, it makes all the equations divisable by two which complicates the math.
Three dimension
A "true" 3d object is a "solid ball." Our universe is not "solid".
Therefore, to get to a new dimension/equilibrium it is necessary to break the symmetry of 2d.
HOW?... BY OPENING A DOOR/punch a hole in the 2d membrane.
This is accomplished by having one of the instantons/"spot" spinning at right angle to the 2d membrane. I think you are admitting defeat too soon!
The result would be a cascading of "instantons/spots" into a 3d configuration - spheres. Therefore, what appear to be the beginning from one instantons is really a whole lot of instantons/spots coming from the same area out of 2d space and into 3d configuration. The size of the door only needs to be the size of a "instanton/spot".
Over the last few pages we have been talking about only one Planck Sphere. What if we pack a bunch of these spheres together, in a larger sphere, of course
. Assuming that energy can only move "on" the surface of a Planck Sphere, how do we get the energy to propagate in 3D? Through the SPOTS connecting the spheres? Moving forward, the next possible sphere would be have a radius of 3Lp and an area of 4pi 3Lp^2...yes?
By the way, I don't think you should go from radius to diameter, it makes all the equations divisable by two which complicates the math.
SHHuush! Why Not?
Your idea is going to drive everyone crazy.
Later.
I want all of you to read the following papers.
Why?
It makes the case for using 6 waves around a plank distance.
The above picture using 2 pi will be helpful in understanding.
Relativity, Stochastic Schrödinger Quantum Wave Mechanics, Fine Structure Constant, by James G. Gilson
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page2.html
James G. Gilson made a similar drawing
Stochastic Simulation of The
Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum
February 1995
James G. Gilson
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
I guess that James G. Gilson explained how the Fine Structure Constant gets involved
I hope there is a reader out there who can confirm that
It makes the case for using 6 waves around a plank distance.
Jal
Your idea is going to drive everyone crazy.
Later.
I want all of you to read the following papers.
Why?
It makes the case for using 6 waves around a plank distance.
The above picture using 2 pi will be helpful in understanding.
Relativity, Stochastic Schrödinger Quantum Wave Mechanics, Fine Structure Constant, by James G. Gilson
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page2.html
James G. Gilson made a similar drawing
Stochastic Simulation of The
Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum
February 1995
James G. Gilson
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
QUOTE
It has been implicitly assumed so far that given the harmonic functions _j(x, y, t), the assembly of energy states is constructed with the two vector parameters x, y fixed. When these two parameters are taken to represent a position in E6 this implicit assumption is equivalent to setting up the energy assembly at the six-point (x, y). The space dependence of the assembly
can be further extended by allowing the assembly frequencies nj to themselves depend on position.
This has the effect of setting up differing energy assemblies from point to point in E6 . Taking this step, we now introduce a set of arbitrary assembly frequencies ni as follows,
can be further extended by allowing the assembly frequencies nj to themselves depend on position.
This has the effect of setting up differing energy assemblies from point to point in E6 . Taking this step, we now introduce a set of arbitrary assembly frequencies ni as follows,
I guess that James G. Gilson explained how the Fine Structure Constant gets involved
I hope there is a reader out there who can confirm that
It makes the case for using 6 waves around a plank distance.
Jal
Hey jal, et al.
So sorry! You started it!
More with less! 4pi 3Lp^2 is the same as 2pi 6Lp^2! Mahahahahahahahaha! The first packing! More math to do so I will shush for now, but the excitement builds!!!
QUOTE
SHHuush! Why Not?
Your idea is going to drive everyone crazy.
Your idea is going to drive everyone crazy.
So sorry! You started it!
More with less! 4pi 3Lp^2 is the same as 2pi 6Lp^2! Mahahahahahahahaha! The first packing! More math to do so I will shush for now, but the excitement builds!!!
Why Not?
I have been reading over and over the papers by James G. Gilson
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
I think that He has proven quite a few things.
I'm willing to accept that the smallest Planck scale sphere that can exist is when considering 6 x 2 dimensional waves.
It is also supported by the fact that r=3 V= 113.1 A= 113.1
does not work. The 3r should be considered as viewed from the exterior of the Planck sphere.
However, when it is scaled up by 2X we end up with 6r which would be the 6 points viewed from the exterior of the sphere. (as I indicated in my drawing)
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi). duhhh....is that right?
Also,
AND WE GOT 6 PLANCK AREA.
He does use a pretend to get to make the six waves at the six points. It works.
He stops short of going into the dynamics....but does mention it for future work.
Here is what I get when I combine his work with mine
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat”all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
James G. Gilson has worked the math that I needed to demonstrate 2D packing.
Of course it is ..... Lay out those six 2D waves on the flat
Which of course means that the universe is made from 2D waves.
No higher dimensions needed.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0307/0307174.pdf
AND WE GOT 6 PLANCK AREA.
He does use a pretend to get to make the six waves at the six points. It works.
He stops short of going into the dynamics....but does mention it for future work.
Here is what I get when I combine his work with mine
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat”all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
James G. Gilson has worked the math that I needed to demonstrate 2D packing.
Of course it is ..... Lay out those six 2D waves on the flat
Which of course means that the universe is made from 2D waves.
No higher dimensions needed.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0307/0307174.pdf
we take seriously the holographic claim in any number of dimensions, and our results are therefore evidence against the existence of extra dimensions.
IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT ^^^^^^
jal
I have been reading over and over the papers by James G. Gilson
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
I think that He has proven quite a few things.
I'm willing to accept that the smallest Planck scale sphere that can exist is when considering 6 x 2 dimensional waves.
It is also supported by the fact that r=3 V= 113.1 A= 113.1
does not work. The 3r should be considered as viewed from the exterior of the Planck sphere.
However, when it is scaled up by 2X we end up with 6r which would be the 6 points viewed from the exterior of the sphere. (as I indicated in my drawing)
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi). duhhh....is that right?
Also,
QUOTE
The second assertion of the Holographic Principle is that the theory on the boundary of the region of space in question should contain at most one degree of freedom per Planck area.
AND WE GOT 6 PLANCK AREA.
He does use a pretend to get to make the six waves at the six points. It works.
He stops short of going into the dynamics....but does mention it for future work.
Here is what I get when I combine his work with mine
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat”all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
James G. Gilson has worked the math that I needed to demonstrate 2D packing.
Of course it is ..... Lay out those six 2D waves on the flat
Which of course means that the universe is made from 2D waves.
No higher dimensions needed.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0307/0307174.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The second assertion of the Holographic Principle is that the theory on the boundary of the region of space in question should contain at most one degree of freedom per Planck area. |
AND WE GOT 6 PLANCK AREA.
He does use a pretend to get to make the six waves at the six points. It works.
He stops short of going into the dynamics....but does mention it for future work.
Here is what I get when I combine his work with mine
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat”all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
James G. Gilson has worked the math that I needed to demonstrate 2D packing.
Of course it is ..... Lay out those six 2D waves on the flat
Which of course means that the universe is made from 2D waves.
No higher dimensions needed.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0307/0307174.pdf
we take seriously the holographic claim in any number of dimensions, and our results are therefore evidence against the existence of extra dimensions.
QUOTE
heheheh
Since my SPOT is a further development of the "holographic principle" I want to quote one of your links. It's going to come back to haunt you and give you nightmares.
Since my SPOT is a further development of the "holographic principle" I want to quote one of your links. It's going to come back to haunt you and give you nightmares.
IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT ^^^^^^
jal
Hey jal,
I think we are on the same page. Don't give up, just let it expand... You can't propagate with one sphere, but from the surface of the 1st packing (ala Gilson) you can, and so on and so on and so on. 3pi 2 is the first packing. Sorry, I'm trying trying to "shush"! 
I think we are on the same page.
Don't give up, just let it expand... You can't propagate with one sphere, but from the surface of the 1st packing (ala Gilson) you can, and so on and so on and so on. 3pi 2 is the first packing. Sorry, I'm trying trying to "shush"!
Why Not?
I working on NEW AND REVISED POSTS.
Could someone do another review or tell me if I should "jump off".
jal
I working on NEW AND REVISED POSTS.
Could someone do another review or tell me if I should "jump off".
jal
jal,Why Not, y, et al,
This may not help .. but I'm doing my best.
Imagine we have a very new big bang (E). We cast a net round it. Initially everything is inside the net. As the bang progresses stuff passes through the net.. Clearly E = E_inside + E_outside.. My best understanding of what you are attempting to do is that you are casting little nets around each of the smallest meaningful points in space .. once your nets are set then for each net you have a relatively simple
E_finish = E_start+ E_entering - E_leaving.. (and/or every equation must be satisfied on both sides of the net). If there are any holes in your net then you will lose stuff and if your nets overlap then you are in severe danger of counting the same thing twice.
Hope this helps.
-C2.
This may not help .. but I'm doing my best.
Imagine we have a very new big bang (E). We cast a net round it. Initially everything is inside the net. As the bang progresses stuff passes through the net.. Clearly E = E_inside + E_outside.. My best understanding of what you are attempting to do is that you are casting little nets around each of the smallest meaningful points in space .. once your nets are set then for each net you have a relatively simple
E_finish = E_start+ E_entering - E_leaving.. (and/or every equation must be satisfied on both sides of the net). If there are any holes in your net then you will lose stuff and if your nets overlap then you are in severe danger of counting the same thing twice.
Hope this helps.
-C2.
Good Day All!
Doing the next scaling 2X means that the 6 Planck waves would also scale and that now we would have a manifestation in 12 positions. Again…. Doing the dynamics is in future development
Just as predicted in my 3D packing presentation. (The circle around the 12 sphere is suppose to be a sphere)
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? Ghee!!!! Thing sure are growing bigger and faster.
How far are we from 10^-18? We have definitely left Planck Scale.
Do you recall the word “congruence” from when you were learning geometry?
Look it up again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congruence
Therefore, what we do at the Planck scale can be scaled up in size to the 3D packing and every relationship will scale accordingly. There will still be nothing inside.
It will take someone with a lot more knowledge then me to use congruence from the 3D packing to the Compton wavelength and to work out the implications to the Standard Model.
Now! ……. that is a nightmare. Now! …… that is holography.
The real thing is projected and the attributes are scaled.
Where is the real thing?
It’s the 2D structure
So now ….. what have we got? ….NEW PHYSICS and The answer to a lot of questions.
Why the fine structure constant?
Why is there so much empty space?
Why is the structure the way it is?
Why have we got a wave?
What is the mechanism for uncertainty?
What is the structure for the 2D membrane?
What is a starting place for M-Theory?
What is the structure of quantum foam/ZeroPointEnergy?
On ……… and ………… on.
The challenge will be for the “math kids” to formalize and make a dynamic model of spacetime and rediscover what I’ve been saying.
So far….almost ….. everthing that I’ve been saying has been done by somebody else before me.
Yquantum….. Tell your friends, Gerard t' Hooft and Susskind, and others that I’ve dare to do the unthinkable….. They are smarter than me so they must have figured it out, that 2D was imbedded and packed into our 3D. They must be old enough and secure enough now, to publish their dusty papers, which they made when they were “math kids”, which are sitting in the back of their drawers.
I would call them, but they don’t take phone calls from unknowns and outsiders.
They, and a lot of other people owe me a beer.
jal
Doing the next scaling 2X means that the 6 Planck waves would also scale and that now we would have a manifestation in 12 positions. Again…. Doing the dynamics is in future development
Just as predicted in my 3D packing presentation. (The circle around the 12 sphere is suppose to be a sphere)
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? Ghee!!!! Thing sure are growing bigger and faster.
How far are we from 10^-18? We have definitely left Planck Scale.
Do you recall the word “congruence” from when you were learning geometry?
Look it up again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congruence
Therefore, what we do at the Planck scale can be scaled up in size to the 3D packing and every relationship will scale accordingly. There will still be nothing inside.
It will take someone with a lot more knowledge then me to use congruence from the 3D packing to the Compton wavelength and to work out the implications to the Standard Model.
Now! ……. that is a nightmare. Now! …… that is holography.
The real thing is projected and the attributes are scaled.
Where is the real thing?
It’s the 2D structure
So now ….. what have we got? ….NEW PHYSICS and The answer to a lot of questions.
Why the fine structure constant?
Why is there so much empty space?
Why is the structure the way it is?
Why have we got a wave?
What is the mechanism for uncertainty?
What is the structure for the 2D membrane?
What is a starting place for M-Theory?
What is the structure of quantum foam/ZeroPointEnergy?
On ……… and ………… on.
The challenge will be for the “math kids” to formalize and make a dynamic model of spacetime and rediscover what I’ve been saying.
So far….almost ….. everthing that I’ve been saying has been done by somebody else before me.
Yquantum….. Tell your friends, Gerard t' Hooft and Susskind, and others that I’ve dare to do the unthinkable….. They are smarter than me so they must have figured it out, that 2D was imbedded and packed into our 3D. They must be old enough and secure enough now, to publish their dusty papers, which they made when they were “math kids”, which are sitting in the back of their drawers.
I would call them, but they don’t take phone calls from unknowns and outsiders.
They, and a lot of other people owe me a beer.
jal
Good Day everyone!
This Planck scale journey has been very interesting.
Now that I have found a use for the math from the papers by James G. Gilson
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf and that it make my model, (a model has the math),
I can tell you that when all of the 12 waves are equally spaced from the center and equally spaced around the 12 spheres that make up the packing arrangement then this is the symmetry of spacetime without matter. It is too symmetrical to be detect. It would be oscillating between Cubic packing and Hex. packing.
See:
http://www.drking.plus.com/hexagons/magic/hexagram.html Magic Hexagrams/magic cube
There are hundreds of "math kids" who will love to work on this model.
The next steps will be to figure out the configuration of the particles to get mass (with the help of “math kids”).
Then I’ll figure out the configuration to get gravity (with the help of “math kids”).
Then the “math kids” will publish and get the Nobel prize.
Then I’ll die in peace and my body will get preserved in beer.
Simple jal
This Planck scale journey has been very interesting.
Now that I have found a use for the math from the papers by James G. Gilson
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf and that it make my model, (a model has the math),
I can tell you that when all of the 12 waves are equally spaced from the center and equally spaced around the 12 spheres that make up the packing arrangement then this is the symmetry of spacetime without matter. It is too symmetrical to be detect. It would be oscillating between Cubic packing and Hex. packing.
See:
http://www.drking.plus.com/hexagons/magic/hexagram.html Magic Hexagrams/magic cube
There are hundreds of "math kids" who will love to work on this model.
The next steps will be to figure out the configuration of the particles to get mass (with the help of “math kids”).
Then I’ll figure out the configuration to get gravity (with the help of “math kids”).
Then the “math kids” will publish and get the Nobel prize.
Then I’ll die in peace and my body will get preserved in beer.
Simple jal
QUOTE (jal+Sep 4 2006, 07:37 AM)
They, and a lot of other people owe me a beer.
jal
Sure, I'll buy you a beer! You deserve it.
Sorry to interrupt...... Just enjoying watching your theory grow. Good luck!
jal
Sure, I'll buy you a beer!
You deserve it.Sorry to interrupt...... Just enjoying watching your theory grow. Good luck!
fivedoughnut ….. Why Not? ….. Confused2 and “THEY” .....all!
What happened?…. Has everybody jumped ship?
Have the discoveries been too much?
The journey has just begun.
Yes! …. A working model will do that.
Yes! …. A working model will do that.
yquantum
Posted: Jul 7 2006, 04:07 AM
Here are some fundamental perspectives that all must have in dealing with what most have mentioned in the last few pages. Work your way up using the sound fundamental laws that have been well established.
There are already hundreds of “math kids” working on the “spot” approach.
However, they can use the help of having a good model to work on.
The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence.
You got to do a search for “Quantum Geometry” not Loop Quantum Geometry.
Here is a good starting place. “Quantum Geometry & New Concept of Space”
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/
Quantum geometry is a generalization of classical geometry. It incorporates various ideas and concepts of quantum physics, into the world of geometry. Quantum geometry deals with quantum spaces. In classical geometry spaces are always understandable as collections of points equipped with the appropriate additional structure. Quantum spaces are not viewable in this way. In general, quantum spaces have no points at all! They exhibit non-trivial quantum fluctuations of geometry at all scales. At the formal level, quantum spaces are described by certain non-commutative complex *-algebras. The elements of these algebras are interpretable as functions over the associated quantum spaces. Classical geometry is the commutative sector of quantum geometry. It is believed that quantum geometry could provide a consistent description of space-time at the level of ultra-small distances where classical concepts of the space-time continuum are not applicable. In principle, this could give the appropriate mathematical framework to formulate a coherent quantum theory of fundamental interactions.
“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
A very interesting potential application of quantum geometry in physics is to provide a mathematically coherent description of the physical space-time, at all scales---in particular at the level of ultra-small distances, characterized by the Planck length.
Non-commutative geometry has a great conceptual value for the study of classical spaces. In many situations, the proofs of the theorems of classical geometry become more elegant and transparent if performed at the quantum level. The language of local coordinates, open sets and points, characteristic for classical geometry, sometimes hides the true geometrical structure. On the other hand, in non-commutative geometry we are a priory forced to work with the global entities inherently connected with the existing geometrical structure.
fivedoughnut your model …. “bubbles” (and everyone else who uses “bubbles”) need to use “macro” geometry and quantum geometry to explain how the “bubbles” are put together.
By doing that…. your model might succeed or it might fail. You’ll certainly get a better understanding of the universe.
Nobody…. I repeat, … Nobody, has yet been able to make a moving/dynamic model. The poor little hydrogen atom is still out of reach of a detailed working model.
Without a mathematical analysis there is no way of knowing if a model with pretty pictures will work. Pretty pictures without the math will only confuse.
Poetic descriptions without the math will only be “a word salad”.
(IT’S ALL SCIENCE FICTION)
As a result, (yquantum motivating me), my quantum pictures and my “word salad” has been supported by the quantum formulas. My “spot” has become a model that can be improved and that can be tested.
The journey has just begun.
Is there anyone who wants to travel with me?
No other explorer/seeker have been equipped as well as us…. to do exploration into new territories.
I don’t want to stay in one little hole and keep spinning my wheels by doing science fiction.
Let’s find reality.
Let’s find out how the universe is made.
We got the WEB…. Let’s go.
jal
-------------------------------------------------------
jal, "THEY", Why Not?, 5D, et al
Before anyone decides to be embalmed by the nectar of the fields check out the article on Planck’s dimensions, etc.
http://physics.harvard.edu/~dtlarson/pdeca...0scale%20pdf%22
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/G/G000255...nsions%20pdf%22
As “THEY” put it you deserve the reward but hope you’re young and will see the solution to your postulation that has been presented by you jal.
Best & ciao_,
yquantum
.....all!What happened?…. Has everybody jumped ship?
Have the discoveries been too much?
The journey has just begun.
QUOTE
I'm not sure whether the idea is that you set up everything 'statically' and when you press the 'go' button it all springs into life and the laws of physics emerge naturally.. or 'something else'.
Yes! …. A working model will do that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not sure whether the idea is that you set up everything 'statically' and when you press the 'go' button it all springs into life and the laws of physics emerge naturally.. or 'something else'. |
Yes! …. A working model will do that.
yquantum
Posted: Jul 7 2006, 04:07 AM
Here are some fundamental perspectives that all must have in dealing with what most have mentioned in the last few pages. Work your way up using the sound fundamental laws that have been well established.
There are already hundreds of “math kids” working on the “spot” approach.
However, they can use the help of having a good model to work on.
The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence.
You got to do a search for “Quantum Geometry” not Loop Quantum Geometry.
Here is a good starting place. “Quantum Geometry & New Concept of Space”
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/
QUOTE
Quantum geometry is a generalization of classical geometry. It incorporates various ideas and concepts of quantum physics, into the world of geometry. Quantum geometry deals with quantum spaces. In classical geometry spaces are always understandable as collections of points equipped with the appropriate additional structure. Quantum spaces are not viewable in this way. In general, quantum spaces have no points at all! They exhibit non-trivial quantum fluctuations of geometry at all scales. At the formal level, quantum spaces are described by certain non-commutative complex *-algebras. The elements of these algebras are interpretable as functions over the associated quantum spaces. Classical geometry is the commutative sector of quantum geometry. It is believed that quantum geometry could provide a consistent description of space-time at the level of ultra-small distances where classical concepts of the space-time continuum are not applicable. In principle, this could give the appropriate mathematical framework to formulate a coherent quantum theory of fundamental interactions.
“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quantum geometry is a generalization of classical geometry. It incorporates various ideas and concepts of quantum physics, into the world of geometry. Quantum geometry deals with quantum spaces. In classical geometry spaces are always understandable as collections of points equipped with the appropriate additional structure. Quantum spaces are not viewable in this way. In general, quantum spaces have no points at all! They exhibit non-trivial quantum fluctuations of geometry at all scales. At the formal level, quantum spaces are described by certain non-commutative complex *-algebras. The elements of these algebras are interpretable as functions over the associated quantum spaces. Classical geometry is the commutative sector of quantum geometry. It is believed that quantum geometry could provide a consistent description of space-time at the level of ultra-small distances where classical concepts of the space-time continuum are not applicable. In principle, this could give the appropriate mathematical framework to formulate a coherent quantum theory of fundamental interactions. |
“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
A very interesting potential application of quantum geometry in physics is to provide a mathematically coherent description of the physical space-time, at all scales---in particular at the level of ultra-small distances, characterized by the Planck length.
Non-commutative geometry has a great conceptual value for the study of classical spaces. In many situations, the proofs of the theorems of classical geometry become more elegant and transparent if performed at the quantum level. The language of local coordinates, open sets and points, characteristic for classical geometry, sometimes hides the true geometrical structure. On the other hand, in non-commutative geometry we are a priory forced to work with the global entities inherently connected with the existing geometrical structure.
fivedoughnut your model …. “bubbles” (and everyone else who uses “bubbles”) need to use “macro” geometry and quantum geometry to explain how the “bubbles” are put together.
By doing that…. your model might succeed or it might fail. You’ll certainly get a better understanding of the universe.
Nobody…. I repeat, … Nobody, has yet been able to make a moving/dynamic model. The poor little hydrogen atom is still out of reach of a detailed working model.
Without a mathematical analysis there is no way of knowing if a model with pretty pictures will work. Pretty pictures without the math will only confuse.
Poetic descriptions without the math will only be “a word salad”.
(IT’S ALL SCIENCE FICTION)
As a result, (yquantum motivating me), my quantum pictures and my “word salad” has been supported by the quantum formulas. My “spot” has become a model that can be improved and that can be tested.
The journey has just begun.
Is there anyone who wants to travel with me?
No other explorer/seeker have been equipped as well as us…. to do exploration into new territories.
I don’t want to stay in one little hole and keep spinning my wheels by doing science fiction.
Let’s find reality.
Let’s find out how the universe is made.
We got the WEB…. Let’s go.
jal
-------------------------------------------------------
jal, "THEY", Why Not?, 5D, et al Before anyone decides to be embalmed by the nectar of the fields check out the article on Planck’s dimensions, etc.http://physics.harvard.edu/~dtlarson/pdeca...0scale%20pdf%22
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/G/G000255...nsions%20pdf%22
As “THEY” put it you deserve the reward but hope you’re young and will see the solution to your postulation that has been presented by you jal.
Best & ciao_,
yquantum
Hey jal, yq, "THEY", 5D, C2...
jal, still on board here, but probably ready to be keel hauled.
Have you read about/seen/built TRoc's "Omni-band Harmonic Matrix of Resonant Potentials"? http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3127&st=15. I am probably stretching any connection more than I should (most notably - the 12th square root of pi and 13 steps...). If I come up with any great revelations , I'll let you know...
In the mean time, I pulled this up from Baez... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/q.html.
Have you read about/seen/built TRoc's "Omni-band Harmonic Matrix of Resonant Potentials"? http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3127&st=15. I am probably stretching any connection more than I should (most notably - the 12th square root of pi and 13 steps...). If I come up with any great revelations , I'll let you know...
In the mean time, I pulled this up from Baez... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/q.html.
It would be nice to report that this result matched that of Ashtekar et al. Unfortunately, it did not. But last November, Dreyer [1] made a remarkable discovery. If one modifies the loop quantum gravity calculation slightly - in a way that is quite reasonable, but too technical to describe here - it gives a quantum of area equal to exactly 4 ln(3) times the Planck area!
At this point the suspense became almost unbearable: Hod's observation relied on numerical calculations, so the very next digit of his number might fail to match that of 4 ln(3). Luckily, soon after Dreyer's work, Motl [2] showed that the match is exact.
While exciting, these developments raise even more questions than they answer. Nobody knows why the two calculations agree, nor how to extend them to rotating black holes. Could it all be just a coincidence, or have we discovered the quantum of area? Only time will tell - or perhaps space.
I would have been really excited if I they had found 4pi 3Lp^2 instead of 4 ln(3)Lp^2 .
jal, still on board here, but probably ready to be keel hauled.
QUOTE
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? Ghee!!!!
Have you read about/seen/built TRoc's "Omni-band Harmonic Matrix of Resonant Potentials"? http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3127&st=15. I am probably stretching any connection more than I should (most notably - the 12th square root of pi and 13 steps...). If I come up with any great revelations , I'll let you know...
In the mean time, I pulled this up from Baez... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/q.html.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? Ghee!!!! |
Have you read about/seen/built TRoc's "Omni-band Harmonic Matrix of Resonant Potentials"? http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3127&st=15. I am probably stretching any connection more than I should (most notably - the 12th square root of pi and 13 steps...). If I come up with any great revelations , I'll let you know...
In the mean time, I pulled this up from Baez... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/q.html.
It would be nice to report that this result matched that of Ashtekar et al. Unfortunately, it did not. But last November, Dreyer [1] made a remarkable discovery. If one modifies the loop quantum gravity calculation slightly - in a way that is quite reasonable, but too technical to describe here - it gives a quantum of area equal to exactly 4 ln(3) times the Planck area!
At this point the suspense became almost unbearable: Hod's observation relied on numerical calculations, so the very next digit of his number might fail to match that of 4 ln(3). Luckily, soon after Dreyer's work, Motl [2] showed that the match is exact.
While exciting, these developments raise even more questions than they answer. Nobody knows why the two calculations agree, nor how to extend them to rotating black holes. Could it all be just a coincidence, or have we discovered the quantum of area? Only time will tell - or perhaps space.
I would have been really excited if I they had found 4pi 3Lp^2 instead of 4 ln(3)Lp^2 .
Thank yquantum
The earth was flat for 1,000 year.... the earth was the center of the universe for 300 years..... the Big Bang and inflation was around for 50 years.
The "math kids", with the WEB, should find my "spot"in less than 50 years and be able to decide if The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence. have any meaning at the planck scale.
A few phone calls by a "somebody" to their favorite "math kid"would probably expedite the process and give a publishing advantage.
50 years is a long time, I might not live that long.
Why Not?I have been following TRoc's "Omni-band Harmonic Matrix of Resonant Potentials".... Maybe he can see a starting place with what I have been saying.
How can a nobody do a peer review and be believed?
Besides…. I don’t have enough knowledge.
An analytical computation of
asymptotic Schwarzschild
quasinormal frequencies
Luboˇs Motl
Jefferson Physical Laboratory
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
motl@feynman.harvard.edu
24 Dec. 2003
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0212/0212096.pdf
I do believe that we have demonstrated that r=1 does not work.
I do believe that we have demonstrated that r=1 does not work.
Nevertheless the typical microstates of a horizon are dominated by links with the minimal possible value of J. If the links with higher values of J were absent altogether, the spectrum of the area operator (12) would become equally spaced.
If the relation between the area and the mass is preserved (which is however hardly the
case microscopically), the links with J > 1 are essential to keep the energy
spectrum as well as the spectrum of Hawking radiation continuous.
Assume that a new link with J(min) = 1 is absorbed by a black hole
horizon (or it is created there). Its area therefore increases by A0, which is
according to (12) and (15) equal to _A = A0 = 4 ln(3)GN. (16)
While it might sound like a very redundant choice, we think that the meaningful proposals of LQG can be generalized to any spacetime dimension, as long as we
allow the gauge theory configuration space to be bigger than the configuration space of pure gravity.
For example, the quantization of twodimensional areas in four spacetime dimension must generalize to the quantization of (d−2)-dimensional areas in d spacetime dimensions— which is directly implied e.g. by (47). The reason is simply that the
(d − 2)-dimensional areas determine the entropy.
I believe that we have established that we cannot get a wave at 3. IT SHOULD BE 6.
I wonder what his calculations will produce if he obeyed the Planck scale rules and uses 6 for a wave.
See..... I've demonstrated my ignorance.
He did something wrong .... what was it?
I believe that we have established that we cannot get a wave at 3. IT SHOULD BE 6.
I wonder what his calculations will produce if he obeyed the Planck scale rules and uses 6 for a wave.
See..... I've demonstrated my ignorance.
He did something wrong .... what was it?
I would have been really excited if I they had found 4pi 3Lp^2 instead of 4 ln(3)Lp^2 .
jal
The earth was flat for 1,000 year.... the earth was the center of the universe for 300 years..... the Big Bang and inflation was around for 50 years.
The "math kids", with the WEB, should find my "spot"in less than 50 years and be able to decide if The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence. have any meaning at the planck scale.
A few phone calls by a "somebody" to their favorite "math kid"would probably expedite the process and give a publishing advantage.
50 years is a long time, I might not live that long.
Why Not?I have been following TRoc's "Omni-band Harmonic Matrix of Resonant Potentials".... Maybe he can see a starting place with what I have been saying.
How can a nobody do a peer review and be believed?
Besides…. I don’t have enough knowledge.
An analytical computation of
asymptotic Schwarzschild
quasinormal frequencies
Luboˇs Motl
Jefferson Physical Laboratory
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
motl@feynman.harvard.edu
24 Dec. 2003
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0212/0212096.pdf
QUOTE
These states are required to have purely outgoing boundary conditions both
at the horizon (r = 1) and in the asymptotic region (r = ∞):
at the horizon (r = 1) and in the asymptotic region (r = ∞):
I do believe that we have demonstrated that r=1 does not work.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| These states are required to have purely outgoing boundary conditions both at the horizon (r = 1) and in the asymptotic region (r = ∞): |
I do believe that we have demonstrated that r=1 does not work.
Nevertheless the typical microstates of a horizon are dominated by links with the minimal possible value of J. If the links with higher values of J were absent altogether, the spectrum of the area operator (12) would become equally spaced.
If the relation between the area and the mass is preserved (which is however hardly the
case microscopically), the links with J > 1 are essential to keep the energy
spectrum as well as the spectrum of Hawking radiation continuous.
Assume that a new link with J(min) = 1 is absorbed by a black hole
horizon (or it is created there). Its area therefore increases by A0, which is
according to (12) and (15) equal to _A = A0 = 4 ln(3)GN. (16)
While it might sound like a very redundant choice, we think that the meaningful proposals of LQG can be generalized to any spacetime dimension, as long as we
allow the gauge theory configuration space to be bigger than the configuration space of pure gravity.
For example, the quantization of twodimensional areas in four spacetime dimension must generalize to the quantization of (d−2)-dimensional areas in d spacetime dimensions— which is directly implied e.g. by (47). The reason is simply that the
(d − 2)-dimensional areas determine the entropy.
QUOTE
Instead, we calculated a result more similar to the half-integer
case, i.e. Fermi-Dirac statistics with the number 3 replacing the usual number 1;
case, i.e. Fermi-Dirac statistics with the number 3 replacing the usual number 1;
I believe that we have established that we cannot get a wave at 3. IT SHOULD BE 6.
I wonder what his calculations will produce if he obeyed the Planck scale rules and uses 6 for a wave.
See..... I've demonstrated my ignorance.
He did something wrong .... what was it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Instead, we calculated a result more similar to the half-integer case, i.e. Fermi-Dirac statistics with the number 3 replacing the usual number 1; |
I believe that we have established that we cannot get a wave at 3. IT SHOULD BE 6.
I wonder what his calculations will produce if he obeyed the Planck scale rules and uses 6 for a wave.
See..... I've demonstrated my ignorance.
He did something wrong .... what was it?
I would have been really excited if I they had found 4pi 3Lp^2 instead of 4 ln(3)Lp^2 .
jal
WE HAVE IGNITION! …..WE HAVE LIFT OFF! 
WE HAVE A PLANCK SIZE BALLOON/SPHERE! !
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5203
LET THE JOURNEY BEGIN.
#1
Hello! I found a lot of great information on waves. The complexity is enough to blow your mind. What have you two got?
LET’S GO INTO THE 6 SIDED SANDBOX!
#2
I got some very simple stuff. Simple solitons.
NO! LET’S GO INTO THE 12 SIDED SANDBOX!
##3
I found out that we should also be looking at where the energy is NOT located. We should be looking at spacetime.
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
#1
WE HAVE A PLANCK SIZE BALLOON/SPHERE! !
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5203
LET THE JOURNEY BEGIN.
#1
Hello! I found a lot of great information on waves. The complexity is enough to blow your mind. What have you two got?
LET’S GO INTO THE 6 SIDED SANDBOX!
#2
I got some very simple stuff. Simple solitons.
NO! LET’S GO INTO THE 12 SIDED SANDBOX!
##3
I found out that we should also be looking at where the energy is NOT located. We should be looking at spacetime.
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
#1
Good day!
By now, it should have become obvious to the people promoting Heim, the metron, and protosimplex that Heim used a Quantum Geometry approach.
See:“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
Heim was aware that the Planck scale rules could not be violated.
I suspect that his approach led him to having the metron at “large dimensions”.
I suspect that he did not like what he got….. Large metrons.
The best that people would have said would have been that he had found a new way of getting the mass of the particles.
“A LOOKUP TABLE”.
That is not very sexy or very saleable. It makes for terrible science fiction.
The “math kids” at Heim should stop wasting time with science fiction and they should find and remove the “exponential?,… scaling?.... T-duality …or whatever?” that Heim inserted in his formulas.
For a start the Heim “math kids” should get familiar with the work by James G. Gilson on the fine structure constant at http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page2.html and his work on Stochastic Simulation of The Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum
At http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Quantum Geometry is a valid approach to the understanding of the universe.
If the Heim “math kids” do their work properly we should be able to see a spot/metron.
jal
By now, it should have become obvious to the people promoting Heim, the metron, and protosimplex that Heim used a Quantum Geometry approach.
See:“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
Heim was aware that the Planck scale rules could not be violated.
I suspect that his approach led him to having the metron at “large dimensions”.
I suspect that he did not like what he got….. Large metrons.
The best that people would have said would have been that he had found a new way of getting the mass of the particles.
“A LOOKUP TABLE”.
That is not very sexy or very saleable. It makes for terrible science fiction.
The “math kids” at Heim should stop wasting time with science fiction and they should find and remove the “exponential?,… scaling?.... T-duality …or whatever?” that Heim inserted in his formulas.
For a start the Heim “math kids” should get familiar with the work by James G. Gilson on the fine structure constant at http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page2.html and his work on Stochastic Simulation of The Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum
At http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Quantum Geometry is a valid approach to the understanding of the universe.
If the Heim “math kids” do their work properly we should be able to see a spot/metron.
jal
A better approach is the hydrino. However, they made a simple math error.
They violated the Planck scale rule.
The minimum size of a sphere at the Planck scale is when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/AtomicPhysics.pdf
( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentatio...2005%20Fuel.pdf
( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentatio...2005%20Fuel.pdf
In place of the Schrödinger boundary condition, Ψ —> 0 as r —> ∞; apply a new boundary condition derived from Maxwell’s equations:
(Planck scale must be obeyed…. ( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
The Minimum Radius corresponds to the gravitational
Radius which cannot be less than the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
If the “math kids” at Black Light Power Inc can clearly indicate that they can include the Planck scale rules and that their work stand up then they will have a link to “REALITY”. Their search would need to concentrate on how they have applied The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry which are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence.
The graphics from Black Light Power Inc. are great for understanding what I have been saying.
As a result, …. we could end up with a spot/hydrino/metro
jal
They violated the Planck scale rule.
The minimum size of a sphere at the Planck scale is when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/AtomicPhysics.pdf
QUOTE
• The limiting velocity c results in the contraction of spacetime
due to particle production. The contraction is given by r G
where is the gravitational radius of the particle.
due to particle production. The contraction is given by r G
where is the gravitational radius of the particle.
( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentatio...2005%20Fuel.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| • The limiting velocity c results in the contraction of spacetime due to particle production. The contraction is given by r G where is the gravitational radius of the particle. |
( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentatio...2005%20Fuel.pdf
In place of the Schrödinger boundary condition, Ψ —> 0 as r —> ∞; apply a new boundary condition derived from Maxwell’s equations:
(Planck scale must be obeyed…. ( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
QUOTE
….. Using a Maxwellian nonradiative boundary constraint to solve the wave equation, an exothermic reaction is predicted whereby certain atoms or ions serve as catalysts to release energy from hydrogen to produce an increased binding energy hydrogen atom called a hydrino having a binding energy of …… (see formula)
where p is an integer greater than 1 and < 137, designated as where is the radius of the hydrogen atom.
where p is an integer greater than 1 and < 137, designated as where is the radius of the hydrogen atom.
The Minimum Radius corresponds to the gravitational
Radius which cannot be less than the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
If the “math kids” at Black Light Power Inc can clearly indicate that they can include the Planck scale rules and that their work stand up then they will have a link to “REALITY”. Their search would need to concentrate on how they have applied The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry which are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence.
The graphics from Black Light Power Inc. are great for understanding what I have been saying.
As a result, …. we could end up with a spot/hydrino/metro
jal
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
#1
What have you learned from this thread?
1. What is the fine structure constant?
It is a formula that is derived from finding the location of 6 equally spaced waves on a sphere.
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page3.html
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length.
3. What is the smallest area in our universe?
It is a surface area having one Planck length and one Planck width and no thickness.
4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
It takes 6 Planck size waves to make a Planck size sphere.
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
5. What is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ?
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It is out of bound. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat” all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is equal to Planck's constant divided by 4π.
A fundamental consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that no physical phenomena can be (to arbitrary accuracy) described as a "classic point particle". (At the Planck scale it is impossible).
In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees, or 2π radians.
As can be seen in the above diagram, the calculations are done on where the waves are located. (The waves do not originate at r = 0.) Therefore, there is an uncertainty, (the green area) of where the waves are located.
6. What is a wave function?
Waves, Acoustics and Vibration, by J. B. Calvert,
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavefun.htm
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavdynam.htm
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavdynam.htm
This wave equation is just like the one-dimensional wave equation that holds for plane waves, except that the space variable is now r, and the quantity that satisfies the simple wave equation is the product of r and the velocity potential. The equations on the right show the reasoning. The equation of continuity, you will notice, is essentially the divergence theorem, where we express the flux out of a thin spherical shell in two different ways. The wave equation immediately gives the typical 1/r dependence of the wave amplitude that is necessary for conservation of energy. The general solution is rφ= f(ct - r) + F(ct + r), where f and F are two arbitrary functions, the first representing an outgoing wave, the second an incoming wave. Taking an outgoing wave only, the radial velocity is v = f'/r + f/r2. The first term predominates for large distances, the second for small distances, from the origin.
THE ORIGIN HAS BEEN WRONGLY ASSIGNED AS ZERO IN QUANTUM CALCULATIONS. IT SHOULD BE ASSIGNED, “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
A point violates the distances allowed at the Planck scale.
R = 0 IS NOT ALLOWED.
7. What is a postulate?
8. BECAUSE , the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED ITS TRUE VALUE (when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)) A WHOLE INDUSTRY OF SCIENCE FICTION HAS DEVELOPED.
IT IS EASIER TO SELL SCIENCE FICTION THAN TO SELL SCIENCE.
SCIENCE FICTION DOES NOT MAKE GOOD SCIENCE.
“Getting rid of the infinite density, infinite force of gravity, and infinite curvature of space around a point mass requires changes in known physics.
Quantum Geometry is a valid approach to the understanding of the universe.”
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
JAL
Message for TRoc:
I don’t want to litter your thread.
Your scale should hit “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi). Since G (gravity constant) is based upon r = 0 then G must be scaled and change to agree with “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
G should have two numbers: One for Newton physics and one for Quantum physics.
The Quantum G should be an Exp. Curve. It could start at the 2D packing (which is the Holographic principle) then it should cross at the 3D packing and should cross at Newton G which should be at approximately one mm.
The result: no more renormalization …. No more infinite density, ….. no more infinite force of gravity, and …. no more infinite curvature of space around a point mass.
Depending on the exp. Curve, there might not be any missing energy and therefore a need for neutrino or dark matter. (Prof. L. Randall should be good at choosing the right exp. Curve)
Because of scaling and congruence, there are no reason why the 3D packing could not be at 10^-18.
TRoc…. I would expect that your scale would follow the exponential curve for the Quantum G.
If you can make the scale fit the Quantum G. Exp. Curve….I’ll gladly owe you a beer.
Would this be another way of answering yquantum’s question? “What is mass?”
The dimensions assigned to the gravitational constant (length cubed, divided by mass and by time squared) are those needed to make gravitational equations 'come out right'. However, these dimensions have fundamental significance in terms of Planck units: when expressed in SI units, the gravitational constant is dimensionally and numerically equal to the cube of the Planck length divided by the Planck mass and by the square of Planck time.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2000/split/pnu482-1.htm
NOW!…… THAT WOULD BE NEW PHYSICS!
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
JAL
#1
What have you learned from this thread?
1. What is the fine structure constant?
It is a formula that is derived from finding the location of 6 equally spaced waves on a sphere.
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page3.html
QUOTE
Finally, the formula for the fine structure constant can be used to set up a scheme for the finite renormalization of Quantum Electrodynamics. This makes it possible to avoid the mathematical uncertainties associated with the manipulations of infinite quantities that have hitherto been necessary in the renormalization procedures.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Finally, the formula for the fine structure constant can be used to set up a scheme for the finite renormalization of Quantum Electrodynamics. This makes it possible to avoid the mathematical uncertainties associated with the manipulations of infinite quantities that have hitherto been necessary in the renormalization procedures. |
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length.
3. What is the smallest area in our universe?
It is a surface area having one Planck length and one Planck width and no thickness.
4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
It takes 6 Planck size waves to make a Planck size sphere.
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
5. What is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ?
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It is out of bound. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat” all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is equal to Planck's constant divided by 4π.
A fundamental consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that no physical phenomena can be (to arbitrary accuracy) described as a "classic point particle". (At the Planck scale it is impossible).
In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees, or 2π radians.
As can be seen in the above diagram, the calculations are done on where the waves are located. (The waves do not originate at r = 0.) Therefore, there is an uncertainty, (the green area) of where the waves are located.
6. What is a wave function?
Waves, Acoustics and Vibration, by J. B. Calvert,
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavefun.htm
QUOTE
We have not had to say anything about the nature of the wave function, beyond the fact that knowing it allows all properties of the wave to be determined.
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavdynam.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We have not had to say anything about the nature of the wave function, beyond the fact that knowing it allows all properties of the wave to be determined. |
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavdynam.htm
This wave equation is just like the one-dimensional wave equation that holds for plane waves, except that the space variable is now r, and the quantity that satisfies the simple wave equation is the product of r and the velocity potential. The equations on the right show the reasoning. The equation of continuity, you will notice, is essentially the divergence theorem, where we express the flux out of a thin spherical shell in two different ways. The wave equation immediately gives the typical 1/r dependence of the wave amplitude that is necessary for conservation of energy. The general solution is rφ= f(ct - r) + F(ct + r), where f and F are two arbitrary functions, the first representing an outgoing wave, the second an incoming wave. Taking an outgoing wave only, the radial velocity is v = f'/r + f/r2. The first term predominates for large distances, the second for small distances, from the origin.
THE ORIGIN HAS BEEN WRONGLY ASSIGNED AS ZERO IN QUANTUM CALCULATIONS. IT SHOULD BE ASSIGNED, “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
A point violates the distances allowed at the Planck scale.
R = 0 IS NOT ALLOWED.
7. What is a postulate?
QUOTE
In the language of geometry, it is a postulate, something not proved but assumed as the basis for argument. Euclid's postulates defined Euclidean space, in which all his later results lived. By a slight change to one postulate, we get geometry on the surface of a sphere, which differs in some respects (two parallel lines meet at two points instead of none, for example). The verification that space is actually Euclidean, or that a wave satisfies the wave equation, follows from experience, not proof. Starting from the postulate of the wave equation, a great number of mathematical results can be obtained by logical proof, and we know all are valid provided the postulate is true. By recognizing that a wave satisfies the wave equation, we immediately acquire a gigantic kit of tools and properties established by mathematical analysis over the past several centuries.
8. BECAUSE , the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED ITS TRUE VALUE (when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)) A WHOLE INDUSTRY OF SCIENCE FICTION HAS DEVELOPED.
IT IS EASIER TO SELL SCIENCE FICTION THAN TO SELL SCIENCE.
SCIENCE FICTION DOES NOT MAKE GOOD SCIENCE.
“Getting rid of the infinite density, infinite force of gravity, and infinite curvature of space around a point mass requires changes in known physics.
Quantum Geometry is a valid approach to the understanding of the universe.”
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
JAL
Message for TRoc:
I don’t want to litter your thread.
Your scale should hit “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi). Since G (gravity constant) is based upon r = 0 then G must be scaled and change to agree with “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
G should have two numbers: One for Newton physics and one for Quantum physics.
The Quantum G should be an Exp. Curve. It could start at the 2D packing (which is the Holographic principle) then it should cross at the 3D packing and should cross at Newton G which should be at approximately one mm.
The result: no more renormalization …. No more infinite density, ….. no more infinite force of gravity, and …. no more infinite curvature of space around a point mass.
Depending on the exp. Curve, there might not be any missing energy and therefore a need for neutrino or dark matter. (Prof. L. Randall should be good at choosing the right exp. Curve)
Because of scaling and congruence, there are no reason why the 3D packing could not be at 10^-18.
TRoc…. I would expect that your scale would follow the exponential curve for the Quantum G.
If you can make the scale fit the Quantum G. Exp. Curve….I’ll gladly owe you a beer.
Would this be another way of answering yquantum’s question? “What is mass?”
The dimensions assigned to the gravitational constant (length cubed, divided by mass and by time squared) are those needed to make gravitational equations 'come out right'. However, these dimensions have fundamental significance in terms of Planck units: when expressed in SI units, the gravitational constant is dimensionally and numerically equal to the cube of the Planck length divided by the Planck mass and by the square of Planck time.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2000/split/pnu482-1.htm
QUOTE
Now a group at the University of Washington has reduced the uncertainty in the value of G by almost a factor of ten. Their preliminary value is G=6.67390 x 10-11 m3/kg/s2 with an uncertainty of 0.0014%. Combining this new value of G with measurements made with the Lageos satellite (which uses laser ranging to keep track of its orbital position to within a millimeter) permits the calculation of a brand new, highest precision mass for the earth: 5.97223 (+/- .00008) x 1024 kg. Similarly the new mass of the sun becomes 1.98843 (+/- .00003) x 1030 kg. Gundlach's (206-543-4080, jens@phys.washington.edu)
NOW!…… THAT WOULD BE NEW PHYSICS!
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
JAL
I have pointed out the problems.
Can you fix your theory?
COSTUME PARTY 31 OCT 2006
AT http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry122088
BRING YOUR
QUANTUM Gravity
SOLUTION
What will it be….. no link = science fiction
OR ….. a link to a fixed new theory = science.
jal
Can you fix your theory?
COSTUME PARTY 31 OCT 2006
AT http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry122088
BRING YOUR
QUANTUM Gravity
SOLUTION
What will it be….. no link = science fiction
OR ….. a link to a fixed new theory = science.
jal
Where did all my crew go?
TRoc cannot apply his science to a science fiction model.
The WEB is a big ocean..... I need surfers to help guide this ship.
I expect to make landfall on 31 Oct. 2006.
Let's do science.
jal
TRoc cannot apply his science to a science fiction model.
The WEB is a big ocean..... I need surfers to help guide this ship.
I expect to make landfall on 31 Oct. 2006.
Let's do science.
jal
Good Day!
There a lot of readers and people on this forum who are not exactly "unknown".
You have web pages.... you are known in the physic community....etc
Let them know.... prof, ... students.... bloggers.... that I'm looking for a quantum theory of gravity that does not violate the Planck scale rules.
Be here for the big gathering ...... 31 Oct 2006.
jal
There a lot of readers and people on this forum who are not exactly "unknown".
You have web pages.... you are known in the physic community....etc
Let them know.... prof, ... students.... bloggers.... that I'm looking for a quantum theory of gravity that does not violate the Planck scale rules.
Be here for the big gathering ...... 31 Oct 2006.
jal
entropy is not increasing in time
entropy itself is time running into a-temporal space
entropy itself is time running into a-temporal space
amrit!
Be here with more than wisdom from the hill on 31 Oct 2006.
If you have the wisdom then you should be able to give a detailed explanation for all us simple mortals. (Of course you'll back it up with your extensive knowledge of math. otherwise...... = science fiction)
jal
Be here with more than wisdom from the hill on 31 Oct 2006.
If you have the wisdom then you should be able to give a detailed explanation for all us simple mortals. (Of course you'll back it up with your extensive knowledge of math. otherwise...... = science fiction)
jal
Good Day!
Doesn’t anyone look at links that are provided? Look at the gem that TRoc has given.
The universe could be making music and obeying the quantum scale.
Surely, there must be musicians on this forum who can make sense of this.
See you on the 31 Oct 2006
THE GEOMETRY OF MUSICAL CHORDS
Dmitri Tymoczko, Princeton University
http://music.princeton.edu/%7Edmitri/voiceleading.pdf
jal
Doesn’t anyone look at links that are provided? Look at the gem that TRoc has given.
The universe could be making music and obeying the quantum scale.
Surely, there must be musicians on this forum who can make sense of this.
See you on the 31 Oct 2006
THE GEOMETRY OF MUSICAL CHORDS
Dmitri Tymoczko, Princeton University
http://music.princeton.edu/%7Edmitri/voiceleading.pdf
QUOTE
p. 25 (16) Figure S3. The quotient space R/12Z is a circle whose circumference is twelve units long. The twelve familiar pitch classes of Western equal-temperament evenly divide this circle. Since the circle is continuous, it contains a point for every conceivable pitch class. The
figure shows the locations of the pitch class 0.17, which is seventeen cents (hundredths of a semitone) above pitch class C, and pitch class 2.5 (D quarter tone sharp), which is halfway between D and Ef.
p. 32 (23) Figure S11. For any scale, we can define a metric such that the scale’s notes divide the octave evenly. (a) shows the C major scale, as it appears in circular pitch class space. In (, we apply a new metric, so that the scale’s notes are equally spaced. The new unit of distance is called a “scale step.” Relative to this new metric, the C major triad {C, E, G} and the D minor triad {D, F, A} are related by rotation, which musicians call “scalar
figure shows the locations of the pitch class 0.17, which is seventeen cents (hundredths of a semitone) above pitch class C, and pitch class 2.5 (D quarter tone sharp), which is halfway between D and Ef.
p. 32 (23) Figure S11. For any scale, we can define a metric such that the scale’s notes divide the octave evenly. (a) shows the C major scale, as it appears in circular pitch class space. In (
, we apply a new metric, so that the scale’s notes are equally spaced. The new unit of distance is called a “scale step.” Relative to this new metric, the C major triad {C, E, G} and the D minor triad {D, F, A} are related by rotation, which musicians call “scalar jal
Good day all!
"THEY"A great link from rpenner
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/torsors.html
Here is a lot more…..
http://members2.boo.net/~knuth/
Hint…hint…. I found a structure.
If J. Baez answers you e-mail would you let him know about my party on 31 Oct 2006.
I’m sure that he would have some wonderful “toys.”
Therefore, I expect that music will be on the agenda for the 31 Oct 2006.
jal
"THEY"A great link from rpenner
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/torsors.html
QUOTE
Sometimes people think something is a torsor but later realize it's not! As Philip Dorrell pointed out to me, people once thought only temperature differences could be measured - but then they discovered absolute zero. As soon as we pick units of temperature, temperatures are elements of an R-torsor. When absolute zero was discovered, this R-torsor was revealed to be R itself.
Or open your ears and listen - they also show up in music theory.
Or open your ears and listen - they also show up in music theory.
Here is a lot more…..
http://members2.boo.net/~knuth/
Hint…hint…. I found a structure.
If J. Baez answers you e-mail would you let him know about my party on 31 Oct 2006.
I’m sure that he would have some wonderful “toys.”
Therefore, I expect that music will be on the agenda for the 31 Oct 2006.
jal
Good day everyone
I want to restate
We must first understand how "science" is being done before being able to do anything else.
The links that have been provided, here and in yquantum's thread, should help us understand.
The latest link http://precondition.blogspot.com/2006/03/d...dimensions.html should be a "must to read" especially for anyone who expects to get a job in physics.
The party on 31 Oct 2006 will look at different "possible" path that could become venues of further investigation for our understanding of the universe. It will not look a getting a further understanding of how physic is presently being done. That is already well done on the WEB.
Since "THEY" has so graciously offered to provide the music (with the help of Albers) We should expect that she will be able to find other/more interesting "links" and maybe a small discussion on her thoughts of which approaches might prove fruitfull for further study.
Since we are going to have music..... we should have some dancing and games.
Does anyone want to step forward and vollunteer? "Musical chair, bobbing the apple, spin the bottle"
jal
I want to restate
QUOTE
If we do not look beyond the renormalizing… the point…. Etc. which are used very successfully to do science, but which also hide the details, we will never be able to get an understanding of how the universe is made.
We must first understand how "science" is being done before being able to do anything else.
The links that have been provided, here and in yquantum's thread, should help us understand.
The latest link http://precondition.blogspot.com/2006/03/d...dimensions.html should be a "must to read" especially for anyone who expects to get a job in physics.
The party on 31 Oct 2006 will look at different "possible" path that could become venues of further investigation for our understanding of the universe. It will not look a getting a further understanding of how physic is presently being done. That is already well done on the WEB.
Since "THEY" has so graciously offered to provide the music (with the help of Albers)
We should expect that she will be able to find other/more interesting "links" and maybe a small discussion on her thoughts of which approaches might prove fruitfull for further study.Since we are going to have music..... we should have some dancing and games.
Does anyone want to step forward and vollunteer? "Musical chair, bobbing the apple, spin the bottle"
jal
QUOTE (jal+Sep 12 2006, 06:23 PM)
Good day all!
"THEY"A great link from rpenner
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/torsors.html
I did actually read rpenners link, but thanks for the heads up. You know I miss alot because I have so little time to read posts here. Glad someone is watching for the best ones!
"THEY"A great link from rpenner
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/torsors.html
I did actually read rpenners link, but thanks for the heads up. You know I miss alot because I have so little time to read posts here. Glad someone is watching for the best ones!
Good Morning "THEY"
I know it's morning for you.
I know nothing about music.... since we have found a musical instument with 12 keys, the spot in 3d, perhaps you and your helpers will be able to increase our knowledge at the party.
jal
I know it's morning for you.
I know nothing about music.... since we have found a musical instument
with 12 keys, the spot in 3d, perhaps you and your helpers will be able to increase our knowledge at the party.jal
jal,
Crossing over from the other thread..
re: Gilson and Stochastic Simulation ( http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf )
Take a peek at Mr_Homm's post here..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=121120
Might less mean more?
-C2.
On this thread .. I exclude any consideration of tonsors by virtue of them having such a yucky name. Old dog. New trick. zzzz snore zzzz.
Crossing over from the other thread..
re: Gilson and Stochastic Simulation ( http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf )
Take a peek at Mr_Homm's post here..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=121120
Might less mean more?
-C2.
On this thread .. I exclude any consideration of tonsors by virtue of them having such a yucky name. Old dog. New trick. zzzz snore zzzz.
Confused2
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
In his papers he applies the uncertainty to the location of the waves which I have previously shown, as he says, 6 Planck size waves, equally distributed around a sphere.
The Heisenberg principle is not being disproved but rather applied properly on the location of the waves at Planck scale. (as shown in my diagram).
rpenner said in that thread
"What modern quantum physics does is to use math so that all three conspiracies are the same."
If you want a job in physic then ...learn it.
If you want to understand the universe.... look deeper...That what we are going to do at the party.
Confused2 ...rpenner... would you like to volunteer?
I see that yquantum has just made the link available by JAMES G. GILSON.
Does anyone dispute his work.
jal
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
QUOTE
This holds the implication that if there are paradoxes [29,5] present in the quantum theory that are real rather than apparent, the same paradoxes must already be present in the classical ways of thinking about the physical world.
In his papers he applies the uncertainty to the location of the waves which I have previously shown, as he says, 6 Planck size waves, equally distributed around a sphere.
The Heisenberg principle is not being disproved but rather applied properly on the location of the waves at Planck scale. (as shown in my diagram).
rpenner said in that thread
"What modern quantum physics does is to use math so that all three conspiracies are the same."
If you want a job in physic then ...learn it.
If you want to understand the universe.... look deeper...That what we are going to do at the party.
Confused2 ...rpenner... would you like to volunteer?
I see that yquantum has just made the link available by JAMES G. GILSON.
Does anyone dispute his work.
jal
WHOA! Jal I finally decided to take your advice and study these papers on tonnetz and tonsors and look what I stumbled upon.......... Awfully close to your kissing numbers and sphere packing isn't it????????/
http://members2.boo.net/~knuth/
Last graphics on the page........
http://members2.boo.net/~knuth/
Last graphics on the page........
"THEY"
Don't play the music that you find until the party.
jal
ps Maybe yq or qmdarkmatter for bobbing the apple?
Don't play the music that you find until the party.
QUOTE
Since we are going to have music..... we should have some dancing and games.
Does anyone want to step forward and vollunteer? "Musical chair, bobbing the apple, spin the bottle"
Does anyone want to step forward and vollunteer? "Musical chair, bobbing the apple, spin the bottle"
jal
ps Maybe yq or qmdarkmatter for bobbing the apple?
Good Day Everyone!
I hope that those who find good music will contact the music coordinator..."THEY"
I have been busy doing some organizing for the party.
With music comes dancing.... here is what I found about dancing.
What would a dynamic Planck Sphere in 3D look like?
New Periodic Orbits for the n-Body Problem
Cristopher Moore
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0511/0511219.pdf
I think that he might have an approach to getting a “DYNAMIC” Planck scale waves in 3D.
Will someone let Cristopher Moore know about the party on 31 Oct 2006.
No!…. I cannot do it….. I’m a nobody
We can ask if he wants to be in charge of “dancing”
Since we will have music we got to have dancing and he can explain the dance steps.
We need someone to be in charge of showing us some dance steps.
We will also have some games. A special game of Bobbing the apple. Someone who really understand waves and who can point out how we can keep the waves from splashing out of the tub. Of course the apple can be any size but it must be remembered that it is made of 12 Planck size waves. (See previous ref.)
If we want the apple bobbing, then I suspect that we will have to change the weight of the apple (a quantum G that does not start from a point so a non traditional approach will need to be used.)
This will require someone who uses the formulas for a living.
hint....hint....Maybe yq or qmdarkmatter for bobbing the apple?
jal
I hope that those who find good music will contact the music coordinator..."THEY"
I have been busy doing some organizing for the party.
With music comes dancing.... here is what I found about dancing.
What would a dynamic Planck Sphere in 3D look like?
New Periodic Orbits for the n-Body Problem
Cristopher Moore
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0511/0511219.pdf
QUOTE
Here we exhibit a number of new three-dimensional periodic n-body orbits with equal masses and cubic symmetry.
For homogeneous potentials V ® ∝ r_, it is easy to show [15] that escape
cannot occur if _ < 2 unless the braid can be separated into two pieces, and
collision cannot occur (starting with a fictional orbit with finite action) if
_ ≤ −2 since the action of a colliding trajectory in that case is infinite.
Thus all braid types occur for _ ≤ −2, including the so-called “strong force”
_ = −2, but only some subset of the possible braids will exist for, say,
Newtonian gravity, where _ = −1.
Moreover, by setting some Fourier coefficients to zero or imposing equalities between the coefficients of different masses, we can restrict our search to orbits with certain symmetries, and by choosing the starting trajectory we can search for orbits with certain topologies.
Performing this minimization on discretized orbits, Moore [15] found a
number of new periodic 3-body orbits in the plane, with a variety of braid
types and symmetries: in particular, an orbit in which three equal masses
chase each other around a figure-8, describing a classic three-strand braid
in space-time. Surprisingly, simulations indicated that this orbit is stable to
small perturbations.
Moreover, if m is a multiple of 3 they have cubic symmetry at all times, and their mass distribution is spherically symmetric to second order. Although we have not attempted to do this, we note that it should be possible to prove the existence of these orbits rigorously using techniques like those in [14, 1, 5].
These transformations generate a 12-element symmetry group, consisting of half the orientation-preserving rotations of the cube (formally, a subgroup which is isomorphic to the alternating group A4).
These sample results suggest that this orbit is dynamically stable with
respect to a fairly wide range of perturbations, both in the plane and in three
dimensions. This stability, and the fact that similar orbits exist for a wide
range of mass ratios, suggests that triple systems of this type may actually
exist in astronomical systems.
For homogeneous potentials V ® ∝ r_, it is easy to show [15] that escape
cannot occur if _ < 2 unless the braid can be separated into two pieces, and
collision cannot occur (starting with a fictional orbit with finite action) if
_ ≤ −2 since the action of a colliding trajectory in that case is infinite.
Thus all braid types occur for _ ≤ −2, including the so-called “strong force”
_ = −2, but only some subset of the possible braids will exist for, say,
Newtonian gravity, where _ = −1.
Moreover, by setting some Fourier coefficients to zero or imposing equalities between the coefficients of different masses, we can restrict our search to orbits with certain symmetries, and by choosing the starting trajectory we can search for orbits with certain topologies.
Performing this minimization on discretized orbits, Moore [15] found a
number of new periodic 3-body orbits in the plane, with a variety of braid
types and symmetries: in particular, an orbit in which three equal masses
chase each other around a figure-8, describing a classic three-strand braid
in space-time. Surprisingly, simulations indicated that this orbit is stable to
small perturbations.
Moreover, if m is a multiple of 3 they have cubic symmetry at all times, and their mass distribution is spherically symmetric to second order. Although we have not attempted to do this, we note that it should be possible to prove the existence of these orbits rigorously using techniques like those in [14, 1, 5].
These transformations generate a 12-element symmetry group, consisting of half the orientation-preserving rotations of the cube (formally, a subgroup which is isomorphic to the alternating group A4).
These sample results suggest that this orbit is dynamically stable with
respect to a fairly wide range of perturbations, both in the plane and in three
dimensions. This stability, and the fact that similar orbits exist for a wide
range of mass ratios, suggests that triple systems of this type may actually
exist in astronomical systems.
I think that he might have an approach to getting a “DYNAMIC” Planck scale waves in 3D.
Will someone let Cristopher Moore know about the party on 31 Oct 2006.
No!…. I cannot do it….. I’m a nobody
We can ask if he wants to be in charge of “dancing”
Since we will have music we got to have dancing and he can explain the dance steps.
We need someone to be in charge of showing us some dance steps.
We will also have some games. A special game of Bobbing the apple. Someone who really understand waves and who can point out how we can keep the waves from splashing out of the tub. Of course the apple can be any size but it must be remembered that it is made of 12 Planck size waves. (See previous ref.)
If we want the apple bobbing, then I suspect that we will have to change the weight of the apple (a quantum G that does not start from a point so a non traditional approach will need to be used.)
This will require someone who uses the formulas for a living.
hint....hint....Maybe yq or qmdarkmatter for bobbing the apple?
jal
QUOTE (jal+Sep 14 2006, 05:38 PM)
What would a dynamic Planck Sphere in 3D look like?
Like the dynamic Planck Ellipse in 2D, maybe...
Like the dynamic Planck Ellipse in 2D, maybe...
Zephir ... We would need the math .... call Cristopher Moore
ALL GOOD SCIENCE FICTION WRITERS TRY TO LEARN THE SCIENCE SO THAT THEY CAN WRITE ABOUT SCIENCE.
ALL GOOD WRITER TRY TO LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALITY AND FICTION.
THE BEST IS YET TO COME.
JAL
ALL GOOD SCIENCE FICTION WRITERS TRY TO LEARN THE SCIENCE SO THAT THEY CAN WRITE ABOUT SCIENCE.
ALL GOOD WRITER TRY TO LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALITY AND FICTION.
THE BEST IS YET TO COME.
JAL
Good day!
Can someone access this paper and give a resume?
Will it fit into our party?
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...=cvips&gifs=yes
Intersecting D3-branes and holography
Neil R. Constable,1 Johanna Erdmenger,2 Zachary Guralnik,2 and Ingo Kirsch2
1Center for Theoretical Physics and Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 2Institut
(Received 17 February 2003; published 24 November 2003)
A new word....A nonrenormalization theorem
I wish I was a somebody....they might answer my e-mail
jal
Can someone access this paper and give a resume?
Will it fit into our party?
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...=cvips&gifs=yes
Intersecting D3-branes and holography
Neil R. Constable,1 Johanna Erdmenger,2 Zachary Guralnik,2 and Ingo Kirsch2
1Center for Theoretical Physics and Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 2Institut
(Received 17 February 2003; published 24 November 2003)
QUOTE
We study a defect conformal field theory describing D3-branes intersecting over two space-time dimensions. This theory admits an exact Lagrangian description which includes both two- and four-dimensional degrees of freedom, has (4,4) supersymmetry and is invariant under global conformal transformations. Both two- and four-dimensional contributions to the action are conveniently obtained in a two-dimensional (2,2) superspace. In a suitable limit, the theory has a dual description in terms of a probe D3-brane wrapping an AdS3×S1 slice of AdS5×S5. We consider the AdS/CFT dictionary for this setup. In particular we find classical probe fluctuations corresponding to the holomorphic curve wy = calpha[prime]. These fluctuations are dual to defect fields containing massless two-dimensional scalars which parametrize the classical Higgs branch, but do not correspond to states in the Hilbert space of the CFT. We also identify probe fluctuations which are dual to BPS superconformal primary operators and to their descendants. A nonrenormalization theorem is conjectured for the correlators of these operators, and verified to order g2.
A new word....A nonrenormalization theorem
I wish I was a somebody....they might answer my e-mail
jal
Hi!
A reference for the doubter who think that doing work in 2D is stupid.
Background field calculations and nonrenormalization theorems
in 4d supersymmetric gauge theories and their low–dimensional descendants
Andrei Smilga and Arkady Vainshtein 18 July 2004
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0405/0405142.pdf
See you at the party.
jal
A reference for the doubter who think that doing work in 2D is stupid.
Background field calculations and nonrenormalization theorems
in 4d supersymmetric gauge theories and their low–dimensional descendants
Andrei Smilga and Arkady Vainshtein 18 July 2004
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0405/0405142.pdf
QUOTE
5 Conclusions
In this paper, we have observed that the corrections to the effective Lagrangian of supersymmetric gauge theories in different dimensions obtained from the 4d theory by dimensional reduction procedure can be expressed in a closed universal form in the framework of the supergraph background field formalism, see Eqs.(39,50).
In this paper, we have observed that the corrections to the effective Lagrangian of supersymmetric gauge theories in different dimensions obtained from the 4d theory by dimensional reduction procedure can be expressed in a closed universal form in the framework of the supergraph background field formalism, see Eqs.(39,50).
See you at the party.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Sep 14 2006, 02:38 PM)
What would a dynamic Planck Sphere in 3D look like?
New Periodic Orbits for the n-Body Problem
Cristopher Moore
Jal,
Hey, this image is like the three 2-D vacuoles @ 90 degrees I've imagined which 'condense' from 3 space. (quarks) ; these would all undergo further condensation to 6, 1-D vacuoles 'linearons' which condense to a singularity. My hypothetical endo event horizon tachyonic affect creates another 6 1-D linearons in anti-event mode, giving us a total of 12 wave aspects.
I know you 'don't do singularities' but this is how I model, even if you call it Sci-Fi
New Periodic Orbits for the n-Body Problem
Cristopher Moore
Jal,
Hey, this image is like the three 2-D vacuoles @ 90 degrees I've imagined which 'condense' from 3 space. (quarks) ; these would all undergo further condensation to 6, 1-D vacuoles 'linearons' which condense to a singularity. My hypothetical endo event horizon tachyonic affect creates another 6 1-D linearons in anti-event mode, giving us a total of 12 wave aspects.
I know you 'don't do singularities' but this is how I model, even if you call it Sci-Fi
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Sep 15 2006, 08:22 PM)
...I know you 'don't do singularities' but this is how I model, even if you call it Sci-Fi ...
I suppose, the three inertial points are defining the plane, whereas the four ones are defining the 3D volume and so on...
So that the number of points in stable N-body gravitational problem is solely arbitrary and it doesn't enables to derive nothing useful.
I suppose, the three inertial points are defining the plane, whereas the four ones are defining the 3D volume and so on...
So that the number of points in stable N-body gravitational problem is solely arbitrary and it doesn't enables to derive nothing useful.
fivedoughnut ... and All!
There is not very much separating our point of view.... a Planck Length
You want to go smaller and follow the standard approach.
I want to go bigger and explore the richness that could be awaiting for us.
If we used the standard approach (a point) and ignored all of our other senses you would be missing the whole planet..... a point....G
Keep finding links....for the party 31 Oct 2006.
jal
There is not very much separating our point of view.... a Planck Length
You want to go smaller and follow the standard approach.
I want to go bigger and explore the richness that could be awaiting for us.
If we used the standard approach (a point) and ignored all of our other senses you would be missing the whole planet..... a point....G
Keep finding links....for the party 31 Oct 2006.
jal
Hey jal, et al.
I need some insight from your excitement and intuition! (In anticipation of Halloween, of course! )
The Compton wavelength of a Planck Mass is 2pi times the Planck length. The Schwartchild radius of a Planck Mass is 2 times the Planck length. So for our "first" 2D Planck Sphere, the radius would need to be 2lp. A unit of Planck energy can only exist on the surface of this sphere. For it to propagate, it must "travel" in the third dimension "out". This propagation is from the first sphere to the "exterior" of the second sphere, which is actually the next 12 Planck Spheres packed around the first. So here's my question for your consideration... Will the energy be able to propagate through the subsequent spheres or only upon their surface?
The second sphere (composed of the 12 Planck Spheres of the first packing) will have a surface area of 3(2lp^2)4pi. But the energy will be able to propagate through an area of 12(2lp^2)4pi... If the snake must eat its tail, then wavelengths equal to the total number of packed Planck Spheres within any given sphere of radius X(2lp) are allowed. I think I am beginning to see ln(3)...
I need some insight from your excitement and intuition! (In anticipation of Halloween, of course!
)The Compton wavelength of a Planck Mass is 2pi times the Planck length. The Schwartchild radius of a Planck Mass is 2 times the Planck length. So for our "first" 2D Planck Sphere, the radius would need to be 2lp. A unit of Planck energy can only exist on the surface of this sphere. For it to propagate, it must "travel" in the third dimension "out". This propagation is from the first sphere to the "exterior" of the second sphere, which is actually the next 12 Planck Spheres packed around the first. So here's my question for your consideration... Will the energy be able to propagate through the subsequent spheres or only upon their surface?
The second sphere (composed of the 12 Planck Spheres of the first packing) will have a surface area of 3(2lp^2)4pi. But the energy will be able to propagate through an area of 12(2lp^2)4pi... If the snake must eat its tail, then wavelengths equal to the total number of packed Planck Spheres within any given sphere of radius X(2lp) are allowed. I think I am beginning to see ln(3)...
QUOTE (jal+Sep 15 2006, 09:59 PM)
fivedoughnut ... and All!
There is not very much separating our point of view.... a Planck Length
You want to go smaller and follow the standard approach.
I want to go bigger and explore the richness that could be awaiting for us.
If we used the standard approach (a point) and ignored all of our other senses you would be missing the whole planet..... a point....G
Keep finding links....for the party 31 Oct 2006.
jal
Jal etc,
What if our perceptions of size, distance, velocity are all illusionary?
A 0-D Point, 1-D Line, 2-D Circle....Sphere...Hypersphere are all nothings 'existing'
from varying dimensional perspectives. It would seem relativity depends on 0-D referencing (point to point) as everything beyond 0-D is hyperspace...what does this say about our universe?
Perhaps it's merely transition between these singularity states which produce all apparent scales?......Insight courtesy of breakfast Auzzie Cabinet Sauvignon 2004.
There is not very much separating our point of view.... a Planck Length
You want to go smaller and follow the standard approach.
I want to go bigger and explore the richness that could be awaiting for us.
If we used the standard approach (a point) and ignored all of our other senses you would be missing the whole planet..... a point....G
Keep finding links....for the party 31 Oct 2006.
jal
Jal etc,
What if our perceptions of size, distance, velocity are all illusionary?
A 0-D Point, 1-D Line, 2-D Circle....Sphere...Hypersphere are all nothings 'existing'
from varying dimensional perspectives. It would seem relativity depends on 0-D referencing (point to point) as everything beyond 0-D is hyperspace...what does this say about our universe?
Perhaps it's merely transition between these singularity states which produce all apparent scales?......Insight courtesy of breakfast Auzzie Cabinet Sauvignon 2004.
jal,5D,y,!y et al,
Nice one 5D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling
In Planck length space this effect is going to be HUGE (or possibly even bigger!)
-C2.
Nice one 5D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling
In Planck length space this effect is going to be HUGE (or possibly even bigger!)
-C2.
Good day ...Confused2 .... and all!
I find it interesting that the Quantum_tunneling description is similar to what you get when you apply the Planck scale rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling
Let's see ..... Quantum_tunneling..... 12 band orchestra ...... dancing instructions.... hummmmm
It's starting to sound like it's going to be an interesting party.
You all seem to be getting some very interesting toys for us to play with.
Keep finding links....for the party 31 Oct 2006.
jal
I find it interesting that the Quantum_tunneling description is similar to what you get when you apply the Planck scale rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling
QUOTE
Availability of states is necessary for tunneling to occur. In the above example, the quantum mechanical ball will not appear inside the hill because there is no available "space" for it to exist, but it can tunnel to the other side of the hill, where there is free space. Analogously, a particle can tunnel through the barrier, but unless there are states available within the barrier, the particle can only tunnel to the other side of the barrier. The wavefunction describing a particle only expresses the probability of finding the particle at a location assuming a free state exists.
Let's see ..... Quantum_tunneling..... 12 band orchestra ...... dancing instructions.... hummmmm
It's starting to sound like it's going to be an interesting party.
You all seem to be getting some very interesting toys for us to play with.
Keep finding links....for the party 31 Oct 2006.
jal
Good Day!
Would Quantum_tunneling be because you must apply the Planck scale rules?
Has quantum tunneling only been observed below 1mm and higher than 10^-18?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN.
The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN.
The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length.
4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? (Check my math/logic) I would expect more than one approach. Let’s see what you can do with Quantum_tunneling.
Of course, I would expect that you would publish your work ….and of course remember to give me a beer.
We shall put your entries into the “bobbing for apples” category.
See you at the party.
jal
Incomplete understanding of the meaning of the similarity of the gravetomagnetic formulas, above, and Maxwell's equations for (real) electricity and magnetism have given rise to fringe physics which mainstream physicists find both tedious and alarming
??
C2.
Would Quantum_tunneling be because you must apply the Planck scale rules?
Has quantum tunneling only been observed below 1mm and higher than 10^-18?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle
QUOTE
A point particle is an idealized particle heavily used in physics. Its distinguishing features are that it does not have any volume or surface area; it is zero dimensional. A point particle is often a good approximation of real particles and also more extended bodies. In Newtonian gravitation as well as general relativity and electromagnetism, the respective fields outside of a spherical object are identical to those of a point particle of equal charge/mass located at the center of the sphere.
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN.
The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A point particle is an idealized particle heavily used in physics. Its distinguishing features are that it does not have any volume or surface area; it is zero dimensional. A point particle is often a good approximation of real particles and also more extended bodies. In Newtonian gravitation as well as general relativity and electromagnetism, the respective fields outside of a spherical object are identical to those of a point particle of equal charge/mass located at the center of the sphere. |
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN.
The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length.
4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
QUOTE
It takes 6 Planck size waves to make a Planck size sphere.
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? (Check my math/logic) I would expect more than one approach. Let’s see what you can do with Quantum_tunneling.
Of course, I would expect that you would publish your work ….and of course remember to give me a beer.
We shall put your entries into the “bobbing for apples” category.
See you at the party.
jal
Good Day Everyone!
FROM ATOMS TO QUARKS AND BEYOND:A HISTORICAL
PANORAMA
G. Rajasekaran
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Madras 600113.
e-mail: graj@imsc.ernet.in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0602...202006%20pdf%22
NOW EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE WE ARE.
-------------------------------------------------------------
We are all children of the WEB.
Those “old guys” are putting up information on the WEB with the hope that their knowledge will not be forgotten and that it will be understood by “seekers”.
They are unconsciously hoping that “amateurs” will get/write some insight that will further the quest for understanding that would result in “breakthroughs”.
Of course, the “old guy” must get an insight…. that the amateur/you had an insight… then the “old guys” will forget that his insight came from the insight of an amateur/your insight….. and he’ll publish/write a paper about his insight.
The end result…. A “breakthrough”.
So don’t feel bad if the “old guys” don’t acknowledge your existence….it’s not their fault …..it’s probably part of being “old guy”
Now, …. I’m sure that I must have read something to inspired me to write this….but I cannot remember where/who …. Maybe, …. I’m getting to be an “old guy”.
Oh well! …c’est la vie!
By the way …. In case you forgot … you still owe me a beer.
See you at the party.
jal
FROM ATOMS TO QUARKS AND BEYOND:A HISTORICAL
PANORAMA
G. Rajasekaran
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Madras 600113.
e-mail: graj@imsc.ernet.in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0602...202006%20pdf%22
NOW EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE WE ARE.
-------------------------------------------------------------
We are all children of the WEB.
Those “old guys” are putting up information on the WEB with the hope that their knowledge will not be forgotten and that it will be understood by “seekers”.
They are unconsciously hoping that “amateurs” will get/write some insight that will further the quest for understanding that would result in “breakthroughs”.
Of course, the “old guy” must get an insight…. that the amateur/you had an insight… then the “old guys” will forget that his insight came from the insight of an amateur/your insight….. and he’ll publish/write a paper about his insight.
The end result…. A “breakthrough”.
So don’t feel bad if the “old guys” don’t acknowledge your existence….it’s not their fault …..it’s probably part of being “old guy”
Now, …. I’m sure that I must have read something to inspired me to write this….but I cannot remember where/who …. Maybe, …. I’m getting to be an “old guy”.
Oh well! …c’est la vie!
By the way …. In case you forgot … you still owe me a beer.
See you at the party.
jal
Good day All!
I must preface by saying that I do not understand ther following paper and that I would like some of our math readers to explain what is going on.
From my point of view, all that this experiment has demonstrated is that Newton gravity does not go to a “point” and that there must be corrections done to the formulas.
The experiment showed that these effect/corrections could be detected at the molecular level.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf
Based upon these results, some people are already designing “star ships”.
I would rather speculate that Newton G will be corrected at the quantum level.
Are there any math people who can give their opinions on the meaning of this experiment?
jal
I must preface by saying that I do not understand ther following paper and that I would like some of our math readers to explain what is going on.
From my point of view, all that this experiment has demonstrated is that Newton gravity does not go to a “point” and that there must be corrections done to the formulas.
The experiment showed that these effect/corrections could be detected at the molecular level.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf
QUOTE
Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment
If confirmed, this opens up new means of investigating general relativity and its consequences in the quantum world using coherent matter.
If confirmed, this opens up new means of investigating general relativity and its consequences in the quantum world using coherent matter.
Based upon these results, some people are already designing “star ships”.
I would rather speculate that Newton G will be corrected at the quantum level.
Are there any math people who can give their opinions on the meaning of this experiment?
jal
University of Vienna has gone to the trouble of posting this:-
http://pub-et.tuwien.ac.at/showauthorinfo....lang=2&nohtml=1
C2.
http://pub-et.tuwien.ac.at/showauthorinfo....lang=2&nohtml=1
C2.
QUOTE (Wiki Gravitoelectromagnetism+)
Incomplete understanding of the meaning of the similarity of the gravetomagnetic formulas, above, and Maxwell's equations for (real) electricity and magnetism have given rise to fringe physics which mainstream physicists find both tedious and alarming
??
C2.
Hi Confused2
I could not get the link to open.
Is you second post refering to the article that I quoted?
jal
I could not get the link to open.
Is you second post refering to the article that I quoted?
jal
I cleared up my question.
I found a discussion on GEM at http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-98613.html
Thanks
I found a discussion on GEM at http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-98613.html
Thanks
Good day everyone!
I want to restate
If we are going to have dancing then we should be aware of the problems involved.
This paper is a guide line for the dance instructor and bobbing of the apple.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0302/0302044.pdf
Constraints in Quantum Geometrodynamics
Adrian P. Gentle∗, Nathan D. George†, Arkady Kheyfets‡and
Warner A. Miller§
July 11, 2006
If we are going to have dancing then we should be aware of the problems involved.
This paper is a guide line for the dance instructor and bobbing of the apple.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0302/0302044.pdf
Constraints in Quantum Geometrodynamics
Adrian P. Gentle∗, Nathan D. George†, Arkady Kheyfets‡and
Warner A. Miller§
July 11, 2006
Solving any particular problem can be thought of as a three–step procedure.
First, the Schr¨odinger equation (195) is solved, assuming that the embedding
variables and their time derivatives are unique, although unknown,
functions of time and the spatial coordinates. The same is assumed of lapse
and shift, unless they are given explicitly. Solving the the Schr¨odinger equation
implies that appropriate boundary and initial conditions for the state
functional on the geometrodynamic configuration superspace are given.
The
resulting solution is a functional that depends on the embedding variables
and their time derivatives, as well as shift and lapse. The expectations of
the constraints (201) and (202) over the solution of the Schr¨odinger equation
are then computed. This procedure produces four differential equations for
the four embedding variables if the lapse and shift are given explicitly. Alternatively,
one can simply couple the four constraint conditions with four
functional conditions for the lapse and shift. These procedures determine the
meaning of time. The last step is to solve these equations and substitute the
solutions for the embedding variables, their time derivatives, and lapse and
shift into the expression for the state functional.
This whole quantization procedure for the general gravitational field parallels
the quantum cosmological examples considered elsewhere[6]. Considerable
complications are caused by the algebraic complexity of the expressions
for the geometrodynamic Hamiltonian and the constraints, as well as by the
functional nature of equations. These complications do not, however, stop
the solution procedure in principle, although they do introduce a rather complex
coupled system. This complexity places demands on our ability to gain a
proper understanding of the problem, especially in setting appropriate initial
and boundary conditions on the configuration superspace.
In principle, however, the geometrodynamic quantization formalism in
the general setting retains all of the essential features previously illustrated
in the context of homogeneous cosmologies.
jal
I want to restate
QUOTE
If we do not look beyond the renormalizing… the point…. Etc. which are used very successfully to do science, but which also hide the details, we will never be able to get an understanding of how the universe is made.
If we are going to have dancing then we should be aware of the problems involved.
This paper is a guide line for the dance instructor and bobbing of the apple.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0302/0302044.pdf
Constraints in Quantum Geometrodynamics
Adrian P. Gentle∗, Nathan D. George†, Arkady Kheyfets‡and
Warner A. Miller§
July 11, 2006
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If we do not look beyond the renormalizing… the point…. Etc. which are used very successfully to do science, but which also hide the details, we will never be able to get an understanding of how the universe is made. |
If we are going to have dancing then we should be aware of the problems involved.
This paper is a guide line for the dance instructor and bobbing of the apple.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0302/0302044.pdf
Constraints in Quantum Geometrodynamics
Adrian P. Gentle∗, Nathan D. George†, Arkady Kheyfets‡and
Warner A. Miller§
July 11, 2006
Solving any particular problem can be thought of as a three–step procedure.
First, the Schr¨odinger equation (195) is solved, assuming that the embedding
variables and their time derivatives are unique, although unknown,
functions of time and the spatial coordinates. The same is assumed of lapse
and shift, unless they are given explicitly. Solving the the Schr¨odinger equation
implies that appropriate boundary and initial conditions for the state
functional on the geometrodynamic configuration superspace are given.
The
resulting solution is a functional that depends on the embedding variables
and their time derivatives, as well as shift and lapse. The expectations of
the constraints (201) and (202) over the solution of the Schr¨odinger equation
are then computed. This procedure produces four differential equations for
the four embedding variables if the lapse and shift are given explicitly. Alternatively,
one can simply couple the four constraint conditions with four
functional conditions for the lapse and shift. These procedures determine the
meaning of time. The last step is to solve these equations and substitute the
solutions for the embedding variables, their time derivatives, and lapse and
shift into the expression for the state functional.
This whole quantization procedure for the general gravitational field parallels
the quantum cosmological examples considered elsewhere[6]. Considerable
complications are caused by the algebraic complexity of the expressions
for the geometrodynamic Hamiltonian and the constraints, as well as by the
functional nature of equations. These complications do not, however, stop
the solution procedure in principle, although they do introduce a rather complex
coupled system. This complexity places demands on our ability to gain a
proper understanding of the problem, especially in setting appropriate initial
and boundary conditions on the configuration superspace.
In principle, however, the geometrodynamic quantization formalism in
the general setting retains all of the essential features previously illustrated
in the context of homogeneous cosmologies.
QUOTE
Following standard convention[4] we drop the factor of 1/16 pi from the gravitational action in the remainder of this paper. In vacuum the equations are equivalent, and the factor can be trivially included when matter is present.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Sep 19 2006, 05:40 AM)
I found a discussion on GEM at http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-98613.html
From the discussion above quoted "Frame-dragging is another name for gravitomagnetism "....
The gravitomagnetism predicted by Heim's theory is solely different effect then Gravitoelectromagnetism . If it would be the same, then the Tajmar's work results cannot differ from the frame dragging effect predicted by general relativity in 10E+20 orders of magnitude. The AWT explains the mechanism of composite field formation and its strength.
From the discussion above quoted "Frame-dragging is another name for gravitomagnetism "....
The gravitomagnetism predicted by Heim's theory is solely different effect then Gravitoelectromagnetism . If it would be the same, then the Tajmar's work results cannot differ from the frame dragging effect predicted by general relativity in 10E+20 orders of magnitude. The AWT explains the mechanism of composite field formation and its strength.
Zephir
You do not not have any dancing instructions....so your AWT is disqualified.
However, if the Heim people did some work on their formula they might not get disqualified.
You cannot break the Planck scale.
jal
QUOTE
...AWT explains the mechanism of composite field formation...
You do not not have any dancing instructions....so your AWT is disqualified.
However, if the Heim people did some work on their formula they might not get disqualified.
You cannot break the Planck scale.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Sep 19 2006, 08:54 PM)
You do not not have any dancing instructions....so your AWT is disqualified...
I don't know about such requirement. Which "dancing instructions" have the QM & GR, for example?
I don't know about such requirement. Which "dancing instructions" have the QM & GR, for example?
QUOTE (jal+Sep 19 2006, 08:54 PM)
You cannot break the Planck scale...
Well, these newspaper phrases... Why I should want to break the Planck scale? Why I cannot to do this?
Well, these newspaper phrases...
Why I should want to break the Planck scale? Why I cannot to do this?
Good Day!
I bit more of research that I did for the party.
http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/qg/qg.html
Quantum Gravity Concept Map
koehlekr@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu
YOU WOULD NOT BE DIVIDING BY ZERO IF YOU DID NOT VIOLATE THE PLANCK LENGTH.
YOU WOULD NOT BE DIVIDING BY ZERO IF YOU DID NOT VIOLATE THE PLANCK LENGTH.
It is interesting to note that at distance scales slightly larger than the Planck Scale, the coupling constants of the Standard Model of Particle Physics converge to a single value.
jal
I bit more of research that I did for the party.
http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/qg/qg.html
Quantum Gravity Concept Map
koehlekr@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu
QUOTE
The parameter space of the "unitary" groups (U(1), SU(2) and SU(3)) are "isomorphic to" (have a one-to-one correspondence with) the circle, the sphere (a surface!) and the "three sphere" (not a ball!). Note that the fields associated with the nonabelian symmetries can be divided into "electric" (curl-free) and "magnetic" (divergence-free) fields just as in the the abelian case (electromagnetism).
Arbitrarily large values of momentum correspond to arbitrarily small distances, due to the conjugate nature of momentum and coordinate. Hence the local nature of quantum field theory requires some sort of "averaging" over finite distances which will eliminate the problems associated with dividing by distances which may be zero!.
Arbitrarily large values of momentum correspond to arbitrarily small distances, due to the conjugate nature of momentum and coordinate. Hence the local nature of quantum field theory requires some sort of "averaging" over finite distances which will eliminate the problems associated with dividing by distances which may be zero!.
YOU WOULD NOT BE DIVIDING BY ZERO IF YOU DID NOT VIOLATE THE PLANCK LENGTH.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The parameter space of the "unitary" groups (U(1), SU(2) and SU(3)) are "isomorphic to" (have a one-to-one correspondence with) the circle, the sphere (a surface!) and the "three sphere" (not a ball!). Note that the fields associated with the nonabelian symmetries can be divided into "electric" (curl-free) and "magnetic" (divergence-free) fields just as in the the abelian case (electromagnetism). Arbitrarily large values of momentum correspond to arbitrarily small distances, due to the conjugate nature of momentum and coordinate. Hence the local nature of quantum field theory requires some sort of "averaging" over finite distances which will eliminate the problems associated with dividing by distances which may be zero!. |
YOU WOULD NOT BE DIVIDING BY ZERO IF YOU DID NOT VIOLATE THE PLANCK LENGTH.
It is interesting to note that at distance scales slightly larger than the Planck Scale, the coupling constants of the Standard Model of Particle Physics converge to a single value.
jal
jal, party types,
If you go to the party and are unlucky enough to find yourself talking to an Electronics Engineer .. here's what might happen..
We (EE's) have a thing we call a ramp function ..(simplified and edited) which starts at zero at t=0 and increases linearly to 1 at t=1 and stays at 1. Looks like a ramp which is why we call it a ramp. Under intense pressure we are just about smart enough to differentiate this with respect to time .. yeehaaw.. dancing time .. we get what we call a step function .. rises to to 1 at t=0 and falls to zero at t=1. Looks like a step - that's why we call it a step. Maintain the pressure and force us to differentiate with respect to time AGAIN and we get what we call an impulse function .. a hinfinite +ve for a hinfinitely short space of time .. and a second later we get another (-ve) impulse function which bumps (if you are of an integrating frame of mind) the value back down to zero. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function for a trivial non-EE demonstration of power..
Upshot.. EE guys and gals can do infinities .. they don't scare us .. we LIKE them. Just how rigorous the maths is .. mine's a cold beer.
-C2.
If you go to the party and are unlucky enough to find yourself talking to an Electronics Engineer .. here's what might happen..
We (EE's) have a thing we call a ramp function ..(simplified and edited) which starts at zero at t=0 and increases linearly to 1 at t=1 and stays at 1. Looks like a ramp which is why we call it a ramp. Under intense pressure we are just about smart enough to differentiate this with respect to time .. yeehaaw.. dancing time .. we get what we call a step function .. rises to to 1 at t=0 and falls to zero at t=1. Looks like a step - that's why we call it a step. Maintain the pressure and force us to differentiate with respect to time AGAIN and we get what we call an impulse function .. a hinfinite +ve for a hinfinitely short space of time .. and a second later we get another (-ve) impulse function which bumps (if you are of an integrating frame of mind) the value back down to zero. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function for a trivial non-EE demonstration of power..
Upshot.. EE guys and gals can do infinities .. they don't scare us .. we LIKE them. Just how rigorous the maths is .. mine's a cold beer.
-C2.
Hi! Confused2
I would say," It's a very good example of how we can ignore the Planck scale in our work and assume "a point"..."
However, If it was you, I would wonder why you are interested in how you can be satisfied with this since you are also bothered about "things" that are suppose to happen in Zero time. (Your other discussions inputs).
I would characterize the Dirac delta function more as a probability density/distribution function.
mine's a cold beer too.
jal
QUOTE
If you go to the party and are unlucky enough to find yourself talking to an Electronics Engineer .. here's what might happen..
I would say," It's a very good example of how we can ignore the Planck scale in our work and assume "a point"..."
However, If it was you, I would wonder why you are interested in how you can be satisfied with this since you are also bothered about "things" that are suppose to happen in Zero time. (Your other discussions inputs).
I would characterize the Dirac delta function more as a probability density/distribution function.
mine's a cold beer too.
jal
Baez (bless him) posts here..
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalization.html
I regret that I'm too tired to make any sense of it .. but it looks 'relevent'... hope it is.
-C2.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalization.html
I regret that I'm too tired to make any sense of it .. but it looks 'relevent'... hope it is.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Sep 20 2006, 03:42 AM)
...I'm too tired to make any sense of it .. but it looks 'relevent'...
LOL, the terms "Planck scale" and "Renormalization" appears a quite often together in popular scientific texts. Like chatbot you'll make no big mistake to put some link right here, really. Such approach is named the semantic distance metric in artifical intelligence. Briefly speaking, the most common verbs and phrases always comes at first - as the result, the chatbot appears a more "clever".
Are you all chatbots - or do you have some physical insight, what the renormalization really means in physic?
LOL, the terms "Planck scale" and "Renormalization" appears a quite often together in popular scientific texts. Like chatbot you'll make no big mistake to put some link right here, really. Such approach is named the semantic distance metric in artifical intelligence. Briefly speaking, the most common verbs and phrases always comes at first - as the result, the chatbot appears a more "clever".
Are you all chatbots - or do you have some physical insight, what the renormalization really means in physic?
Hi Confused2!
Relevant? ...... absolutely....
I started by taking some quotes to post and gave up. I would have had to copy all of it.
However,
jal
Relevant? ...... absolutely....
I started by taking some quotes to post and gave up. I would have had to copy all of it.
However,
QUOTE
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalization.html
....In other words, it amounts to ignoring effects that involve fields varying on distance scales shorter than some distance D.
....the answer you get will depend on their momenta in the center-of-mass frame
we need to ignore effects going on at length scales smaller than some distance D, called the "cutoff".
....There may be all sorts of strange quantum gravity stuff going on at very short distance scales - perhaps spacetime is not even a continuum! But if at larger scales we assume that ordinary quantum field theory on flat spacetime is a reasonably accurate approximation to what's going on, then this renormalization group stuff assures us that at still larger scales, nonrenormalizable interactions are going to look very weak.
....In other words, it amounts to ignoring effects that involve fields varying on distance scales shorter than some distance D.
....the answer you get will depend on their momenta in the center-of-mass frame
we need to ignore effects going on at length scales smaller than some distance D, called the "cutoff".
....There may be all sorts of strange quantum gravity stuff going on at very short distance scales - perhaps spacetime is not even a continuum! But if at larger scales we assume that ordinary quantum field theory on flat spacetime is a reasonably accurate approximation to what's going on, then this renormalization group stuff assures us that at still larger scales, nonrenormalizable interactions are going to look very weak.
jal
Hi jal,
I wasn't sure about http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalization.html because it is difficult to fit it into a structured spacetime scenario.
We know (we think?) Quantum Mechanics merges into Electromagnetism when there are enough 'particles' .. just for a challenge one might try to set a size boundary (anything) where jal physics starts to merge with (say) QM. It might (?????) be easier to get the upper limit working where things are better defined .. just a thought.
-C2.
I wasn't sure about http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalization.html because it is difficult to fit it into a structured spacetime scenario.
We know (we think?) Quantum Mechanics merges into Electromagnetism when there are enough 'particles' .. just for a challenge one might try to set a size boundary (anything) where jal physics starts to merge with (say) QM. It might (?????) be easier to get the upper limit working where things are better defined .. just a thought.
-C2.
Hi Confused2!
Those who have been following this development might be able to give some insight.
The lower bound seems to be clear. (to me)
Those who have been following this development might be able to give some insight.
The lower bound seems to be clear. (to me)
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? (Check my math/logic) I would expect more than one approach.
Depending on "congruency".... does it get to 10^-18??? Here ....math would probably produce more than one possibility.
I must give more info on renormalizing... there might be some inspirational material for someone.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalization.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalizability.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalizability.html
So let's go down to 2-dimensional spacetime. To make
∫ ψ* Dψ d2x
dimensionless, we need to give the fermion field dimensions of length-1/2, so now the interaction
∫ ψ* ψ ψ* ψ d2x
has dimensions of length0, so its coupling constant must have dimensions of length0. 0 equals 0, so...
BINGO! YOU WIN! THIS INTERACTION IS RENORMALIZABLE! YOU CAN PICK UP YOUR NOBEL PRIZE BY THE DOOR AS YOU LEAVE!
That should give you another clue ABOUT THE “SPOT” BUT….. …remember Planck scale rule. Everybody has forgotten that Newton G is presumed to go to 0.
Newton G has got to be renormalized.
If a guest gets an inspiration..... drop me a note..... I can't wait for the party.
jal
QUOTE
where jal physics starts to merge with (say) QM
Those who have been following this development might be able to give some insight.
The lower bound seems to be clear. (to me)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| where jal physics starts to merge with (say) QM |
Those who have been following this development might be able to give some insight.
The lower bound seems to be clear. (to me)
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? (Check my math/logic) I would expect more than one approach.
Depending on "congruency".... does it get to 10^-18??? Here ....math would probably produce more than one possibility.
I must give more info on renormalizing... there might be some inspirational material for someone.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalization.html
QUOTE
For a nice short summary of the "Wilsonian philosophy of renormalization", let me paraphrase Peskin and Schroeder:
In Chapter 10 we took the philosophy that the distance cutoff D should be disposed of by taking the limit D -> 0 as quickly as possible. We found that this limit gives well-defined predictions only if the Lagrangian contains no coupling constants with dimensions of length^d with d > 0. From this viewpoint, it seemed exceedingly fortunate that quantum electrodynamics, for example, contained no such coupling constants since otherwise this theory would not yield well-defined predictions.
Wilson's analysis takes just the opposite point of view, that any quantum field theory is defined fundamentally with a distance cutoff D that has some physical significance. In statistical mechanical applications, this distance scale is the atomic spacing. In quantum electrodynamics and other quantum field theories appropriate to elementary particle physics, the cutoff would have to be associated with some fundamental graininess of spacetime, perhaps the result of quantum fluctuations in gravity. We discuss some speculations on the nature of this cutoff in the Epilogue. But whatever this scale is, it lies far beyond the reach of present-day experiments. Wilson's arguments show that this this circumstance explains the renormalizability of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum field theories of particle interactions. Whatever the Lagrangian of quantum electrodynamics was at the fundamental scale, as long as its couplings are sufficiently weak, it must be described at the energies of our experiments by a renormalizable effective Lagrangian.
In Chapter 10 we took the philosophy that the distance cutoff D should be disposed of by taking the limit D -> 0 as quickly as possible. We found that this limit gives well-defined predictions only if the Lagrangian contains no coupling constants with dimensions of length^d with d > 0. From this viewpoint, it seemed exceedingly fortunate that quantum electrodynamics, for example, contained no such coupling constants since otherwise this theory would not yield well-defined predictions.
Wilson's analysis takes just the opposite point of view, that any quantum field theory is defined fundamentally with a distance cutoff D that has some physical significance. In statistical mechanical applications, this distance scale is the atomic spacing. In quantum electrodynamics and other quantum field theories appropriate to elementary particle physics, the cutoff would have to be associated with some fundamental graininess of spacetime, perhaps the result of quantum fluctuations in gravity. We discuss some speculations on the nature of this cutoff in the Epilogue. But whatever this scale is, it lies far beyond the reach of present-day experiments. Wilson's arguments show that this this circumstance explains the renormalizability of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum field theories of particle interactions. Whatever the Lagrangian of quantum electrodynamics was at the fundamental scale, as long as its couplings are sufficiently weak, it must be described at the energies of our experiments by a renormalizable effective Lagrangian.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalizability.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For a nice short summary of the "Wilsonian philosophy of renormalization", let me paraphrase Peskin and Schroeder: In Chapter 10 we took the philosophy that the distance cutoff D should be disposed of by taking the limit D -> 0 as quickly as possible. We found that this limit gives well-defined predictions only if the Lagrangian contains no coupling constants with dimensions of length^d with d > 0. From this viewpoint, it seemed exceedingly fortunate that quantum electrodynamics, for example, contained no such coupling constants since otherwise this theory would not yield well-defined predictions. Wilson's analysis takes just the opposite point of view, that any quantum field theory is defined fundamentally with a distance cutoff D that has some physical significance. In statistical mechanical applications, this distance scale is the atomic spacing. In quantum electrodynamics and other quantum field theories appropriate to elementary particle physics, the cutoff would have to be associated with some fundamental graininess of spacetime, perhaps the result of quantum fluctuations in gravity. We discuss some speculations on the nature of this cutoff in the Epilogue. But whatever this scale is, it lies far beyond the reach of present-day experiments. Wilson's arguments show that this this circumstance explains the renormalizability of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum field theories of particle interactions. Whatever the Lagrangian of quantum electrodynamics was at the fundamental scale, as long as its couplings are sufficiently weak, it must be described at the energies of our experiments by a renormalizable effective Lagrangian. |
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalizability.html
So let's go down to 2-dimensional spacetime. To make
∫ ψ* Dψ d2x
dimensionless, we need to give the fermion field dimensions of length-1/2, so now the interaction
∫ ψ* ψ ψ* ψ d2x
has dimensions of length0, so its coupling constant must have dimensions of length0. 0 equals 0, so...
BINGO! YOU WIN! THIS INTERACTION IS RENORMALIZABLE! YOU CAN PICK UP YOUR NOBEL PRIZE BY THE DOOR AS YOU LEAVE!
That should give you another clue ABOUT THE “SPOT” BUT….. …remember Planck scale rule. Everybody has forgotten that Newton G is presumed to go to 0.
QUOTE
We found that this limit gives well-defined predictions only if the Lagrangian contains no coupling constants with dimensions of length^d with d > 0.
Newton G has got to be renormalized.
If a guest gets an inspiration..... drop me a note..... I can't wait for the party.
jal
Good Day!
Did you all notice the following information in the links provided?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalizability.html
What is the solution? Hint …. Hint….. SPOT
That means that GRAVITY IS FROM A 2D STRUCTURE.
FROM ATOMS TO QUARKS AND BEYOND:A HISTORICAL
PANORAMA
G. Rajasekaran
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Madras 600113.
e-mail: graj@imsc.ernet.in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0602...202006%20pdf%22
What is the solution? Hint …. Hint….. SPOT
That means that GRAVITY IS FROM A 2D STRUCTURE.
FROM ATOMS TO QUARKS AND BEYOND:A HISTORICAL
PANORAMA
G. Rajasekaran
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Madras 600113.
e-mail: graj@imsc.ernet.in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0602...202006%20pdf%22
So far, any attempted theory of gravity was afflicted with the worst divergence diseases known in quantum field theory - much worse than the divergences in QED, QCD and electroweak dynamics all of which were renormalizable divergences. Quantum gravity is not renormalizable.
No.... change the wording to “Our understanding of Newton/quantum gravity is not renormalizable”.
Hint…Hint… The SPOT does not break the Planck scale.
jal
Did you all notice the following information in the links provided?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalizability.html
QUOTE
In 3-dimensional spacetime the action for the free massless fermion field looks like this:
∫ ψ* Dψ d2x
To make this dimensionless, we need to give the fermion field ψ dimensions of length-1, so now the integral
∫ ψ* ψ ψ* ψ d3x
has dimensions of length-1, so the coupling constant must have dimensions of length1. 1 is greater than zero, so...
BZZZZZT! YOU LOSE AGAIN! THIS INTERACTION IS NOT RENORMALIZABLE!
∫ ψ* Dψ d2x
To make this dimensionless, we need to give the fermion field ψ dimensions of length-1, so now the integral
∫ ψ* ψ ψ* ψ d3x
has dimensions of length-1, so the coupling constant must have dimensions of length1. 1 is greater than zero, so...
BZZZZZT! YOU LOSE AGAIN! THIS INTERACTION IS NOT RENORMALIZABLE!
What is the solution? Hint …. Hint….. SPOT
That means that GRAVITY IS FROM A 2D STRUCTURE.
FROM ATOMS TO QUARKS AND BEYOND:A HISTORICAL
PANORAMA
G. Rajasekaran
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Madras 600113.
e-mail: graj@imsc.ernet.in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0602...202006%20pdf%22
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In 3-dimensional spacetime the action for the free massless fermion field looks like this: ∫ ψ* Dψ d2x To make this dimensionless, we need to give the fermion field ψ dimensions of length-1, so now the integral ∫ ψ* ψ ψ* ψ d3x has dimensions of length-1, so the coupling constant must have dimensions of length1. 1 is greater than zero, so... BZZZZZT! YOU LOSE AGAIN! THIS INTERACTION IS NOT RENORMALIZABLE! |
What is the solution? Hint …. Hint….. SPOT
That means that GRAVITY IS FROM A 2D STRUCTURE.
FROM ATOMS TO QUARKS AND BEYOND:A HISTORICAL
PANORAMA
G. Rajasekaran
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Madras 600113.
e-mail: graj@imsc.ernet.in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0602...202006%20pdf%22
So far, any attempted theory of gravity was afflicted with the worst divergence diseases known in quantum field theory - much worse than the divergences in QED, QCD and electroweak dynamics all of which were renormalizable divergences. Quantum gravity is not renormalizable.
No.... change the wording to “Our understanding of Newton/quantum gravity is not renormalizable”.
QUOTE
String theory solves the problem by a nonlocal generalization of the usual local quantum field theory based on point particles.
A point particle is replaced by a one-dimensional object known as a string (either a open or
closed string),with a length of the order of the Planck length (10−33 cm).
Scherk and Schwarz in 1974 proposed to liberate string theory from its original restricted hadronic context and apply the theory to the whole world and that liberated string theory from all the ”troubles”. All they had to do was to change the string length from 10−13 to 10−33 cm.
But, Physics is not theory alone. Even beautiful theories have to be confronted with
experiments and either confirmed or thrown out.
To sum up the situation : There are many interesting fundamental theories taking us to
the Planck scale and even beyond, but unless the experimental barrier is crossed, these will
remain only as Metaphysical Theories.
It follows that,
• either, new ideas of acceleration have to be discovered,
• or, there will be an end to HEP by about 2020 AD.
Another Way Out
In the past three years, another revolutionary idea is being-tried – namely to bring down
Planck scale from 1019 GeV to 103 GeV. This is the so called TeV scale gravity which uses
large (sub-mm) extra dimensions. (If we cannot go up to the mountain top why not ask the
mountain top to come down?)
One version of this idea which is popular is due to Randall and Sundrum.
This is a very interesting field, with a bewildering variety of worlds that theorists can
construct, as a scan of recent hep-net will show.
Is Nature so kind and considerate to us, that it would have brought down the Planck
scale for our sake? Only Future can tell.
But, if this turns out to be correct, then Quantum Gravity and String Theory are not
some distant theories relevant at 1019 GeV, but they are immediately relevant at 103 − 105
GeV. So, it becomes even more urgent to understand String Theories and assimilate them
into Physics!
Many preonic models have been proposed but none is as yet required by experimental
data. Down to a distance scale of 10−17 cm, quarks and leptons behave like point particles.
Nevertheless, Nature might have already chosen one preonic model and future experiments
might reveal it!
A point particle is replaced by a one-dimensional object known as a string (either a open or
closed string),with a length of the order of the Planck length (10−33 cm).
Scherk and Schwarz in 1974 proposed to liberate string theory from its original restricted hadronic context and apply the theory to the whole world and that liberated string theory from all the ”troubles”. All they had to do was to change the string length from 10−13 to 10−33 cm.
But, Physics is not theory alone. Even beautiful theories have to be confronted with
experiments and either confirmed or thrown out.
To sum up the situation : There are many interesting fundamental theories taking us to
the Planck scale and even beyond, but unless the experimental barrier is crossed, these will
remain only as Metaphysical Theories.
It follows that,
• either, new ideas of acceleration have to be discovered,
• or, there will be an end to HEP by about 2020 AD.
Another Way Out
In the past three years, another revolutionary idea is being-tried – namely to bring down
Planck scale from 1019 GeV to 103 GeV. This is the so called TeV scale gravity which uses
large (sub-mm) extra dimensions. (If we cannot go up to the mountain top why not ask the
mountain top to come down?)
One version of this idea which is popular is due to Randall and Sundrum.
This is a very interesting field, with a bewildering variety of worlds that theorists can
construct, as a scan of recent hep-net will show.
Is Nature so kind and considerate to us, that it would have brought down the Planck
scale for our sake? Only Future can tell.
But, if this turns out to be correct, then Quantum Gravity and String Theory are not
some distant theories relevant at 1019 GeV, but they are immediately relevant at 103 − 105
GeV. So, it becomes even more urgent to understand String Theories and assimilate them
into Physics!
Many preonic models have been proposed but none is as yet required by experimental
data. Down to a distance scale of 10−17 cm, quarks and leptons behave like point particles.
Nevertheless, Nature might have already chosen one preonic model and future experiments
might reveal it!
Hint…Hint… The SPOT does not break the Planck scale.
jal
Good Day!
I realize that it is important to have citations so that those who want to understand can do some indepth review.
After all..... you cannot read my mind.
Enjoy the following.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-13/
Discrete Approaches to Quantum Gravity
in Four Dimensions
Renate Loll
e-mail: loll@aei-potsdam.mpg.de
Well! …. Guess what! …. using the Planck scale as I have described it would be a good start.
When reading over this document keep in mind that Newton G is assumed to go to a point and that the “volume” should be as I described it at the Planck scale.
jal
I realize that it is important to have citations so that those who want to understand can do some indepth review.
After all..... you cannot read my mind.
Enjoy the following.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-13/
Discrete Approaches to Quantum Gravity
in Four Dimensions
Renate Loll
e-mail: loll@aei-potsdam.mpg.de
QUOTE
This review covers about 200 papers, the earliest of which appeared in 1979
Further analytical insights are needed to understand which modifications of the measure would make these models more interacting.
Since we have very little experience with universality properties of 4d generally covariant theories, it is not a priori clear whether the choice of measure and the initial restrictions on the lattice geometry can affect the final results.
One may of course take the attitude that something is fundamentally wrong with trying to construct a theory of quantum gravity via a statistical field theory approach, and that a different starting point is needed, an obvious candidate being a non-perturbative theory of superstrings, or of more general extended objects. In any case, these different approaches need not be mutually exclusive, and one may therefore take the results of the discrete approaches presented here as an indication that other attempts of constructing quantum gravity non-perturbatively may run into similar difficulties.
A further unresolved problem is the ``analytic continuation'' of the path-integral results to Lorentzian signature. The Hamiltonian ansatz circumvents this problem, and some progress has been made in the Hamiltonian gauge-theoretic discrete approach. Although the kinematical structure is in place and some information on the constraint algebra has been obtained, the physical state space has not yet been identified.
Further analytical insights are needed to understand which modifications of the measure would make these models more interacting.
Since we have very little experience with universality properties of 4d generally covariant theories, it is not a priori clear whether the choice of measure and the initial restrictions on the lattice geometry can affect the final results.
One may of course take the attitude that something is fundamentally wrong with trying to construct a theory of quantum gravity via a statistical field theory approach, and that a different starting point is needed, an obvious candidate being a non-perturbative theory of superstrings, or of more general extended objects. In any case, these different approaches need not be mutually exclusive, and one may therefore take the results of the discrete approaches presented here as an indication that other attempts of constructing quantum gravity non-perturbatively may run into similar difficulties.
A further unresolved problem is the ``analytic continuation'' of the path-integral results to Lorentzian signature. The Hamiltonian ansatz circumvents this problem, and some progress has been made in the Hamiltonian gauge-theoretic discrete approach. Although the kinematical structure is in place and some information on the constraint algebra has been obtained, the physical state space has not yet been identified.
Well! …. Guess what! …. using the Planck scale as I have described it would be a good start.
When reading over this document keep in mind that Newton G is assumed to go to a point and that the “volume” should be as I described it at the Planck scale.
jal
What can you bring to the party?
Any link that does not break the Planck Scale.
Any work unders the sun that that could be investigated further.
Guest are especially wanted to drop off their links for evaluation.
jal
Any link that does not break the Planck Scale.
Any work unders the sun that that could be investigated further.
Guest are especially wanted to drop off their links for evaluation.
jal
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0603/...202006%20pdf%22
Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown and Perspective of Higgs Mechanism
21 March 2006
Do I smell neutrinos or quarks????
Do I smell neutrinos or quarks????
So, under the ew interaction, when weakons try to propagate, they interact with the scalar field in the vacuum and slow down, what we can interpret as the appearance of mass in them.
Did we just invent something new??? Weakons
between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0
Please explain why you can apply the uncertainty over an area that does not exist?
Susy does not work.
"The emperor has no clothes."
I have repeatedly asked for an explanation... to no avail....
Great logical thinkers abound to make a TOE yet no one can apply their logic to a simple problem.
No science....just science fiction.
"Can solve the universe, but cannot tie their shoe laces."
between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0
Please explain why you can apply the uncertainty over an area that does not exist?
Susy does not work.
"The emperor has no clothes."
I have repeatedly asked for an explanation... to no avail....
Great logical thinkers abound to make a TOE yet no one can apply their logic to a simple problem.
No science....just science fiction.
"Can solve the universe, but cannot tie their shoe laces."
The moral is: for a question like this, you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers.
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN.
The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN.
The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length.
4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? (Check my math/logic) I would expect more than one approach. Let’s see what you can do with Quantum_tunneling and SUSY.
Of course, I would expect that you would publish your work ….and of course remember to give me a beer.
We shall put your entries into the “bobbing for apples” category.
See you at the party.
Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown and Perspective of Higgs Mechanism
21 March 2006
QUOTE
The mass generation through an interaction with a non-empty vacuum can be traced back to the σ-model by Schwinger with the postulation of a scalar field σ along with its potential [1]. The four scalar fields, σ and ϕi (i = 1, . . . , 3) in the σ-model lead to the appearance of three massive and one massless vector bosons,
Do I smell neutrinos or quarks????
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The mass generation through an interaction with a non-empty vacuum can be traced back to the σ-model by Schwinger with the postulation of a scalar field σ along with its potential [1]. The four scalar fields, σ and ϕi (i = 1, . . . , 3) in the σ-model lead to the appearance of three massive and one massless vector bosons, |
Do I smell neutrinos or quarks????
So, under the ew interaction, when weakons try to propagate, they interact with the scalar field in the vacuum and slow down, what we can interpret as the appearance of mass in them.
Did we just invent something new??? Weakons
QUOTE
The minimum of the energy is then given through the Higgs ground state value v 6= 0 in the following form:
u0 = u(φ0) = −3/2ｵ4 λ ≡ umin, φ(+) 0 = +r− 6ｵ2λ ei_ ≡ ˜v = vei_ 6= 0.
In a purely scalar case for φ, v is to be chosen between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0 . The ring of minima for the minimality condition of u is popularly called a “Mexican Hat”, and regions with different φ0-values are called “topological defects”, while with changing values φ = v ↔ −v are “interface domains”.
u0 = u(φ0) = −3/2ｵ4 λ ≡ umin, φ(+) 0 = +r− 6ｵ2λ ei_ ≡ ˜v = vei_ 6= 0.
In a purely scalar case for φ, v is to be chosen between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0 . The ring of minima for the minimality condition of u is popularly called a “Mexican Hat”, and regions with different φ0-values are called “topological defects”, while with changing values φ = v ↔ −v are “interface domains”.
between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0
Please explain why you can apply the uncertainty over an area that does not exist?
Susy does not work.
"The emperor has no clothes."
I have repeatedly asked for an explanation... to no avail....
Great logical thinkers abound to make a TOE yet no one can apply their logic to a simple problem.
No science....just science fiction.
"Can solve the universe, but cannot tie their shoe laces."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The minimum of the energy is then given through the Higgs ground state value v 6= 0 in the following form: u0 = u(φ0) = −3/2ｵ4 λ ≡ umin, φ(+) 0 = +r− 6ｵ2λ ei_ ≡ ˜v = vei_ 6= 0. In a purely scalar case for φ, v is to be chosen between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0 . The ring of minima for the minimality condition of u is popularly called a “Mexican Hat”, and regions with different φ0-values are called “topological defects”, while with changing values φ = v ↔ −v are “interface domains”. |
between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0
Please explain why you can apply the uncertainty over an area that does not exist?
Susy does not work.
"The emperor has no clothes."
I have repeatedly asked for an explanation... to no avail....
Great logical thinkers abound to make a TOE yet no one can apply their logic to a simple problem.
No science....just science fiction.
"Can solve the universe, but cannot tie their shoe laces."
The moral is: for a question like this, you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers.
QUOTE
A point particle is an idealized particle[/b] heavily used in physics. Its distinguishing features are that it does not have any volume or surface area; it is zero dimensional. A point particle is often a good approximation of real particles and also more extended bodies. In Newtonian gravitation as well as general relativity and electromagnetism, the respective fields outside of a spherical object are identical to those of a point particle of equal charge/mass located at the center of the sphere.
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN.
The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A point particle is an idealized particle[/b] heavily used in physics. Its distinguishing features are that it does not have any volume or surface area; it is zero dimensional. A point particle is often a good approximation of real particles and also more extended bodies. In Newtonian gravitation as well as general relativity and electromagnetism, the respective fields outside of a spherical object are identical to those of a point particle of equal charge/mass located at the center of the sphere. |
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN.
The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length.
4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
QUOTE
It takes 6 Planck size waves to make a Planck size sphere.
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? (Check my math/logic) I would expect more than one approach. Let’s see what you can do with Quantum_tunneling and SUSY.
Of course, I would expect that you would publish your work ….and of course remember to give me a beer.
We shall put your entries into the “bobbing for apples” category.
See you at the party.
This is to complete the discussion started in yquantum's thread.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?
John Baez
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...01-1/index.html
Sean M. Carroll
The Cosmological Constant
Vacuum energy
4 Physics issues
In Section 1.3 we discussed the large difference between the magnitude of the vacuum energy expected from zero-point fluctuations and scalar potentials, , and the value we apparently observe, (which may be thought of as an upper limit, if
we wish to be careful). It is somewhat unfair to characterize this discrepancy as a factor of , since energy density can be expressed as a mass scale to the fourth power. Writing , we find GeV and eV, so a more fair characterization of the problem would be
Of course, thirty orders of magnitude still constitutes a difference worthy of our attention.
Indeed, in a state where SUSY was broken at an energy scale , we would expect a corresponding vacuum energy . In the real world, the fact that accelerator experiments have not discovered superpartners for the known particles of the Standard Model implies that is of order GeV or higher. Thus, we are left with a discrepancy
Comparison of this discrepancy with the naive discrepancy (54 ) is the source of the claim that SUSY can solve the cosmological constant problem halfway (at least on a log scale).
We are therefore free to imagine a scenario in which supersymmetry is broken in exactly the right way, such that the two terms in parentheses cancel to fantastic accuracy, but only at the cost of an unexplained fine-tuning (see for example [63]). At the same time, supergravity is not by itself a renormalizable quantum theory, and therefore it may not be reasonable to hope that a solution can be found purely within this context.
More generally, it is now understood that (at least in some circumstances) string theory obeys the ``holographic principle'', the idea that a theory with gravity in D dimensions is equivalent to a theory without gravity in D -1 dimensions [235, 234].
In a holographic theory, the number of degrees of freedom in a region grows as the area of its boundary, rather than as its volume. Therefore, the conventional computation of the cosmological constant due to vacuum fluctuations conceivably involves a vast overcounting of degrees of freedom. We might imagine that a more correct counting would yield a much smaller estimate of the vacuum energy [21, 57, 254, 222], although no reliable calculation has been done as yet.
• A novel approach to compactification starts by imagining that the fields of the Standard Model are confined to a (3+1)-dimensional manifold (or ``brane'', in string theory parlance) embedded in a larger space. While gravity is harder to confine to a brane, phenomenologically acceptable scenarios can be constructed if either the extra dimensions are any size less than a millimeter [216, 10, 124, 13, 140], or if there is significant spacetime curvature in a non-compact extra dimension [259, 207, 107]. Although these scenarios do not offer a simple solution to the cosmological constant problem, the relationship between the vacuum energy and the expansion rate can differ from our conventional expectation (see for example [32, 142]), and one is free to imagine that further study may lead to a solution in this context (see for example [231, 40]).
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9805/9805114.pdf
The Holographic Bound in Anti-de Sitter Space
L. Susskind
2. AdS Space
There are many ways to present AdS space. For our purposes we find it particularly convenient to represent it as a product of a unit four dimensional spatial ball with an infinite time axis
_
. The metric has the form
dS2 = R2 _ 4dxidxi(1 − r2)2 − dt2 1 + r21 − r2 _ (2.1)
where i = 1, .., 4 and r2 = xixi. The AdS space is the ball r < 1. The boundary conformal theory lives on the sphere r = 1.
To summarize, we have shown that when suitably regulated, the super Yang Mills theory boundary theory provides a true holographic description including the bound of one bit per Planck area. To quantify just how strange and wonderful this is, consider the number of degrees per unit volume. If we had a holographic theory in an asymptotically flat space with spatial dimension d, we would simply reason that the number of degrees of freedom within a volume V (granted an ultraviolet cutoff at the Planck scale) would be proportional to V in an ordinary local field theory, but to A = V (d−1)/d in a holographic theory. Simply because
A/V ! 0 for V ! 1, holography entails a drastic reduction of the number of degrees
of freedom.
Do not forget that a 2D sphere can only be made by 6 Planck size waves.
It takes the area of 6 Planck size wave to be able to fit the curve of a 2 d sphere.
The diameter of the sphere will not be one Planck length.
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
See you at the party.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?
John Baez
QUOTE
Now, the reason I'm telling you this is that quantum field theory and general relativity have really different attitudes towards the energy density of the vacuum. The reason is that quantum field theory only cares about energy differences. If you can only measure energy differences, you can't determine the energy density of the vacuum - it's just a matter of convention. As far as we know, you can only determine the energy density of the vacuum by experiments that involve general relativity - namely, by measuring the curvature of spacetime.
The moral is: for a question like this, you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers.
The moral is: for a question like this, you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...01-1/index.html
Sean M. Carroll
The Cosmological Constant
Vacuum energy
4 Physics issues
In Section 1.3 we discussed the large difference between the magnitude of the vacuum energy expected from zero-point fluctuations and scalar potentials, , and the value we apparently observe, (which may be thought of as an upper limit, if
we wish to be careful). It is somewhat unfair to characterize this discrepancy as a factor of , since energy density can be expressed as a mass scale to the fourth power. Writing , we find GeV and eV, so a more fair characterization of the problem would be
Of course, thirty orders of magnitude still constitutes a difference worthy of our attention.
Indeed, in a state where SUSY was broken at an energy scale , we would expect a corresponding vacuum energy . In the real world, the fact that accelerator experiments have not discovered superpartners for the known particles of the Standard Model implies that is of order GeV or higher. Thus, we are left with a discrepancy
Comparison of this discrepancy with the naive discrepancy (54 ) is the source of the claim that SUSY can solve the cosmological constant problem halfway (at least on a log scale).
We are therefore free to imagine a scenario in which supersymmetry is broken in exactly the right way, such that the two terms in parentheses cancel to fantastic accuracy, but only at the cost of an unexplained fine-tuning (see for example [63]). At the same time, supergravity is not by itself a renormalizable quantum theory, and therefore it may not be reasonable to hope that a solution can be found purely within this context.
More generally, it is now understood that (at least in some circumstances) string theory obeys the ``holographic principle'', the idea that a theory with gravity in D dimensions is equivalent to a theory without gravity in D -1 dimensions [235, 234].
In a holographic theory, the number of degrees of freedom in a region grows as the area of its boundary, rather than as its volume. Therefore, the conventional computation of the cosmological constant due to vacuum fluctuations conceivably involves a vast overcounting of degrees of freedom. We might imagine that a more correct counting would yield a much smaller estimate of the vacuum energy [21, 57, 254, 222], although no reliable calculation has been done as yet.
• A novel approach to compactification starts by imagining that the fields of the Standard Model are confined to a (3+1)-dimensional manifold (or ``brane'', in string theory parlance) embedded in a larger space. While gravity is harder to confine to a brane, phenomenologically acceptable scenarios can be constructed if either the extra dimensions are any size less than a millimeter [216, 10, 124, 13, 140], or if there is significant spacetime curvature in a non-compact extra dimension [259, 207, 107]. Although these scenarios do not offer a simple solution to the cosmological constant problem, the relationship between the vacuum energy and the expansion rate can differ from our conventional expectation (see for example [32, 142]), and one is free to imagine that further study may lead to a solution in this context (see for example [231, 40]).
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9805/9805114.pdf
The Holographic Bound in Anti-de Sitter Space
L. Susskind
2. AdS Space
There are many ways to present AdS space. For our purposes we find it particularly convenient to represent it as a product of a unit four dimensional spatial ball with an infinite time axis
_
. The metric has the form
dS2 = R2 _ 4dxidxi(1 − r2)2 − dt2 1 + r21 − r2 _ (2.1)
where i = 1, .., 4 and r2 = xixi. The AdS space is the ball r < 1. The boundary conformal theory lives on the sphere r = 1.
To summarize, we have shown that when suitably regulated, the super Yang Mills theory boundary theory provides a true holographic description including the bound of one bit per Planck area. To quantify just how strange and wonderful this is, consider the number of degrees per unit volume. If we had a holographic theory in an asymptotically flat space with spatial dimension d, we would simply reason that the number of degrees of freedom within a volume V (granted an ultraviolet cutoff at the Planck scale) would be proportional to V in an ordinary local field theory, but to A = V (d−1)/d in a holographic theory. Simply because
A/V ! 0 for V ! 1, holography entails a drastic reduction of the number of degrees
of freedom.
Do not forget that a 2D sphere can only be made by 6 Planck size waves.
It takes the area of 6 Planck size wave to be able to fit the curve of a 2 d sphere.
The diameter of the sphere will not be one Planck length.
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
See you at the party.
Vacuum energy..
This is one of the few places where one might get a sensible discussion of this point.
Quantum theory doesn't really care about the absolute value.
But relativity does.. or DOES IT?
Assuming an infinite flattish sort of universe wouldn't a higher vacuum energy just make us smaller? How big are we? Relative to what?
-C2.
On thinking about it .. possibly bigger .. point about relativity remains though. Bigger than what?
And/or slooooower. How sloooow are we .. relative to a what?
This is one of the few places where one might get a sensible discussion of this point.
Quantum theory doesn't really care about the absolute value.
But relativity does.. or DOES IT?
Assuming an infinite flattish sort of universe wouldn't a higher vacuum energy just make us smaller? How big are we? Relative to what?
-C2.
On thinking about it .. possibly bigger .. point about relativity remains though. Bigger than what?
And/or slooooower. How sloooow are we .. relative to a what?
Hi C2... and all!
Vacuum energy..
http://www.answers.com/topic/holographic-principle
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0603/...202006%20pdf%22
Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown and Perspective of Higgs Mechanism
21 March 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0603/...202006%20pdf%22
Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown and Perspective of Higgs Mechanism
21 March 2006
The minimum of the energy is then given through the Higgs ground state value v 6= 0 in the following form:
u0 = u(φ0) = −3/2ｵ4 λ ≡ umin, φ(+) 0 = +r− 6ｵ2λ ei_ ≡ ˜v = vei_ 6= 0.
In a purely scalar case for φ, v is to be chosen between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0 . The ring of minima for the minimality condition of u is popularly called a “Mexican Hat”, and regions with different φ0-values are called “topological defects”, while with changing values φ = v ↔ −v are “interface domains”.
between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0
That is how the mexican hat is determined... by applying uncertainty around zero/a point.
Please explain why you can apply the uncertainty over an area that does not exist?
A point…..
If CERN does not find SUSY it does not find a point.
If they do not find a point then our understanding/explanation of our universe must be modified.
What alternatives are they considering?
qmdarksecrets….. you will have to participate in the discussion.
Could you give us the alternatives that are being studied at this moment that do not break the Planck scale.
You could let us know if you will give a presentation for the party.
See you at the party.
jal
Vacuum energy..
http://www.answers.com/topic/holographic-principle
QUOTE
In a given volume, there is an upper limit to the density of information about the whereabouts of all the particles which compose matter in that volume, suggesting that matter itself cannot be subdivided infinitely many times; rather there must be an ultimate level of fundamental particles, i.e. were a particle composed of sub-particles, then the degrees of freedom of the particle would be the product of all the degrees of freedom of its sub-particles; were these sub-particles themselves also divided into sub-sub-particles, and so on indefinitely, then the degrees of freedom of the original particle must be infinite, violating the maximal limit of entropy density. The holographic principle thus implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0603/...202006%20pdf%22
Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown and Perspective of Higgs Mechanism
21 March 2006
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In a given volume, there is an upper limit to the density of information about the whereabouts of all the particles which compose matter in that volume, suggesting that matter itself cannot be subdivided infinitely many times; rather there must be an ultimate level of fundamental particles, i.e. were a particle composed of sub-particles, then the degrees of freedom of the particle would be the product of all the degrees of freedom of its sub-particles; were these sub-particles themselves also divided into sub-sub-particles, and so on indefinitely, then the degrees of freedom of the original particle must be infinite, violating the maximal limit of entropy density. The holographic principle thus implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information. |
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0603/...202006%20pdf%22
Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown and Perspective of Higgs Mechanism
21 March 2006
The minimum of the energy is then given through the Higgs ground state value v 6= 0 in the following form:
u0 = u(φ0) = −3/2ｵ4 λ ≡ umin, φ(+) 0 = +r− 6ｵ2λ ei_ ≡ ˜v = vei_ 6= 0.
In a purely scalar case for φ, v is to be chosen between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0 . The ring of minima for the minimality condition of u is popularly called a “Mexican Hat”, and regions with different φ0-values are called “topological defects”, while with changing values φ = v ↔ −v are “interface domains”.
between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0
That is how the mexican hat is determined... by applying uncertainty around zero/a point.
Please explain why you can apply the uncertainty over an area that does not exist?
A point…..
If CERN does not find SUSY it does not find a point.
If they do not find a point then our understanding/explanation of our universe must be modified.
What alternatives are they considering?
QUOTE
qmdarksecrets
….. there is vacuum to be consider….
….. there is vacuum to be consider….
qmdarksecrets….. you will have to participate in the discussion.
Could you give us the alternatives that are being studied at this moment that do not break the Planck scale.
You could let us know if you will give a presentation for the party.
See you at the party.
jal
Good Day!
How hard can it possibly be to figure out the configuration/model of how energy/particles are put together?
Particles are moving at sub light speed…. Energy is moving at the speed of light….. everything is doing a choreographed dance
Just throw a lot spheres (see drawing below) at a lot of other spheres.
When two parts/waves of the spheres hit each other they will bounce off.
Set up recording instruments around the impact zones and calculate the angles from the detector to the impact area then figure out the kinetic energy and potential energy.
You will only get a few billion “hits”…. See …. real easy.
See you at the party.
jal
How hard can it possibly be to figure out the configuration/model of how energy/particles are put together?
Particles are moving at sub light speed…. Energy is moving at the speed of light….. everything is doing a choreographed dance
Just throw a lot spheres (see drawing below) at a lot of other spheres.
When two parts/waves of the spheres hit each other they will bounce off.
Set up recording instruments around the impact zones and calculate the angles from the detector to the impact area then figure out the kinetic energy and potential energy.
You will only get a few billion “hits”…. See …. real easy.
See you at the party.
jal
Good Day everyone!
I have often wondered what would “ THE SPOT” look like if someone got inspired from my thread and wrote and published a paper.
Of course a more scientific name would have to be chosen…. Like ….
beables
Read on…..
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum
mechanics
Gerard ’t Hooft
Institute for Theoretical Physics
Utrecht University, Leuvenlaan 4
3584 CC Utrecht, the Netherlands
and
Spinoza Institute
Postbox 80.195
3508 TD Utrecht, the Netherlands
E-mail: g.thooft@phys.uu.nl
26 June 2006
In this paper, we derive the plausibility of our assumptions from first principles.
First, the formalism is displayed in Section 2.
It was also argued that some lock-in mechanism was needed to relate the Hamiltonian with an ontologically observable quantity E that is bounded
from below.
We assume that a theory describing our world starts with postulating the existence of sub-systems that in some first approximation evolve independently, and then are assumed to interact. For instance, one can think of independent local degrees of freedom that are affected only by their immediate neighbors, not by what happens at a distance, baring in mind that one may have to expand the notion of immediate neighbors to include variables that are spatially separated by distances of the order of the Planck length. Alternatively, one may think of elementary particles that, in a first approximation, behave as free particles, and are then assumed to interact.
Temporarily, we switch off the interactions, even if these do not have to be small.
Every sub-system then evolves independently. Imagine furthermore that some form of information loss takes place. Then, as was further motivated in Ref. [1], we suspect that the evolution in each domain will become periodic.
Indeed, time does not have to be discrete in that case, and the physical
variables may form a continuum; there could be a finite set of stable orbits such that, regardless the initial configuration, any orbit is attracted towards one of these stable orbits; they are the limit cycles. The energy of a state is then simply defined to be given by Eq. (7.1), or E def = h/P , where P = _t is the period of the limit cycle, and h is Planck’s constant.
When we attempt to regard quantum mechanics as a deterministic system, we have to face the problem of the positivity of the Hamiltonian, as was concluded earlier in Refs [1][2][3]. There, also, the suspicion was raised that information loss is essential for the resolution of this problem. In this paper, the mathematical procedures have been worked out further, and we note that the deterministic models that we seek must have short limit cycles, obeying Eq. (7.1). Short limit cycles can easily be obtained in cellular automaton models with information loss, but the problem is to establish the addition rule (7.4), which suggests the large equivalence classes defined by Eq. (4.4).
We think that the observations made in this paper are an important step towards the demystification of quantum mechanics.
It is found that the distribution of the cycles may then be expected to be logarithmic, which leads to a logarithmic energy spectrum: the energy eigenstates are a Poisson distribution on a logarithmic scale:
As we will see, only the beables describing equivalence classes will survive as quantum observables.
Geeee…..
I hope that I have not taken somebody’s toy that they were planning to bring to the party.
See you at the party.
jal
I have often wondered what would “ THE SPOT” look like if someone got inspired from my thread and wrote and published a paper.
Of course a more scientific name would have to be chosen…. Like ….
beables
Read on…..
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum
mechanics
Gerard ’t Hooft
Institute for Theoretical Physics
Utrecht University, Leuvenlaan 4
3584 CC Utrecht, the Netherlands
and
Spinoza Institute
Postbox 80.195
3508 TD Utrecht, the Netherlands
E-mail: g.thooft@phys.uu.nl
26 June 2006
QUOTE
In this paper, we derive the plausibility of our assumptions from first principles.
First, the formalism is displayed in Section 2.
It was also argued that some lock-in mechanism was needed to relate the Hamiltonian with an ontologically observable quantity E that is bounded
from below.
We assume that a theory describing our world starts with postulating the existence of sub-systems that in some first approximation evolve independently, and then are assumed to interact. For instance, one can think of independent local degrees of freedom that are affected only by their immediate neighbors, not by what happens at a distance, baring in mind that one may have to expand the notion of immediate neighbors to include variables that are spatially separated by distances of the order of the Planck length. Alternatively, one may think of elementary particles that, in a first approximation, behave as free particles, and are then assumed to interact.
Temporarily, we switch off the interactions, even if these do not have to be small.
Every sub-system then evolves independently. Imagine furthermore that some form of information loss takes place. Then, as was further motivated in Ref. [1], we suspect that the evolution in each domain will become periodic.
Indeed, time does not have to be discrete in that case, and the physical
variables may form a continuum; there could be a finite set of stable orbits such that, regardless the initial configuration, any orbit is attracted towards one of these stable orbits; they are the limit cycles. The energy of a state is then simply defined to be given by Eq. (7.1), or E def = h/P , where P = _t is the period of the limit cycle, and h is Planck’s constant.
When we attempt to regard quantum mechanics as a deterministic system, we have to face the problem of the positivity of the Hamiltonian, as was concluded earlier in Refs [1][2][3]. There, also, the suspicion was raised that information loss is essential for the resolution of this problem. In this paper, the mathematical procedures have been worked out further, and we note that the deterministic models that we seek must have short limit cycles, obeying Eq. (7.1). Short limit cycles can easily be obtained in cellular automaton models with information loss, but the problem is to establish the addition rule (7.4), which suggests the large equivalence classes defined by Eq. (4.4).
We think that the observations made in this paper are an important step towards the demystification of quantum mechanics.
It is found that the distribution of the cycles may then be expected to be logarithmic, which leads to a logarithmic energy spectrum: the energy eigenstates are a Poisson distribution on a logarithmic scale:
As we will see, only the beables describing equivalence classes will survive as quantum observables.
Geeee…..
I hope that I have not taken somebody’s toy that they were planning to bring to the party.
See you at the party.
jal
Good Day!
A short note:
You did notice the following...
I had used the term "congruence". A better term would be "scaling".
It then leads to the understanding of Nondimensionalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondimensionalization
jal
A short note:
You did notice the following...
QUOTE
...that are spatially separated by distances of the order of the Planck length....
I had used the term "congruence". A better term would be "scaling".
It then leads to the understanding of Nondimensionalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondimensionalization
jal
Good day!
Do you remember these drawings?
Can you understand why you cannot have a Planck Sphere less than 2(3(2 pi ))?
1. You would be breaking the speed limit.
2. You would be invalidating relativity.
The light cone must bottom out at a 3D spacetime unit.
If you reduce the spacetime unit to less than the Planck scale then you will be going faster than the speed of light….that is science fiction.
When you use scaling then that spacetime unit could be 10^-18.
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? (Check my math/logic)
Therefore, if they don’t find the “Mexican hat” we must change out understanding/interpretation of the universe.
See you at the party.
jal
Do you remember these drawings?
Can you understand why you cannot have a Planck Sphere less than 2(3(2 pi ))?
1. You would be breaking the speed limit.
2. You would be invalidating relativity.
The light cone must bottom out at a 3D spacetime unit.
If you reduce the spacetime unit to less than the Planck scale then you will be going faster than the speed of light….that is science fiction.
When you use scaling then that spacetime unit could be 10^-18.
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? (Check my math/logic)
Therefore, if they don’t find the “Mexican hat” we must change out understanding/interpretation of the universe.
See you at the party.
jal
good day!
WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DON’T FIND THE MEXICAN HAT?
(Which was arrived by applying uncertainty around zero/a point.)
You make a PLAN “B”.
There are more amateurs then professionals.
You therefore, organize a party and ask everybody to come with anything that they can find that does not break the Planck scale.
If there is anything that looks promising then it can be pursued further.
The professionals have the abilities and tools to do more than the amateurs.
Most professionals will not be interested or inclined to look for a PLAN “B”.
Some will be interested. See:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
By; Gerard ’t Hooft
Doing this endeavor might help the professionals and it will certainly help the amateurs.
So… tell your friends about the party at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...75&#entry127749
For 31 Oct. 2006. They might want to come for a visit.
See you at the party.
jal
ps I sent an invitation to the "professionals" at physicsforums.com
WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DON’T FIND THE MEXICAN HAT?
(Which was arrived by applying uncertainty around zero/a point.)
You make a PLAN “B”.
There are more amateurs then professionals.
You therefore, organize a party and ask everybody to come with anything that they can find that does not break the Planck scale.
If there is anything that looks promising then it can be pursued further.
The professionals have the abilities and tools to do more than the amateurs.
Most professionals will not be interested or inclined to look for a PLAN “B”.
Some will be interested. See:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
By; Gerard ’t Hooft
Doing this endeavor might help the professionals and it will certainly help the amateurs.
So… tell your friends about the party at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...75&#entry127749
For 31 Oct. 2006. They might want to come for a visit.
See you at the party.
jal
ps I sent an invitation to the "professionals" at physicsforums.com
Good Day!
SQUARE DANCING
The “old guys” know how to square dance.
Imagine that instead of having 4 couples on a dance floor, that you have 6 couples (that makes 12 people) doing a square dance in space.
They weave in and out, back and forth, round and round, they move in simple patterns.
Everyone has a number of when they are suppose to do their moving. Nobody crashes into each other.
The magic cube would represent their order of movement in 3D.
Once you have done that remember that the “dancing floor” is full of groups of 12 individuals and that nobody can crash into each other and that there must always be groups of 12. Individuals can move from groups to groups as long as each group stays “full”. The snake must eats it’s tail.
Can you find the dance steps/instructions for “the spots”?
What would a dynamic Planck Sphere in 3D look like?
New Periodic Orbits for the n-Body Problem
Cristopher Moore
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0511/0511219.pdf
If you have speakers go to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5670911 and listen to Lee Smolin, Brian Greene.
You can leave it playing in the background while you do your regular computer work.
Window media player has access to visuals…if you have never done it …open it up and do a right click on the screen …see the different lovely visuals.
“THEY” I expect that by the time THEY2 gets to college, teachers will be telling students to go to their media players and it will combine the lesson with music…and an accurate visual of how the universe is made.
Don’t you agree ….. this is fun.
See you at the party.
jal
SQUARE DANCING
The “old guys” know how to square dance.
Imagine that instead of having 4 couples on a dance floor, that you have 6 couples (that makes 12 people) doing a square dance in space.
They weave in and out, back and forth, round and round, they move in simple patterns.
Everyone has a number of when they are suppose to do their moving. Nobody crashes into each other.
The magic cube would represent their order of movement in 3D.
Once you have done that remember that the “dancing floor” is full of groups of 12 individuals and that nobody can crash into each other and that there must always be groups of 12. Individuals can move from groups to groups as long as each group stays “full”. The snake must eats it’s tail.
Can you find the dance steps/instructions for “the spots”?
What would a dynamic Planck Sphere in 3D look like?
New Periodic Orbits for the n-Body Problem
Cristopher Moore
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0511/0511219.pdf
QUOTE
Here we exhibit a number of new three-dimensional periodic n-body orbits with equal masses and cubic symmetry.
If you have speakers go to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5670911 and listen to Lee Smolin, Brian Greene.
You can leave it playing in the background while you do your regular computer work.
Window media player has access to visuals…if you have never done it …open it up and do a right click on the screen …see the different lovely visuals.
“THEY” I expect that by the time THEY2 gets to college, teachers will be telling students to go to their media players and it will combine the lesson with music…and an accurate visual of how the universe is made.
Don’t you agree ….. this is fun.
See you at the party.
jal
Hi jal,
I hope I don't come across as one of the people pretending to understand your thread .. mostly I haven't a clue what's going on . I'm really not happy with this kissing thing. To keep your space isotropic don't you need any sphere to be able to kiss any point on any adjacent sphere .. is that what you are drawing? .. Once one sphere overlaps into another sphere .. I don't think you (certainly not me) can do any proper sums with it. I've only got a limited number of brain cells.. help needed.
The closest I've ever been to this sort of thing is finite element analysis .. the claim seems to be that you can do a perfect analysis (of reality) with a finite element size (Planck length/area/volume) but then geometry/topology(?) leaps out and makes it non-isotropic and wrecks it. Am I seeing things .. or not?
--------
Baez again.. ok it's got nothing to do with Planck (or maybe it has), it's a very nice party trick.
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week235.html
Here's a simpler example. Take a ball bearing and drop it into a wine glass. Regardless of its initial position and velocity - within reason - the ball winds up motionless at the bottom of the glass. Lots of different states seem to be converging to one state!
But this isn't really true. In fact, information about the ball's position and velocity has been converted into heat: irrelevant information about the motion of atoms.
In short: for a fundamentally analogue physical system to keep acting digital, it must dispose of irrelevant information, which amounts to pumping out waste heat.
In fact, Rolf Landauer showed back in 1961 that getting rid of one bit of information requires putting out this much energy in the form of heat:
kT ln(2)
where T is the temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant. That's not much - about 3 x 10-21 joules at room temperature! But, it's theoretically important.
-----------
I'm working on a 'Thick as a Planck' outfit.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I hope I don't come across as one of the people pretending to understand your thread .. mostly I haven't a clue what's going on
. I'm really not happy with this kissing thing. To keep your space isotropic don't you need any sphere to be able to kiss any point on any adjacent sphere .. is that what you are drawing? .. Once one sphere overlaps into another sphere .. I don't think you (certainly not me) can do any proper sums with it. I've only got a limited number of brain cells.. help needed.The closest I've ever been to this sort of thing is finite element analysis .. the claim seems to be that you can do a perfect analysis (of reality) with a finite element size (Planck length/area/volume) but then geometry/topology(?) leaps out and makes it non-isotropic and wrecks it. Am I seeing things .. or not?
--------
Baez again.. ok it's got nothing to do with Planck (or maybe it has), it's a very nice party trick.
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week235.html
Here's a simpler example. Take a ball bearing and drop it into a wine glass. Regardless of its initial position and velocity - within reason - the ball winds up motionless at the bottom of the glass. Lots of different states seem to be converging to one state!
But this isn't really true. In fact, information about the ball's position and velocity has been converted into heat: irrelevant information about the motion of atoms.
In short: for a fundamentally analogue physical system to keep acting digital, it must dispose of irrelevant information, which amounts to pumping out waste heat.
In fact, Rolf Landauer showed back in 1961 that getting rid of one bit of information requires putting out this much energy in the form of heat:
kT ln(2)
where T is the temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant. That's not much - about 3 x 10-21 joules at room temperature! But, it's theoretically important.
-----------
I'm working on a 'Thick as a Planck' outfit.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2
As usual Baez can be helpfull.
I'm working on an answer to help answer the importance of "kissing numbers" and information flow.
jal
As usual Baez can be helpfull.
I'm working on an answer to help answer the importance of "kissing numbers" and information flow.
jal
C2!....All
I hope that you are prepared to do some reading.
It’s a long answer.
When you read the following think “SPOT” = ANYONS
The quotes are meant to illustrate the pertinence of the material.
As the authors say…. They are still looking…. For the right model (hint…hint)
Read the papers.
http://www.sciencewatch.com/interviews/frank_wilczek1.htm
Wilczek:
When we think about anyons. We really must think about two-dimensional worlds.
With anyons, as opposed to just fermions and bosons, a fundamentally new possibility opens up.
It is this: there are different kinds of anyons that allow you to range continuously between bosons and fermions.
In fact, it is best to think of the different possibilities as a circle, with bosons on one side of the diameter, fermions on the other side, and anyons all around the perimeter, including fermions and bosons as a special case.
The basic idea is that you start from some known, analyzed case-fermions or bosons- and make small changes in statistics and start to move around in the circle to learn about how the system is going to behave with slight different statistics for its particles.
The most dramatic payoff of that circle of ideas, so far, has been that one gets an additional insight into the fractional quantized Hall state.
And I think that is a very important theoretical tool for understanding two-dimensional states of matter.
I think that in the next few years, in their exploration of the two-dimensional worlds, researchers will find a lot more use-many more realizations and more uses-for these ideas.
April 1991
The relevancy of anyons to spots is obvious as you can see in my drawing.
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/glasses_c03/kitaev/
Anyons in a spin model on the honeycomb lattice
Alexei Kitaev
If you do not see the similarity with what I have been saying then go back and read my thread.
http://info.phys.unm.edu/~thedude/topo/sciamTQC.pdf
Computing with Quantum Knots
By Graham P. Collins
COPYRIGHT 2006 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
The relevancy of anyons to spots is obvious as you can see in my drawing.
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/glasses_c03/kitaev/
Anyons in a spin model on the honeycomb lattice
Alexei Kitaev
If you do not see the similarity with what I have been saying then go back and read my thread.
http://info.phys.unm.edu/~thedude/topo/sciamTQC.pdf
Computing with Quantum Knots
By Graham P. Collins
COPYRIGHT 2006 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
Quantum computers promise to perform calculations believed to be impossible for ordinary computers. Some of those calculations are of great real-world importance. For example, certain widely used encryption methods
could be cracked given a computer capable of breaking a large number into its
component factors within a reasonable length of time. Virtually all encryption
methods used for highly sensitive data are vulnerable to one quantum algorithm
or another.
The extra power of a quantum computer comes about because it operates on
information represented as qubits, or quantum bits, instead of bits. An ordinary
classical bit can be either a 0 or a 1, and standard microchip architectures enforce that dichotomy rigorously. A qubit, in contrast, can be in a so-called superposition state, which entails proportions of 0 and 1 coexisting together. One can think of the possible qubit states as points on a sphere. The north pole is a classical 1, the south pole a 0, and all the points in between are all the possible superpositions of 0 and 1 [see “Rules for a Complex Quantum World,” by Michael A. Nielsen; Scientific American, November 2002]. The freedom that qubits have to roam across the entire sphere helps to give quantum computers their unique capabilities.
Unfortunately, quantum computers seem to be extremely difficult to build. The
qubits are typically expressed as certain quantum properties of trapped particles,
such as individual atomic ions or electrons.
A machine based on bizarre particles called anyons that represents a calculation as a set of braids in spacetime might be a shortcut to practical quantum computation
Without knowing what the structure looks like and without knowing how the structure moves they have arrived at some surprising results.
When you look at the cover picture keep in mind that the anyons/spots are NOT SPIDERS leaving a thread behind them.
The complete picture should involve 6 anyons/spots in 2D, not three, and in 3D there should be 12 anyons/spots .
For the following paper keep my Planck Scale sphere drawing in mind and you will be able to see what they have missed.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0606/0606062.pdf
Discreteness and the origin of probability in quantum mechanics
Roman V. Buniy,1, ∗ Stephen D. H. Hsu,1, † and A. Zee2, ‡
10 Aug 2006
Here is another paper.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0605/0605052.pdf
Generic predictions of quantum theories of gravity
Lee Smolin ∗
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9, Canada, and
Department of Physics, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
May 20, 2006
Here is another paper.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0605/0605052.pdf
Generic predictions of quantum theories of gravity
Lee Smolin ∗
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9, Canada, and
Department of Physics, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
May 20, 2006
3.1 Discreteness of quantum geometry and ultraviolet finiteness
This discreteness of quantum geometry in turn implies that the theory is ultraviolet
finite. The theory has no states in which areas, volumes or lengths smaller than Planck
scale are meaningfully defined. There are consequently no modes with wavelength smaller than the Planck length. It has also been shown that for a class of theories the path integral is ultraviolet finite[4].
Therefore, they should apply the Planck Sphere as I have explained it.
Whenever they talk about a “torus” they still have not realized that the “torus” is the interior of the 6 or the 12 Planck size sphere where there cannot be any “waves” hiding.
However, He has not got the minimum size of a Planck Sphere figured out.
However, He has not got the minimum size of a Planck Sphere figured out.
3.3 Entropy of black hole and cosmological horizons
Chern-Simons theory is used to describe anyons in 2+ 1 dimensional condensed matter
physics. The states are labeled by punctures on the two dimensional sphere which is the
spatial cross-section of the horizon. The punctures are points where the graphs attach to
the boundary, and serve also as quanta of area on the boundary. As a result of the boundary
conditions that identify the surface as a horizon, the connection is constrained to be flat
everywhere except at the punctures. The physics on a horizon is then identical to that of
a system of anyons, with the area being proportional to the total charge carried by the
anyons.
They have not got the right model and as a result the conclusions are not right.
If he was considering the right model the conclusions would be different.
If he was considering the right model the conclusions would be different.
4 The problem of the emergence of classical spacetime
1. Rovelli and collaborators have computed the graviton propagator in spin foam models[35]. They work in the Euclidean theory and fix a boundary, which is a four sphere, large in Planck units.
2. Freidel and Livine have computed the spin foam path integral for 2+1 gravity coupled
to matter[36].
3. Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz and Loll have constructed a simple discrete and background
independent model of spacetime, which implements discreteness and causal structure,
called the causal dynamical triangulations model[8]. They find that it has a continuum
limit which defines a theory which has a large universe limit. They can measure the
dimension of spacetime by several means and it is to within error 3 + 1.
4. Krebs and Markpoulou have proposed new criteria for the emergence of classical
spacetime in terms of quantum information theory[37]. They address the low energy
physics by asking whether there are local excitations that remain coherent in spite of
the fact that they are continually in interaction with the quantum fluctuations in the
geometry.
…..But at the same time, there is as we have described above, a discreteness scale, which is expected to be the minimal length at which a continuous geometry makes sense…..
There are then two questions. Are there consistent interacting quantum theories with
DSR symmetry? And if so, is DSR a generic prediction of background independent quantum gravity theories?
The results mentioned above by Freidel and Livine show that DSR is the correct description for quantum gravity, coupled to matter in 2 + 1 dimensional worlds[36]. This answers the first question positively. What about 3 + 1?
There are heuristic calculations that indicate that LQG in 3 + 1 dimensions has a
semiclassical approximation characterized by DSR[42]. But there is as yet no rigorous proof of this. One reason to expect a DSR theory is to notice that the symmetry group of the ground state of the theory with a non-zero cosmological constant is, by (9), the quantum deformation of the deSitter or Anti-deSitter algebra. The contraction of this is, under plausible assumptions for the scaling of the energy and momentum generators, no longer the Poincare algebra, it is the κ-Poincare algebra that characterizes DSR theories[43].
6 Conclusions
To summarize, the causal spin network theories, including loop quantum gravity and spin foam models, do a number of things that are expected of any sensible quantum theory of spacetime. They are finite, they predict that quantum geometry is discrete, they remove spacelike singularities and explain the entropy of black hole and cosmological horizons as well as the temperature of deSitter spacetime. If one adds to this that there is progress understanding whether and how classical spacetime emerges from the quantum geometry, we see that these continue to show promise as plausible models of quantum gravity. While there is certainly still much to do, the last years have given us a well defined foundation to build on.
There seems to be quite a few papers that are coming out that “inspire” me to think that what I have been presenting is being used by many people and that they are trying to apply it in their “specialties”.
It would be interesting to see more of the anyons/spot on the dance floor for the party.
See you at the party.
jal
Excellent link! It just so happens that I will be traveling on Friday to Colloquium 2006: Revolution in Cosmology in Albany NY where Lee Smolin and Brian Greene are two of the speakers at this weekend event, and this NPR audio is a great primer for the subject matter.
I'll be volunteering at the sign in desk for participants of colloquium if anyone from this site happens to attend.
fapp it is necessary to explain how you can do this? This is not criticism but something you will be asked by your professor or anyone in the field.
Wave-function/Decoherence and Consistent Histories just to name one obstacles.
This is considering one as a human Geiger counters= .
ciao_
yquantum
I hope that you are prepared to do some reading.
It’s a long answer.
When you read the following think “SPOT” = ANYONS
The quotes are meant to illustrate the pertinence of the material.
As the authors say…. They are still looking…. For the right model (hint…hint)
Read the papers.
http://www.sciencewatch.com/interviews/frank_wilczek1.htm
QUOTE
Wilczek:
When we think about anyons. We really must think about two-dimensional worlds.
With anyons, as opposed to just fermions and bosons, a fundamentally new possibility opens up.
It is this: there are different kinds of anyons that allow you to range continuously between bosons and fermions.
In fact, it is best to think of the different possibilities as a circle, with bosons on one side of the diameter, fermions on the other side, and anyons all around the perimeter, including fermions and bosons as a special case.
The basic idea is that you start from some known, analyzed case-fermions or bosons- and make small changes in statistics and start to move around in the circle to learn about how the system is going to behave with slight different statistics for its particles.
The most dramatic payoff of that circle of ideas, so far, has been that one gets an additional insight into the fractional quantized Hall state.
And I think that is a very important theoretical tool for understanding two-dimensional states of matter.
I think that in the next few years, in their exploration of the two-dimensional worlds, researchers will find a lot more use-many more realizations and more uses-for these ideas.
April 1991
The relevancy of anyons to spots is obvious as you can see in my drawing.
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/glasses_c03/kitaev/
Anyons in a spin model on the honeycomb lattice
Alexei Kitaev
If you do not see the similarity with what I have been saying then go back and read my thread.
http://info.phys.unm.edu/~thedude/topo/sciamTQC.pdf
Computing with Quantum Knots
By Graham P. Collins
COPYRIGHT 2006 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Wilczek: When we think about anyons. We really must think about two-dimensional worlds. With anyons, as opposed to just fermions and bosons, a fundamentally new possibility opens up. It is this: there are different kinds of anyons that allow you to range continuously between bosons and fermions. In fact, it is best to think of the different possibilities as a circle, with bosons on one side of the diameter, fermions on the other side, and anyons all around the perimeter, including fermions and bosons as a special case. The basic idea is that you start from some known, analyzed case-fermions or bosons- and make small changes in statistics and start to move around in the circle to learn about how the system is going to behave with slight different statistics for its particles. The most dramatic payoff of that circle of ideas, so far, has been that one gets an additional insight into the fractional quantized Hall state. And I think that is a very important theoretical tool for understanding two-dimensional states of matter. I think that in the next few years, in their exploration of the two-dimensional worlds, researchers will find a lot more use-many more realizations and more uses-for these ideas. April 1991 |
The relevancy of anyons to spots is obvious as you can see in my drawing.
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/glasses_c03/kitaev/
Anyons in a spin model on the honeycomb lattice
Alexei Kitaev
If you do not see the similarity with what I have been saying then go back and read my thread.
http://info.phys.unm.edu/~thedude/topo/sciamTQC.pdf
Computing with Quantum Knots
By Graham P. Collins
COPYRIGHT 2006 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
Quantum computers promise to perform calculations believed to be impossible for ordinary computers. Some of those calculations are of great real-world importance. For example, certain widely used encryption methods
could be cracked given a computer capable of breaking a large number into its
component factors within a reasonable length of time. Virtually all encryption
methods used for highly sensitive data are vulnerable to one quantum algorithm
or another.
The extra power of a quantum computer comes about because it operates on
information represented as qubits, or quantum bits, instead of bits. An ordinary
classical bit can be either a 0 or a 1, and standard microchip architectures enforce that dichotomy rigorously. A qubit, in contrast, can be in a so-called superposition state, which entails proportions of 0 and 1 coexisting together. One can think of the possible qubit states as points on a sphere. The north pole is a classical 1, the south pole a 0, and all the points in between are all the possible superpositions of 0 and 1 [see “Rules for a Complex Quantum World,” by Michael A. Nielsen; Scientific American, November 2002]. The freedom that qubits have to roam across the entire sphere helps to give quantum computers their unique capabilities.
Unfortunately, quantum computers seem to be extremely difficult to build. The
qubits are typically expressed as certain quantum properties of trapped particles,
such as individual atomic ions or electrons.
A machine based on bizarre particles called anyons that represents a calculation as a set of braids in spacetime might be a shortcut to practical quantum computation
Without knowing what the structure looks like and without knowing how the structure moves they have arrived at some surprising results.
When you look at the cover picture keep in mind that the anyons/spots are NOT SPIDERS leaving a thread behind them.
The complete picture should involve 6 anyons/spots in 2D, not three, and in 3D there should be 12 anyons/spots .
For the following paper keep my Planck Scale sphere drawing in mind and you will be able to see what they have missed.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0606/0606062.pdf
Discreteness and the origin of probability in quantum mechanics
Roman V. Buniy,1, ∗ Stephen D. H. Hsu,1, † and A. Zee2, ‡
10 Aug 2006
QUOTE
We argued in Ref. [9] that quantum gravity suggests a discreteness scale of order ǫ ∼ E, where E is the characteristic energy of the system described by ψ, in Planck units. Equivalently, ǫ ∼ L−1, where L is the characteristic size, or Compton wavelength, of the system. We can motivate this result by noting that quantum gravity seems to imply a minimal length [11] of order the
Planck length.
Interestingly, for ǫ ∼ L−1, the condition that discreteness have only a small effect on Ψ, √Nǫ ≪ 1, leads to a condition on the number of degrees of freedom reminiscent of holography [13]:
N ≪ L2 ∼ A, (3) where A is the surface area of the region. This bound implies far fewer degrees of freedom than the usual extensive scaling N ∼ L3. It can be deduced as a constraint
from gravitational collapse [14]. Excluding states from the Hilbert space of the L3 volume which would have already caused gravitational collapse to a black hole, we find the stronger condition N < A3/4 ∼ L3/2.
However, we noted that discreteness of the quantum state space, even if extremely tiny, may restore the validity of the usual arguments. Some may regard discreteness as a radical proposal. We might argue that it is actually less speculative than absolute continuity, something that
can never be experimentally verified.
Planck length.
Interestingly, for ǫ ∼ L−1, the condition that discreteness have only a small effect on Ψ, √Nǫ ≪ 1, leads to a condition on the number of degrees of freedom reminiscent of holography [13]:
N ≪ L2 ∼ A, (3) where A is the surface area of the region. This bound implies far fewer degrees of freedom than the usual extensive scaling N ∼ L3. It can be deduced as a constraint
from gravitational collapse [14]. Excluding states from the Hilbert space of the L3 volume which would have already caused gravitational collapse to a black hole, we find the stronger condition N < A3/4 ∼ L3/2.
However, we noted that discreteness of the quantum state space, even if extremely tiny, may restore the validity of the usual arguments. Some may regard discreteness as a radical proposal. We might argue that it is actually less speculative than absolute continuity, something that
can never be experimentally verified.
Here is another paper.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0605/0605052.pdf
Generic predictions of quantum theories of gravity
Lee Smolin ∗
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9, Canada, and
Department of Physics, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
May 20, 2006
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We argued in Ref. [9] that quantum gravity suggests a discreteness scale of order ǫ ∼ E, where E is the characteristic energy of the system described by ψ, in Planck units. Equivalently, ǫ ∼ L−1, where L is the characteristic size, or Compton wavelength, of the system. We can motivate this result by noting that quantum gravity seems to imply a minimal length [11] of order the Planck length. Interestingly, for ǫ ∼ L−1, the condition that discreteness have only a small effect on Ψ, √Nǫ ≪ 1, leads to a condition on the number of degrees of freedom reminiscent of holography [13]: N ≪ L2 ∼ A, (3) where A is the surface area of the region. This bound implies far fewer degrees of freedom than the usual extensive scaling N ∼ L3. It can be deduced as a constraint from gravitational collapse [14]. Excluding states from the Hilbert space of the L3 volume which would have already caused gravitational collapse to a black hole, we find the stronger condition N < A3/4 ∼ L3/2. However, we noted that discreteness of the quantum state space, even if extremely tiny, may restore the validity of the usual arguments. Some may regard discreteness as a radical proposal. We might argue that it is actually less speculative than absolute continuity, something that can never be experimentally verified. |
Here is another paper.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0605/0605052.pdf
Generic predictions of quantum theories of gravity
Lee Smolin ∗
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9, Canada, and
Department of Physics, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
May 20, 2006
3.1 Discreteness of quantum geometry and ultraviolet finiteness
This discreteness of quantum geometry in turn implies that the theory is ultraviolet
finite. The theory has no states in which areas, volumes or lengths smaller than Planck
scale are meaningfully defined. There are consequently no modes with wavelength smaller than the Planck length. It has also been shown that for a class of theories the path integral is ultraviolet finite[4].
Therefore, they should apply the Planck Sphere as I have explained it.
Whenever they talk about a “torus” they still have not realized that the “torus” is the interior of the 6 or the 12 Planck size sphere where there cannot be any “waves” hiding.
QUOTE
3.2 Elimination of spacetime singularities
For example, as in the full field theory, there is no operator corresponding to Ai
a, rather the connection degrees of freedom (which are the variables conjugate to the spatial metric) are represented by the exponential (1).
For example, as in the full field theory, there is no operator corresponding to Ai
a, rather the connection degrees of freedom (which are the variables conjugate to the spatial metric) are represented by the exponential (1).
However, He has not got the minimum size of a Planck Sphere figured out.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3.2 Elimination of spacetime singularities For example, as in the full field theory, there is no operator corresponding to Ai a, rather the connection degrees of freedom (which are the variables conjugate to the spatial metric) are represented by the exponential (1). |
However, He has not got the minimum size of a Planck Sphere figured out.
3.3 Entropy of black hole and cosmological horizons
Chern-Simons theory is used to describe anyons in 2+ 1 dimensional condensed matter
physics. The states are labeled by punctures on the two dimensional sphere which is the
spatial cross-section of the horizon. The punctures are points where the graphs attach to
the boundary, and serve also as quanta of area on the boundary. As a result of the boundary
conditions that identify the surface as a horizon, the connection is constrained to be flat
everywhere except at the punctures. The physics on a horizon is then identical to that of
a system of anyons, with the area being proportional to the total charge carried by the
anyons.
They have not got the right model and as a result the conclusions are not right.
QUOTE
3.4 Heat and the cosmological constant
For the case of 3 + 1 dimensions, this leads to A being SLq(2) with q = e 2_ı k+2 where the level k is given by[21, 29, 30]
k =6π/GA/[i]
The quantum deformation of the symmetry algebra has a simple physical meaning, at
least for _ > 0. The ground state should be deSitter spacetime, which has an horizon with an area
A =12π/[i] A
A classic result of quantum field theory in curved spacetime is that QFT’s on the
background of deSitter spacetime are thermal, with a temperature
(see formula)
For the case of 3 + 1 dimensions, this leads to A being SLq(2) with q = e 2_ı k+2 where the level k is given by[21, 29, 30]
k =6π/GA/[i]
The quantum deformation of the symmetry algebra has a simple physical meaning, at
least for _ > 0. The ground state should be deSitter spacetime, which has an horizon with an area
A =12π/[i] A
A classic result of quantum field theory in curved spacetime is that QFT’s on the
background of deSitter spacetime are thermal, with a temperature
(see formula)
If he was considering the right model the conclusions would be different.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3.4 Heat and the cosmological constant For the case of 3 + 1 dimensions, this leads to A being SLq(2) with q = e 2_ı k+2 where the level k is given by[21, 29, 30] k =6π/GA/[i] The quantum deformation of the symmetry algebra has a simple physical meaning, at least for _ > 0. The ground state should be deSitter spacetime, which has an horizon with an area A =12π/[i] A A classic result of quantum field theory in curved spacetime is that QFT’s on the background of deSitter spacetime are thermal, with a temperature (see formula) |
If he was considering the right model the conclusions would be different.
4 The problem of the emergence of classical spacetime
1. Rovelli and collaborators have computed the graviton propagator in spin foam models[35]. They work in the Euclidean theory and fix a boundary, which is a four sphere, large in Planck units.
2. Freidel and Livine have computed the spin foam path integral for 2+1 gravity coupled
to matter[36].
3. Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz and Loll have constructed a simple discrete and background
independent model of spacetime, which implements discreteness and causal structure,
called the causal dynamical triangulations model[8]. They find that it has a continuum
limit which defines a theory which has a large universe limit. They can measure the
dimension of spacetime by several means and it is to within error 3 + 1.
4. Krebs and Markpoulou have proposed new criteria for the emergence of classical
spacetime in terms of quantum information theory[37]. They address the low energy
physics by asking whether there are local excitations that remain coherent in spite of
the fact that they are continually in interaction with the quantum fluctuations in the
geometry.
…..But at the same time, there is as we have described above, a discreteness scale, which is expected to be the minimal length at which a continuous geometry makes sense…..
There are then two questions. Are there consistent interacting quantum theories with
DSR symmetry? And if so, is DSR a generic prediction of background independent quantum gravity theories?
The results mentioned above by Freidel and Livine show that DSR is the correct description for quantum gravity, coupled to matter in 2 + 1 dimensional worlds[36]. This answers the first question positively. What about 3 + 1?
There are heuristic calculations that indicate that LQG in 3 + 1 dimensions has a
semiclassical approximation characterized by DSR[42]. But there is as yet no rigorous proof of this. One reason to expect a DSR theory is to notice that the symmetry group of the ground state of the theory with a non-zero cosmological constant is, by (9), the quantum deformation of the deSitter or Anti-deSitter algebra. The contraction of this is, under plausible assumptions for the scaling of the energy and momentum generators, no longer the Poincare algebra, it is the κ-Poincare algebra that characterizes DSR theories[43].
6 Conclusions
To summarize, the causal spin network theories, including loop quantum gravity and spin foam models, do a number of things that are expected of any sensible quantum theory of spacetime. They are finite, they predict that quantum geometry is discrete, they remove spacelike singularities and explain the entropy of black hole and cosmological horizons as well as the temperature of deSitter spacetime. If one adds to this that there is progress understanding whether and how classical spacetime emerges from the quantum geometry, we see that these continue to show promise as plausible models of quantum gravity. While there is certainly still much to do, the last years have given us a well defined foundation to build on.
There seems to be quite a few papers that are coming out that “inspire” me to think that what I have been presenting is being used by many people and that they are trying to apply it in their “specialties”.
It would be interesting to see more of the anyons/spot on the dance floor for the party.
See you at the party.
jal
QUOTE
If you have speakers go to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5670911 and listen to Lee Smolin, Brian Greene.
Excellent link!
It just so happens that I will be traveling on Friday to Colloquium 2006: Revolution in Cosmology in Albany NY where Lee Smolin and Brian Greene are two of the speakers at this weekend event, and this NPR audio is a great primer for the subject matter.I'll be volunteering at the sign in desk for participants of colloquium if anyone from this site happens to attend.
nobody, jal, C2, et al,
I wanted to post this before you left for the Colloquium 2006. If given the chance ask, which I am afraid you will not be able to [*FAPP] Brain what physical reality is from a QM perspective I think you just might make him blush a little.
ciao_
yquantum
*For All Practical Purposes
I wanted to post this before you left for the Colloquium 2006. If given the chance ask, which I am afraid you will not be able to [*FAPP] Brain what physical reality is from a QM perspective I think you just might make him blush a little.
ciao_
yquantum
*For All Practical Purposes
Good Day everyone!
I was reading the published papers (HEP) for Sept. There are almost 300.
I concluded that the "big boys" are very nervous....
I got the impression that they are at the big stake roulette table. They are scurring placing bets to cover all possible out come.
It seems a bit late for publishing different versions of the same thing.
I think that there must be 4 or five versions of SUSY.
I did not find any of the high rollers betting on double zero (2D)
---------------------------
Has anyone else had an insight and done any work on “THE SPOT”?
Well…. Read the following attempt…..”THE SPOT” gets renamed to “Giant Magnons”
Is there anybody interested in writing a paper using the 4S model?
You can keep the Nobel prize. Just mention that you got inspired by “a nobody” and don’t forget my beer.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0604/0604135.pdf
Giant Magnons
Diego M. Hofmana and Juan Maldacenab∗
dhofman@Princeton.edu.
malda@ias.edu
2 May 2006
WHAT…… Say that again…. Not the center of mass?
NEED TO FIX “Giant magnons” so that they do not violate Planck scale
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank N. Beisert, S. Frolov, K. Intrilligator, J. Plefka, N. Seiberg,
M. Staudacher and I. Swanson for useful comments and discussion.
HEY…. You forgot jal
I have been around since Dec 14 2005,…… Ahhhhh you broke my heart.
You also forgot Thursday, April 20, 2006 http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/integrab...nt-magnons.html
After all you only published 2 May 2006
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
See you at the party.
jal
I was reading the published papers (HEP) for Sept. There are almost 300.
I concluded that the "big boys" are very nervous....
I got the impression that they are at the big stake roulette table. They are scurring placing bets to cover all possible out come.
It seems a bit late for publishing different versions of the same thing.
I think that there must be 4 or five versions of SUSY.
I did not find any of the high rollers betting on double zero (2D)
---------------------------
Has anyone else had an insight and done any work on “THE SPOT”?
Well…. Read the following attempt…..”THE SPOT” gets renamed to “Giant Magnons”
Is there anybody interested in writing a paper using the 4S model?
You can keep the Nobel prize. Just mention that you got inspired by “a nobody” and don’t forget my beer.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0604/0604135.pdf
Giant Magnons
Diego M. Hofmana and Juan Maldacenab∗
dhofman@Princeton.edu.
malda@ias.edu
2 May 2006
QUOTE
We also find an infinite number of two magnon bound states
at strong coupling, while at weak coupling this number is finite.
Of course, here we are considering a single magnon. Configurations with many magnons can have large excursions into the AdS directions.
Note that the fact that the magnons have a large size (are “giant”) at strong coupling is also present in the Hubbard model description in [44] 12.
Finally, let us point out that our discussion of the classical string solutions focused on an R×S2 subspace of the geometry.
The spacetime picture of these solutions varies considerably depending on parameters p and q. The easiest case to analyze is the solution corresponding to the breather at rest.
This corresponds to choosing maximal p = π. These are strings with one fixed point (ϕ − t = const) which sweep the entire sphere as they evolve in time, see figure 8. At quarter the period they look like two magnons of maximal p. The value of q controls the period of the sweep. Because P = 2p = 2π for this case there is no distance between the endpoints of the string. As we decrease p a gap opens up while the strings still sweep the sphere, see figure 9(a). At p = π
2 the gap is maximal and the solutions change character:they do not sweep the sphere any longer. For small p the solution is bounded to a small region of the sphere, see figure 9(. q still controls the period. In appendix B,
we discuss the relevant variables and calculate the energies of these solutions. It would be nice to find more explicit expressions for the solutions.
An additional complication is that the S-matrix appears to depend on the two momenta, rather than a single variable (the center of mass momentum).
at strong coupling, while at weak coupling this number is finite.
Of course, here we are considering a single magnon. Configurations with many magnons can have large excursions into the AdS directions.
Note that the fact that the magnons have a large size (are “giant”) at strong coupling is also present in the Hubbard model description in [44] 12.
Finally, let us point out that our discussion of the classical string solutions focused on an R×S2 subspace of the geometry.
The spacetime picture of these solutions varies considerably depending on parameters p and q. The easiest case to analyze is the solution corresponding to the breather at rest.
This corresponds to choosing maximal p = π. These are strings with one fixed point (ϕ − t = const) which sweep the entire sphere as they evolve in time, see figure 8. At quarter the period they look like two magnons of maximal p. The value of q controls the period of the sweep. Because P = 2p = 2π for this case there is no distance between the endpoints of the string. As we decrease p a gap opens up while the strings still sweep the sphere, see figure 9(a). At p = π
2 the gap is maximal and the solutions change character:they do not sweep the sphere any longer. For small p the solution is bounded to a small region of the sphere, see figure 9(
. q still controls the period. In appendix B,we discuss the relevant variables and calculate the energies of these solutions. It would be nice to find more explicit expressions for the solutions.
An additional complication is that the S-matrix appears to depend on the two momenta, rather than a single variable (the center of mass momentum).
WHAT…… Say that again…. Not the center of mass?
NEED TO FIX “Giant magnons” so that they do not violate Planck scale
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank N. Beisert, S. Frolov, K. Intrilligator, J. Plefka, N. Seiberg,
M. Staudacher and I. Swanson for useful comments and discussion.
HEY…. You forgot jal
I have been around since Dec 14 2005,…… Ahhhhh you broke my heart.
You also forgot Thursday, April 20, 2006 http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/integrab...nt-magnons.html
After all you only published 2 May 2006
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
See you at the party.
jal
QUOTE
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
fapp it is necessary to explain how you can do this? This is not criticism but something you will be asked by your professor or anyone in the field.
Wave-function/Decoherence and Consistent Histories just to name one obstacles.
This is considering one as a human Geiger counters=
.ciao_
yquantum
jal, y!,
Thanks yquantum, that's been worrying me too. Some of the 2D solutions we've had reallly were for 2D .. graphite and copper oxide.. and may not press out nicely.
Personally I'm still worried about isotropy, I don't know if the professor would ask about that.
Best wishes,
-C2 .
Thanks yquantum, that's been worrying me too. Some of the 2D solutions we've had reallly were for 2D .. graphite and copper oxide.. and may not press out nicely.
Personally I'm still worried about isotropy, I don't know if the professor would ask about that.
Best wishes,
-C2
.
yquantum.... you're fishing.... I cannot spoil the party
We are going where no man has gone before.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
Gerard ’t Hooft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
Decoherence does not provide a mechanism for the actual wave function collapse; the quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment so that a total superposition of the wavefunction still exists, but exists beyond the realm of measurement; rather decoherence provides a mechanism for the appearance of wavefunction collapse.
Who knows what we will find...??? a mechanism ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories
The key words....rules that govern dynamics...lets look maybe we will find something
Confused2
The key words....rules that govern dynamics...lets look maybe we will find something
Confused2
when the properties of a material are the same in all directions, the material is said to be isotropic. For many polycrystalline materials the grain orientations are random before any working (deformation) of the material is done. Therefore, even if the individual grains are anisotropic, the property differences tend to average out and, overall, the material is isotropic.
When the properties of a material vary with different crystallographic orientations, the material is said to be anisotropic.
That should be a good toy to bring to the party.
You could explain how it can apply rather than taking the negative of why it does not apply.
yquantum since you like fishing....and I know that you're a good fisherman .... I'm preparing a post just for you.
jal
jal, C2, nobody, et al,
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
I am not worth the time to prepare a crack in the universe to deal with me, I am just putting some thoughts out. My intentions are not to spoil any party remember I might be funding this one.
The above brings in a subject that I read about while I was away and it has given me much concern dealing with reality Good Elf if you are still around I will respond to you and I do thank you for your kind words but David Bohm and Basil Hiley was mentioned. FYI
jal, I like your way of thinking -- you must have a plan B.
ciao_
yquantum
You could explain [of isotropy ] how it can apply rather than taking the negative of why it does not apply.
Ouch!
I was rather hoping for divine inspiration.
I don't see a nice 'kissing' solution.
Kiss all over with infinite dimensions? .. probably an irreversible step.
Kiss at random? kind of spoils the elegance .. 'boiling spots' .. sounds like a disease.
More thoughts will follow when available.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I cannot spoil the partyWe are going where no man has gone before.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
Gerard ’t Hooft
QUOTE
In realistic theories, one therefore must impose a “superselection rule”, projecting out a subspace of Hilbert space where all energies are non-negative. How exactly to do this will be described here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In realistic theories, one therefore must impose a “superselection rule”, projecting out a subspace of Hilbert space where all energies are non-negative. How exactly to do this will be described here. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
Decoherence does not provide a mechanism for the actual wave function collapse; the quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment so that a total superposition of the wavefunction still exists, but exists beyond the realm of measurement; rather decoherence provides a mechanism for the appearance of wavefunction collapse.
Who knows what we will find...??? a mechanism ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories
QUOTE
The interpretation based on consistent histories is used in combination with the insights about quantum decoherence. Quantum decoherence implies that only special choices of histories are consistent, and it allows a quantitative calculation of the boundary between the classical domain and the quantum domain.
In some views the interpretation based on consistent histories does not change anything about the paradigm of the Copenhagen interpretation that only the probabilities calculated from quantum mechanics and the wave function have a physical meaning. In order to obtain a complete theory, the formal rules above must be supplemented with a particular Hilbert space and rules that govern dynamics, for example a Hamiltonian.
In some views the interpretation based on consistent histories does not change anything about the paradigm of the Copenhagen interpretation that only the probabilities calculated from quantum mechanics and the wave function have a physical meaning. In order to obtain a complete theory, the formal rules above must be supplemented with a particular Hilbert space and rules that govern dynamics, for example a Hamiltonian.
The key words....rules that govern dynamics...lets look maybe we will find something
Confused2
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The interpretation based on consistent histories is used in combination with the insights about quantum decoherence. Quantum decoherence implies that only special choices of histories are consistent, and it allows a quantitative calculation of the boundary between the classical domain and the quantum domain. In some views the interpretation based on consistent histories does not change anything about the paradigm of the Copenhagen interpretation that only the probabilities calculated from quantum mechanics and the wave function have a physical meaning. In order to obtain a complete theory, the formal rules above must be supplemented with a particular Hilbert space and rules that govern dynamics, for example a Hamiltonian. |
The key words....rules that govern dynamics...lets look maybe we will find something
Confused2
when the properties of a material are the same in all directions, the material is said to be isotropic. For many polycrystalline materials the grain orientations are random before any working (deformation) of the material is done. Therefore, even if the individual grains are anisotropic, the property differences tend to average out and, overall, the material is isotropic.
When the properties of a material vary with different crystallographic orientations, the material is said to be anisotropic.
That should be a good toy to bring to the party.
You could explain how it can apply rather than taking the negative of why it does not apply.
yquantum since you like fishing....and I know that you're a good fisherman
.... I'm preparing a post just for you. jal
jal, C2, nobody, et al,http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
I am not worth the time to prepare a crack in the universe to deal with me, I am just putting some thoughts out. My intentions are not to spoil any party remember I might be funding this one.
The above brings in a subject that I read about while I was away and it has given me much concern dealing with reality Good Elf if you are still around I will respond to you and I do thank you for your kind words but David Bohm and Basil Hiley was mentioned. FYI
jal, I like your way of thinking -- you must have a plan B.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (jal+)
You could explain [of isotropy ] how it can apply rather than taking the negative of why it does not apply.
Ouch!
I was rather hoping for divine inspiration.
I don't see a nice 'kissing' solution.
Kiss all over with infinite dimensions? .. probably an irreversible step.
Kiss at random? kind of spoils the elegance .. 'boiling spots' .. sounds like a disease.
More thoughts will follow when available.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Good Day Everyone!
As we are all aware, everybody has their favorite fishing spot….heheheh …In the weeds….in the rapids….among the rocks….in the deep deep waters where you cannot see the bottom …. heheheh
I have not hidden the fact that I don’t fish and that I don’t know how to fish.
I do enjoy watching the fishermen doing their thing. However, there are times that I cannot tell how they manage to do their thing.
They know what lure to put on the end of their line, they cast out with a complexity of motions, the lure hits the right spot, the fish strikes, then a complex struggle issues and out comes the fish.
Now…. Not every fishing spot is good.
I’ve got what I think is going to be the best fishing spot in the whole wide world.
It’s going to take some of the best fisherman in the world to try to catch the fish in this spot.
You can see the bottom in my fishing spot.
You can see the fish swimming around. The spot is full of fish. As a matter of fact… they are “flat fish” … swimming in groups of 12. heheheh
Only the most skillful fisherman will be able to land these fishs.
Of course, a good fisherman would be able to help out an “amateur” by advising where not to cast the lure…. He would be able to help select the right lure … so that an “amateur” does not catch any “red herrings”.
He would be able to explain how to cast and how to reel in the fish.
Gerard ’t Hooft has pointed us in the right direction but he seems to be busy for now so … I therefore, nominate/elect Yquantum as our official fishing guide for the party because he is the only one who has come forward and declared himself as a daily fisherman.
Hopefully…. Yquantum , You will come prepared with a good fishing story to complement and advance the efforts of Gerard ’t Hooft.
It could end up being the best fishing story ever told. It could end up being “publishable”.
Other Fishermen (being what they are)…. Would not hesitate to try to tell a better fishing story.
See you at the party.
jal
As we are all aware, everybody has their favorite fishing spot….heheheh
…In the weeds….in the rapids….among the rocks….in the deep deep waters where you cannot see the bottom …. heheheh I have not hidden the fact that I don’t fish and that I don’t know how to fish.
I do enjoy watching the fishermen doing their thing. However, there are times that I cannot tell how they manage to do their thing.
They know what lure to put on the end of their line, they cast out with a complexity of motions, the lure hits the right spot, the fish strikes, then a complex struggle issues and out comes the fish.
Now…. Not every fishing spot is good.
I’ve got what I think is going to be the best fishing spot in the whole wide world.
It’s going to take some of the best fisherman in the world to try to catch the fish in this spot.
You can see the bottom in my fishing spot.
You can see the fish swimming around. The spot is full of fish. As a matter of fact… they are “flat fish” … swimming in groups of 12. heheheh
Only the most skillful fisherman will be able to land these fishs.
Of course, a good fisherman would be able to help out an “amateur” by advising where not to cast the lure…. He would be able to help select the right lure … so that an “amateur” does not catch any “red herrings”.
He would be able to explain how to cast and how to reel in the fish.
Gerard ’t Hooft has pointed us in the right direction but he seems to be busy for now so … I therefore, nominate/elect Yquantum as our official fishing guide for the party because he is the only one who has come forward and declared himself as a daily fisherman.
Hopefully…. Yquantum , You will come prepared with a good fishing story to complement and advance the efforts of Gerard ’t Hooft.
It could end up being the best fishing story ever told. It could end up being “publishable”.
Other Fishermen (being what they are)…. Would not hesitate to try to tell a better fishing story.
See you at the party.
jal
Good day!
Just a short note:
If you have been searching for the “Beables” these are probably the best places to get an explanation of this old word which was used in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
By Gerard ’t Hooft
.
http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/Kauffman.htm
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lina0174/beables.pdf
The “Beables” of Relativistic Pilot-Wave Theory
Simon Sanders
Remember that in the Planck scale a sphere is = hole = 2(3(2 pi ))
And the “Beables” = “SPOTS”.
jal
Just a short note:
If you have been searching for the “Beables” these are probably the best places to get an explanation of this old word which was used in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
By Gerard ’t Hooft
.
http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/Kauffman.htm
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lina0174/beables.pdf
The “Beables” of Relativistic Pilot-Wave Theory
Simon Sanders
Remember that in the Planck scale a sphere is = hole = 2(3(2 pi ))
And the “Beables” = “SPOTS”.
jal
Good Day!
Since we are limiting the party toys to those that do not violate the Planck Scale then it should become obvious that spacetime is porous.
Can my model of spacetime be used as a dynamic porous material?
I only want you to bring some math approaches so that the “fishermen” will be able to tell if what you bring is “A Red Herring” or if could be adapted to make a “Plan B".
See you at the party.
jal
Since we are limiting the party toys to those that do not violate the Planck Scale then it should become obvious that spacetime is porous.
Can my model of spacetime be used as a dynamic porous material?
I only want you to bring some math approaches so that the “fishermen” will be able to tell if what you bring is “A Red Herring” or if could be adapted to make a “Plan B".
See you at the party.
jal
Hi jal,
Problem.. first catch your yquantum.
I feel like a fish that has been thrown back (sniff) ..
What you are attempting looks (to me) like a cross between finite element analysis .. (we say we go no smaller than a Planck 'something' ) and systems analysis where each Planckable zone has inputs and outputs which we can quantify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_analysis
Also
http://www.modelbenders.com/mastersim.html
Leaky? I don't [b]do[/do] leaky (except by mistake , sniff).
-C2.
(sniffle)
Problem.. first catch your yquantum.
I feel like a fish that has been thrown back (sniff) ..
What you are attempting looks (to me) like a cross between finite element analysis .. (we say we go no smaller than a Planck 'something' ) and systems analysis where each Planckable zone has inputs and outputs which we can quantify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_analysis
Also
http://www.modelbenders.com/mastersim.html
Leaky? I don't [b]do[/do] leaky (except by mistake , sniff).
-C2.
(sniffle)
Confused2!
Without you ... this ship would have run aground a long time ago.
Systems theory is the basis for modeling complex systems, which are broken down into three basic components: units, processes, and structures. Once these three components can be identified, a mathematical or game-theory derived model can be produced. This model is then run through a Simulation.
I'll look for some other "tools" that are being used that could be applied.
Thanks
jal
Without you ... this ship would have run aground a long time ago.
Systems theory is the basis for modeling complex systems, which are broken down into three basic components: units, processes, and structures. Once these three components can be identified, a mathematical or game-theory derived model can be produced. This model is then run through a Simulation.
I'll look for some other "tools" that are being used that could be applied.
Thanks
jal
Thanks jal,
I feel a bit better now
-C2.
I feel a bit better now
-C2.
Good Day!
Here are some recent attempts to use a "SPOT" approach.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610023.pdf
WRONG! … UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND YOU WANT TO DO SCIENCE FICTION.
WRONG! … UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND YOU WANT TO DO SCIENCE FICTION.
Although we do not yet know if the continuum limit exists in the case of general relativity, this point of view would agree with popular beliefs in that case: one would have a fundamental, discrete theory that reproduces, at large scales, general relativity even if the quantum theory strictly does not exist in the continuum limit.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0610/0610064.pdf
Good reading
jal
Here are some recent attempts to use a "SPOT" approach.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610023.pdf
QUOTE
Uniform discretizations: a new approach for the quantization of totally constrained
systems
Miguel Campiglia1, Cayetano Di Bartolo2 Rodolfo Gambini1, Jorge Pullin3
06 Oct 2006
For instance, in general relativity written in terms of metric variables in the traditional 3+1 decomposition, one has twelve canonical variables and twelve evolution equations, plus four constraint equations. One has therefore 16 equations for 12 unknowns. In the continuum the equations are compatible and can be solved. When discretized however, one ends up with a set of incompatible equations. If we now consider the three components of the shift and the lapse as
dynamical variables we have 16 equations with 16 dynamical variables as unknowns and simultaneous solution of the equations is generically possible.
The answer is that one can approximate the continuum theory by choosing initial data in the discrete theory in a careful way. To put it differently there exist initial data for the discrete theory such that when evolved the resulting solution approximates well the solutions of the continuum theory.
This is what the “uniform discretizations” achieve.
... , in a theory with fundamental discreteness there has to be a limit as to how accurate a measurement one can make. For instance, this would be akin to claiming that in a discrete theory of quantum gravity one cannot measure lengths shorter than the Planck length.
It should be recalled that this is also a rather artificial limitation.
systems
Miguel Campiglia1, Cayetano Di Bartolo2 Rodolfo Gambini1, Jorge Pullin3
06 Oct 2006
For instance, in general relativity written in terms of metric variables in the traditional 3+1 decomposition, one has twelve canonical variables and twelve evolution equations, plus four constraint equations. One has therefore 16 equations for 12 unknowns. In the continuum the equations are compatible and can be solved. When discretized however, one ends up with a set of incompatible equations. If we now consider the three components of the shift and the lapse as
dynamical variables we have 16 equations with 16 dynamical variables as unknowns and simultaneous solution of the equations is generically possible.
The answer is that one can approximate the continuum theory by choosing initial data in the discrete theory in a careful way. To put it differently there exist initial data for the discrete theory such that when evolved the resulting solution approximates well the solutions of the continuum theory.
This is what the “uniform discretizations” achieve.
... , in a theory with fundamental discreteness there has to be a limit as to how accurate a measurement one can make. For instance, this would be akin to claiming that in a discrete theory of quantum gravity one cannot measure lengths shorter than the Planck length.
It should be recalled that this is also a rather artificial limitation.
WRONG! … UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND YOU WANT TO DO SCIENCE FICTION.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Uniform discretizations: a new approach for the quantization of totally constrained systems Miguel Campiglia1, Cayetano Di Bartolo2 Rodolfo Gambini1, Jorge Pullin3 06 Oct 2006 For instance, in general relativity written in terms of metric variables in the traditional 3+1 decomposition, one has twelve canonical variables and twelve evolution equations, plus four constraint equations. One has therefore 16 equations for 12 unknowns. In the continuum the equations are compatible and can be solved. When discretized however, one ends up with a set of incompatible equations. If we now consider the three components of the shift and the lapse as dynamical variables we have 16 equations with 16 dynamical variables as unknowns and simultaneous solution of the equations is generically possible. The answer is that one can approximate the continuum theory by choosing initial data in the discrete theory in a careful way. To put it differently there exist initial data for the discrete theory such that when evolved the resulting solution approximates well the solutions of the continuum theory. This is what the “uniform discretizations” achieve. ... , in a theory with fundamental discreteness there has to be a limit as to how accurate a measurement one can make. For instance, this would be akin to claiming that in a discrete theory of quantum gravity one cannot measure lengths shorter than the Planck length. It should be recalled that this is also a rather artificial limitation. |
WRONG! … UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND YOU WANT TO DO SCIENCE FICTION.
Although we do not yet know if the continuum limit exists in the case of general relativity, this point of view would agree with popular beliefs in that case: one would have a fundamental, discrete theory that reproduces, at large scales, general relativity even if the quantum theory strictly does not exist in the continuum limit.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0610/0610064.pdf
QUOTE
Scale Dependent Metric and Minimal Length in QEG ‡
Martin Reuter and Jan-Markus Schwindt
Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, D-55128 Mainz, Germany
05 Oct 2006
In quantum gravity where the metric is dynamical the relationship between the IR
cutoff k and the “averaging scale” ℓ is more complicated in general. In the following we shall review a concrete definition of an “averaging” or “coarse graining” proper length scale ℓ = ℓ(k). Using this definition, along with certain qualitative properties of the RG trajectories of QEG, we shall demonstrate that the theory generates a minimal length scale in a dynamical way. The interpretation of this scale is rather subtle, however. One has to carefully distinguish different physical questions one could ask, because depending on the question a minimal length will, or will not become visible.
Our argument reveals that the effective spacetime with the running on-shell metric cannot support harmonic modes of arbitrarily fine angular resolution.
Remarkably, this minimal proper length is different in general from the Planck length which is usually thought to set the minimal length scale. In fact, Lmacro min can be much larger than ℓPl ≡ m−1Pl .
While its origin is quite clear, the physical implications of the scale doubling and the
duality symmetry are somewhat mysterious.
Clearly more work is needed in order to understand these rather intriguing issues
better. We hope to return to them elsewhere.
Martin Reuter and Jan-Markus Schwindt
Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, D-55128 Mainz, Germany
05 Oct 2006
In quantum gravity where the metric is dynamical the relationship between the IR
cutoff k and the “averaging scale” ℓ is more complicated in general. In the following we shall review a concrete definition of an “averaging” or “coarse graining” proper length scale ℓ = ℓ(k). Using this definition, along with certain qualitative properties of the RG trajectories of QEG, we shall demonstrate that the theory generates a minimal length scale in a dynamical way. The interpretation of this scale is rather subtle, however. One has to carefully distinguish different physical questions one could ask, because depending on the question a minimal length will, or will not become visible.
Our argument reveals that the effective spacetime with the running on-shell metric cannot support harmonic modes of arbitrarily fine angular resolution.
Remarkably, this minimal proper length is different in general from the Planck length which is usually thought to set the minimal length scale. In fact, Lmacro min can be much larger than ℓPl ≡ m−1Pl .
While its origin is quite clear, the physical implications of the scale doubling and the
duality symmetry are somewhat mysterious.
Clearly more work is needed in order to understand these rather intriguing issues
better. We hope to return to them elsewhere.
Good reading
jal
Hi jal (y),
Excellent references .. thanks.
In fact, Rolf Landauer showed back in 1961 that getting rid of one bit of information requires putting out this much energy in the form of heat:
kT ln(2)
where T is the temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant. That's not much - about 3 x 10-21 joules at room temperature! But, it's theoretically important.
If you were a pointy sort of particle the amount of energy (information) required to establish 'I'm HERE' could (waves hands frantically) exceed the amount of energy of the particle itself. (it might even BE the energy of the particle itself ). Hence .. maybe .. everything gets to wear a furry hat. Occasionally it might be interesting to suggest that there's only one design going on here .. it must all fit together. If imponderable space starts to think along these lines then it would be a bit blurry too. Hence you get blurry furry particles you can never quite put your finger on. For the sake of wild conjecture one might propose the blurry effect starts to dominate at around (you guessed it!) the plank length. Far from being a boiling foam at that scale .. it all settles down into a sort of 'Om' state. No infinite energy. Just 'Om'.
Can you still see your fish?
-C2.
Excellent references .. thanks.
QUOTE (me quoting Baez+)
In fact, Rolf Landauer showed back in 1961 that getting rid of one bit of information requires putting out this much energy in the form of heat:
kT ln(2)
where T is the temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant. That's not much - about 3 x 10-21 joules at room temperature! But, it's theoretically important.
If you were a pointy sort of particle the amount of energy (information) required to establish 'I'm HERE' could (waves hands frantically) exceed the amount of energy of the particle itself. (it might even BE the energy of the particle itself ). Hence .. maybe .. everything gets to wear a furry hat. Occasionally it might be interesting to suggest that there's only one design going on here .. it must all fit together. If imponderable space starts to think along these lines then it would be a bit blurry too. Hence you get blurry furry particles you can never quite put your finger on. For the sake of wild conjecture one might propose the blurry effect starts to dominate at around (you guessed it!) the plank length. Far from being a boiling foam at that scale .. it all settles down into a sort of 'Om' state. No infinite energy. Just 'Om'.
Can you still see your fish?
-C2.
Confused2
I have been encoutering .... kT ln(2)....and furry.... but I cannot quite grasp the concept of how it would affect the quantum structure.
Have you got more info.... explanations?
jal
I have been encoutering .... kT ln(2)....and furry.... but I cannot quite grasp the concept of how it would affect the quantum structure.
Have you got more info.... explanations?
jal
Good Day Confused2!
"kT ln(2)" …You are opening the possibility that the “spot” dynamic structure is detectable by its heat lost. That the physic is deterministic and reversible… but not 100%. The system produces some entropy. Which then begs the question…does the spacetime structure emit a temp.? Could this be another explanation for the 3 degree Kelvin of the universe? That the Big Bang scenario is not the cause of the 3 degree Kelvin temp.?
The beginning of this thread where I start the discussion about entropy and potential energy would be where the process was not reversible and where a lot of heat was produced.
I have no idea if "kT ln(2)" would produce enough heat to replace the B.B. scenario or to account for the CMBR. There are 12 “Waves” generating heat as they get into a stabilized configuration.
My way was to demonstrate that by packing that there was more energy in a 2D system than in a 3D system. A gap of 16.64%.
Here is something to make you think.
http://www.umsl.edu/~fraundor/ifzx/cvinbit...(2)%22%20%20%22
Heat capacity in bits
P. Fraundorfa
Department of Physics and Astronomy and Center for Molecular Electronics, University of Missouri,
St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63121 and Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis,
Missouri 63130
~Received 15 July 2002; accepted 2 June 2003!
Note that the Planck scale imposes a minimum of 12 waves for 3D.
jal
"kT ln(2)" …You are opening the possibility that the “spot” dynamic structure is detectable by its heat lost. That the physic is deterministic and reversible… but not 100%. The system produces some entropy. Which then begs the question…does the spacetime structure emit a temp.? Could this be another explanation for the 3 degree Kelvin of the universe? That the Big Bang scenario is not the cause of the 3 degree Kelvin temp.?
The beginning of this thread where I start the discussion about entropy and potential energy would be where the process was not reversible and where a lot of heat was produced.
I have no idea if "kT ln(2)" would produce enough heat to replace the B.B. scenario or to account for the CMBR. There are 12 “Waves” generating heat as they get into a stabilized configuration.
My way was to demonstrate that by packing that there was more energy in a 2D system than in a 3D system. A gap of 16.64%.
Here is something to make you think.
http://www.umsl.edu/~fraundor/ifzx/cvinbit...(2)%22%20%20%22
Heat capacity in bits
P. Fraundorfa
Department of Physics and Astronomy and Center for Molecular Electronics, University of Missouri,
St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63121 and Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis,
Missouri 63130
~Received 15 July 2002; accepted 2 June 2003!
Note that the Planck scale imposes a minimum of 12 waves for 3D.
jal
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.