"Moreover, as a theorem of statistical inference not involving energy at all, it applies to thermally unequilibrated systems sharing other conserved quantities (including money, for example)..."
That strikes a chord, thankyou jal. I shall print and study.
Hi jal,
Very interesting .. thanks.
I think we might be looking under the same rock here.
I was generally coming from the direction of thinking that the more divisible your space is the more information it will contain (even if you don't want it to).
I had sudden doubts as to whether virtual particles actually contain any 'information' until flushed out into 'real' particles. A Casimir force 'engine' might help to flush out what's going on. (reversible?) .. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...rmo/carnot.html .
I'm sorry.. my brain continues to reject 12 (waves) .. please ignore it but be aware of it, if you see what I mean.
I suspect the CMBR is a red herring.
C2
.
Very interesting .. thanks.
I think we might be looking under the same rock here.
I was generally coming from the direction of thinking that the more divisible your space is the more information it will contain (even if you don't want it to).
I had sudden doubts as to whether virtual particles actually contain any 'information' until flushed out into 'real' particles. A Casimir force 'engine' might help to flush out what's going on. (reversible?) .. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...rmo/carnot.html .
I'm sorry.. my brain continues to reject 12 (waves) .. please ignore it but be aware of it, if you see what I mean.
I suspect the CMBR is a red herring.
C2
.
Confused2... and all!
It would be interesting to see what the calculations would produce from assuming that the 12 "waves" is the bottom of the scale.
"A Casimir force 'engine' ".... The vacuum energy could be, ("kT ln(2)").
Due to the “Carnot Cycle” of the 12 waves not being as efficient near “mass” (spacetime curvature) we would get a higher energy reading. Then this inefficiency could be what we call “Dark Matter”.
We will just have to wait until somebody does the numbers.
jal
It would be interesting to see what the calculations would produce from assuming that the 12 "waves" is the bottom of the scale.
"A Casimir force 'engine' ".... The vacuum energy could be, ("kT ln(2)").
Due to the “Carnot Cycle” of the 12 waves not being as efficient near “mass” (spacetime curvature) we would get a higher energy reading. Then this inefficiency could be what we call “Dark Matter”.
We will just have to wait until somebody does the numbers.
jal
We're talking nano here.
Imagine a little ball on a thread suspended close to a surface .. everything except Casimir force is eliminated (one way or another). We set the ball swinging.. it swings. Keep scaling it down by a factor of ten and repeating the experiment .. either the ball stops swinging or goes berserk or something else.
Any guesses?
-C2.
Imagine a little ball on a thread suspended close to a surface .. everything except Casimir force is eliminated (one way or another). We set the ball swinging.. it swings. Keep scaling it down by a factor of ten and repeating the experiment .. either the ball stops swinging or goes berserk or something else.
Any guesses?
-C2.
Confused: Have a google on AFM and STM. I came across a paper a while back bout the forces at work between tip and surface that might be relevant. Sorry, I can't find it.
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/exp6/res...sxm/sxm_e.shtml
http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/surfaces/scc/scat7_6.htm
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/exp6/res...sxm/sxm_e.shtml
http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/surfaces/scc/scat7_6.htm
Yo,
Thanks Farsight. Just searching for the limits .. Planck length would be nice from a respectability point of view.. but if it comes bigger or smaller .. who am I to argue?
-C2.
Thanks Farsight. Just searching for the limits .. Planck length would be nice from a respectability point of view.. but if it comes bigger or smaller .. who am I to argue?
-C2.
Hi! Confused2
I really don't have enough information.
If the ball is in a "void" then it does not have any an "environment to affect it.
If there is an"invironment", then there are three possibilities.
1. The ball is affecting the "environment"
2. The "environment" is affecting the ball.
3. Both the ball and the environment are affecting each other.
If it's option 3. then there is the possibility that the effects are undetectable or that they are detectable on the ball or on the "environment" or that the mutual effect cancel each other out and we would conclude that they are undetectable.
Sorry I cant make a better guess
Farsight Informative references.
jal
QUOTE
Any guesses?
I really don't have enough information.
If the ball is in a "void" then it does not have any an "environment to affect it.
If there is an"invironment", then there are three possibilities.
1. The ball is affecting the "environment"
2. The "environment" is affecting the ball.
3. Both the ball and the environment are affecting each other.
If it's option 3. then there is the possibility that the effects are undetectable or that they are detectable on the ball or on the "environment" or that the mutual effect cancel each other out and we would conclude that they are undetectable.
Sorry I cant make a better guess
Farsight Informative references.
jal
Good day Everyone!
The “professionals are doing some serious work on the “spot” approach.
If a someone was to invite them to the party to give us a summary of their planned approaches, I’ll have a tub of beer for the apple bobbing.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math-ph/pdf/0407/0407006.pdf
Representations of the Weyl Algebra in Quantum Geometry
Christian Fleischhack∗
Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Mathematik in den Naturwissenschaften
Inselstraße 22–26
04103 Leipzig, Germany
January 3, 2006
Has he included the limitations imposed by the Planck Scale?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0504/0504147.pdf
Uniqueness of diffeomorphism invariant states on holonomy – flux algebras
Jerzy Lewandowski1 Andrzej Oko l´ow, Hanno Sahlmann, Thomas Thiemann
15 Sept. 2006.
Has he included the limitations imposed by the Planck Scale?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0504/0504147.pdf
Uniqueness of diffeomorphism invariant states on holonomy – flux algebras
Jerzy Lewandowski1 Andrzej Oko l´ow, Hanno Sahlmann, Thomas Thiemann
15 Sept. 2006.
The precise definition of the abstract ∗-algebra of the basic kinematical observables we give could be used for any theory in which the configuration variable is a connection with a compact structure group.
Finally, as for background dependent theories, at least the definition of the kinemat-
ical algebra 2L applies in principle. Whether one expects the type of variables used, to
be well defined in the quantum theory is certainly a difficult question. Still it seems
worthwhile to look for non-diffeomorphism invariant representations of 2L and see if they
can be put to use in physics.
Since obvious generalizations of this state to a higher dimensional situation seem to
fail, the existence of ω for smearing functions without compact support might just be a
peculiarity of D = 2
Has he included in 2L the limitations imposed by the Planck Scale?
See you at the party.
jal
The “professionals are doing some serious work on the “spot” approach.
If a someone was to invite them to the party to give us a summary of their planned approaches, I’ll have a tub of beer for the apple bobbing.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math-ph/pdf/0407/0407006.pdf
Representations of the Weyl Algebra in Quantum Geometry
Christian Fleischhack∗
Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Mathematik in den Naturwissenschaften
Inselstraße 22–26
04103 Leipzig, Germany
January 3, 2006
QUOTE
5 Irreducibility p. 31
In this section we are going to prove the irreducibility of 2L for nice structure data.
At the same time, the inclusion of lower-dimensional surfaces becomes natural.
6.1.2 Scaling p. 37
To study geometric objects in charts, it may be necessary to first shrink them to have enough “space”. That this is (almost) always possible using stratified diffeomorphisms, guarantees the following …..
6.1.3 Rotation p. 37
6.1.4 Translation p. 38
6.4 Two Types of Localized Stratified Diffeomorphisms p. 44
In this subsection23 we will investigate in detail the types of stratified diffeomorphisms to be used for quantum geometry.
….This, of course, is possible, only if this surface provided enough space, i.e. is at least two-dimensional…..
7 Representations of the Weyl Algebra p. 50
…This enables us to use the naturality of the action of diffeomorphisms in order to prove that each Weyl operator is even a unit there. Cyclicity will give the proof….
7.4 Discussion p. 57
7.4.4 Main Open Issues p. 60
….But, it would be desirable to at least replace the condition of wide triangulizability by
the “standard” triangulizability, since in this case it is known that any semianalytic set is
triangulizable. The requirement that each simplex in the triangulation is nicely oriented,
is not too restrictive, since every naturally oriented, embedded surface is at least locally
nicely oriented…..
…Of course, the remarks above are not at all final answers why to consider just these assumptions. At least from the mathematical point of view, it would be highly desirable to have more general results available. We have given some hints here for direct extensions, however, the field is still open, …
In this section we are going to prove the irreducibility of 2L for nice structure data.
At the same time, the inclusion of lower-dimensional surfaces becomes natural.
6.1.2 Scaling p. 37
To study geometric objects in charts, it may be necessary to first shrink them to have enough “space”. That this is (almost) always possible using stratified diffeomorphisms, guarantees the following …..
6.1.3 Rotation p. 37
6.1.4 Translation p. 38
6.4 Two Types of Localized Stratified Diffeomorphisms p. 44
In this subsection23 we will investigate in detail the types of stratified diffeomorphisms to be used for quantum geometry.
….This, of course, is possible, only if this surface provided enough space, i.e. is at least two-dimensional…..
7 Representations of the Weyl Algebra p. 50
…This enables us to use the naturality of the action of diffeomorphisms in order to prove that each Weyl operator is even a unit there. Cyclicity will give the proof….
7.4 Discussion p. 57
7.4.4 Main Open Issues p. 60
….But, it would be desirable to at least replace the condition of wide triangulizability by
the “standard” triangulizability, since in this case it is known that any semianalytic set is
triangulizable. The requirement that each simplex in the triangulation is nicely oriented,
is not too restrictive, since every naturally oriented, embedded surface is at least locally
nicely oriented…..
…Of course, the remarks above are not at all final answers why to consider just these assumptions. At least from the mathematical point of view, it would be highly desirable to have more general results available. We have given some hints here for direct extensions, however, the field is still open, …
Has he included the limitations imposed by the Planck Scale?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0504/0504147.pdf
Uniqueness of diffeomorphism invariant states on holonomy – flux algebras
Jerzy Lewandowski1 Andrzej Oko l´ow, Hanno Sahlmann, Thomas Thiemann
15 Sept. 2006.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5 Irreducibility p. 31 In this section we are going to prove the irreducibility of 2L for nice structure data. At the same time, the inclusion of lower-dimensional surfaces becomes natural. 6.1.2 Scaling p. 37 To study geometric objects in charts, it may be necessary to first shrink them to have enough “space”. That this is (almost) always possible using stratified diffeomorphisms, guarantees the following ….. 6.1.3 Rotation p. 37 6.1.4 Translation p. 38 6.4 Two Types of Localized Stratified Diffeomorphisms p. 44 In this subsection23 we will investigate in detail the types of stratified diffeomorphisms to be used for quantum geometry. ….This, of course, is possible, only if this surface provided enough space, i.e. is at least two-dimensional….. 7 Representations of the Weyl Algebra p. 50 …This enables us to use the naturality of the action of diffeomorphisms in order to prove that each Weyl operator is even a unit there. Cyclicity will give the proof…. 7.4 Discussion p. 57 7.4.4 Main Open Issues p. 60 ….But, it would be desirable to at least replace the condition of wide triangulizability by the “standard” triangulizability, since in this case it is known that any semianalytic set is triangulizable. The requirement that each simplex in the triangulation is nicely oriented, is not too restrictive, since every naturally oriented, embedded surface is at least locally nicely oriented….. …Of course, the remarks above are not at all final answers why to consider just these assumptions. At least from the mathematical point of view, it would be highly desirable to have more general results available. We have given some hints here for direct extensions, however, the field is still open, … |
Has he included the limitations imposed by the Planck Scale?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0504/0504147.pdf
Uniqueness of diffeomorphism invariant states on holonomy – flux algebras
Jerzy Lewandowski1 Andrzej Oko l´ow, Hanno Sahlmann, Thomas Thiemann
15 Sept. 2006.
The precise definition of the abstract ∗-algebra of the basic kinematical observables we give could be used for any theory in which the configuration variable is a connection with a compact structure group.
Finally, as for background dependent theories, at least the definition of the kinemat-
ical algebra 2L applies in principle. Whether one expects the type of variables used, to
be well defined in the quantum theory is certainly a difficult question. Still it seems
worthwhile to look for non-diffeomorphism invariant representations of 2L and see if they
can be put to use in physics.
Since obvious generalizations of this state to a higher dimensional situation seem to
fail, the existence of ω for smearing functions without compact support might just be a
peculiarity of D = 2
Has he included in 2L the limitations imposed by the Planck Scale?
See you at the party.
jal
Good Day!
Missed the edit time frame.
Of interest to the “professionals". A comparison of all the different ways that the “problem” of gravity are being studied. A new approach is being suggested. (From the location of a point on a 2D structure.??)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610018.pdf
The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity
M. Niedermaier∗
Laboratoire de Mathematiques et Physique Theorique
CNRS/UMR 6083, Universit´e de Tours
Parc de Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France
05 Oct. 2006
jal
Missed the edit time frame.
Of interest to the “professionals". A comparison of all the different ways that the “problem” of gravity are being studied. A new approach is being suggested. (From the location of a point on a 2D structure.??)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610018.pdf
The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity
M. Niedermaier∗
Laboratoire de Mathematiques et Physique Theorique
CNRS/UMR 6083, Universit´e de Tours
Parc de Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France
05 Oct. 2006
QUOTE
Abstract
The asymptotic safety scenario in quantum gravity is reviewed, according to
which a renormalizable quantum theory of the gravitational field is feasible
which reconciles asymptotically safe couplings with unitarity. All presently
known evidence is surveyed:
(a) from the 2 + ǫ expansion,
( from renormalizable higher derivative gravity theories and a ‘large N’ expansion in the number of matter fields,
© from the 2-Killing vector reduction, and
(d) from truncated flow equations for the effective average action.
Special emphasis is given to the role of perturbation theory as a guide to ‘asymptotic safety’.
Further it is argued that as a consequence of the scenario the self interactions
appear two-dimensional in the extreme ultraviolet. Two appendices discuss the distinct roles of the ultraviolet renormalization in perturbation theory
and in the flow equation formalism.
p.50 4 Conclusions
The goal of this review would be reached if a reasonably convincing case for an unorthodox scenario has been made. Future work will have to focus on four areas:
(i) Consolidating the existence of a non-Gaussian fixed point, and for the asymptotic safety of the couplings. This may be done in various formalisms, field variables, and approximations.
(ii) Clarifying the microstructure of the geometries, identification of the antiscreening degrees, and the role of the ultraviolet cutoff.
(iii) Clarifing the physically adequate notion of unitarity and its interplay with (i) and (ii).
(iv) Characterization of generic observables and working out sound consequences for the macrophysics.
The asymptotic safety scenario in quantum gravity is reviewed, according to
which a renormalizable quantum theory of the gravitational field is feasible
which reconciles asymptotically safe couplings with unitarity. All presently
known evidence is surveyed:
(a) from the 2 + ǫ expansion,
(
from renormalizable higher derivative gravity theories and a ‘large N’ expansion in the number of matter fields,© from the 2-Killing vector reduction, and
(d) from truncated flow equations for the effective average action.
Special emphasis is given to the role of perturbation theory as a guide to ‘asymptotic safety’.
Further it is argued that as a consequence of the scenario the self interactions
appear two-dimensional in the extreme ultraviolet. Two appendices discuss the distinct roles of the ultraviolet renormalization in perturbation theory
and in the flow equation formalism.
p.50 4 Conclusions
The goal of this review would be reached if a reasonably convincing case for an unorthodox scenario has been made. Future work will have to focus on four areas:
(i) Consolidating the existence of a non-Gaussian fixed point, and for the asymptotic safety of the couplings. This may be done in various formalisms, field variables, and approximations.
(ii) Clarifying the microstructure of the geometries, identification of the antiscreening degrees, and the role of the ultraviolet cutoff.
(iii) Clarifing the physically adequate notion of unitarity and its interplay with (i) and (ii).
(iv) Characterization of generic observables and working out sound consequences for the macrophysics.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Oct 11 2006, 03:50 AM)
Good Day!
Missed the edit time frame.
Of interest to the “professionals". A comparison of all the different ways that the “problem” of gravity are being studied. A new approach is being suggested. (From the location of a point on a 2D structure.??)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610018.pdf
The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity
M. Niedermaier∗
Laboratoire de Mathematiques et Physique Theorique
CNRS/UMR 6083, Universit´e de Tours
Parc de Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France
05 Oct. 2006
jal
The nut that wrote the 2D theory of gravity has bene thrown out of the academy he worked at and his "work" has been exposed as elaborate joke. He and his asociate string to together a lot of jargon and somehow they were taken seriously for a while. It became apparent that their "theory" makes no sense and he ans his associate wanted to see if they could fool the academics into buying bogus theory.
Dont be taken in by tat JOKE he is a very dangerous liar
Missed the edit time frame.
Of interest to the “professionals". A comparison of all the different ways that the “problem” of gravity are being studied. A new approach is being suggested. (From the location of a point on a 2D structure.??)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610018.pdf
The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity
M. Niedermaier∗
Laboratoire de Mathematiques et Physique Theorique
CNRS/UMR 6083, Universit´e de Tours
Parc de Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France
05 Oct. 2006
jal
The nut that wrote the 2D theory of gravity has bene thrown out of the academy he worked at and his "work" has been exposed as elaborate joke. He and his asociate string to together a lot of jargon and somehow they were taken seriously for a while. It became apparent that their "theory" makes no sense and he ans his associate wanted to see if they could fool the academics into buying bogus theory.
Dont be taken in by tat JOKE he is a very dangerous liar
????? 25 publications????
http://www.citebase.org/search?author=Niedermaier%2C+M.
Where is your reference to support you statement?
jal
http://www.citebase.org/search?author=Niedermaier%2C+M.
Where is your reference to support you statement?
jal
Hi jal, NF et al,
NF .. are we talking about the same person?
Niedermaier seems OK here
http://www.phys.univ-tours.fr/fiche.php?person=niedermaier
Niedermaier's name is mentioned here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
-C2.
My acrobat can't read ..
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610018.pdf
Later versions of acrobat seem to crash my PC so I'm stuck with ver 3.0
NF .. are we talking about the same person?
Niedermaier seems OK here
http://www.phys.univ-tours.fr/fiche.php?person=niedermaier
Niedermaier's name is mentioned here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
-C2.
My acrobat can't read ..
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610018.pdf
Later versions of acrobat seem to crash my PC so I'm stuck with ver 3.0
Thanks C2!
Name calling asside. We still have
----------------------------
We are the first “CHILDREN OF THE WEB”. It would be a shame for the “professionals” not to take advantage of the growing numbers of “amateurs” to help them understand/figure out how the universe is made.
We, (the amateurs), are very well equipped to help the “professionals”.
We have the interest, the time to search the WEB and the computer models that have been developed by many amateurs.
Remember the fury that was caused by a geologist, (an amateur), who had the gall to say to the “professionals” that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a rock falling out of the sky.
Today, there is a huge amount of “specialized information” that is on the WEB and available to all the “amateurs”.
Which of these fields of specialized information would help us to understand the universe?
This is where the amateurs can help.
The “amateur” that ends up contributing the most insight could come from the most unexpected “discipline”. It could come from the creator of a XXX simulator or from a gamer.
The “professionals” of today have got to be open to getting their “insights” from any “amateur”.
----------------------------
We are the first “CHILDREN OF THE WEB”. It would be a shame for the “professionals” not to take advantage of the growing numbers of “amateurs” to help them understand/figure out how the universe is made.
We, (the amateurs), are very well equipped to help the “professionals”.
We have the interest, the time to search the WEB and the computer models that have been developed by many amateurs.
Remember the fury that was caused by a geologist, (an amateur), who had the gall to say to the “professionals” that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a rock falling out of the sky.
Today, there is a huge amount of “specialized information” that is on the WEB and available to all the “amateurs”.
Which of these fields of specialized information would help us to understand the universe?
This is where the amateurs can help.
The “amateur” that ends up contributing the most insight could come from the most unexpected “discipline”. It could come from the creator of a XXX simulator or from a gamer.
The “professionals” of today have got to be open to getting their “insights” from any “amateur”.
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.
What have “amateurs” been able to do?
Here is the summary of the “SPOT”?
units
We have identified a basic unit to work with …. A Planck size wave.
The holographic principle implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information.
structures
1. The structures of Hex. and Cubic arrangements, 2D packing and 3D packing has been identified as the basic structure.
2. As a result, we have 6 “waves” to work with in 2D and 12 “waves” to work with in 3D.
3. The Planck Scale Rules are applicable and cannot be violated. As a result it reveals more secrets of the structure.
4. There is a “Planck Volume” which is a void, and that void cannot be occupied for more than a Planck time.
5. The Planck distance imposes a minimum distance on a “Planck Volume” which is greater than a Plank Length.
6. The diameter of a 2D Planck Sphere is greater than one Planck Length.
7. The 3D Planck Sphere is a composite of 12 Planck waves in a dynamic configuration with a diameter equal to 2(3(2 pi )).
8. A solitary wave cannot “live”. Therefore, a “spot”, is a mathematical construct when considered by itself or in isolation. It cannot “live”.
9. The use of “a point” as the origin for gravity is not allowed because nothing is smaller than a Planck Length or a 2D Planck Sphere.
10. We cannot renormalize gravity from a 3D structure. That means that GRAVITY IS FROM A 2D STRUCTURE.
11. The use of “other dimensions” are only “mathematical constructs” to help in determining “dynamic processes”.
12. Scaling can bring the size of the 3D structure to 10^-18.
13. Quantum tunneling can be explained by the ”voids”.
14. Spacetime vacuum is full of these “voids”.
15. The spacetime structure is in equilibrium and presently undetectable. ("kT ln(2)")
16. The vacuum energy could be, ("kT ln(2)"). A Casimir force 'engine'.
17. Due to the “Carnot Cycle” of the 12 waves not being as efficient near “mass” (spacetime curvature) we would get a higher energy reading. Then this inefficiency could be what we call “Dark Matter”.
18. Uncertainty as a mathematical formula has been worked out and must be used on where the waves are located. This was worked out by ….. James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Stochastic Simulation of The Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum
19. The fine structure constant, * = cos(pi/N)/N. This formula gives the value of * to very great
accuracy when N is set equal to 137. * = cos(pi/137)/137 = 7.297351 10−3.
20. A Mathematical approach for using the “SPOT” has been suggested by …. Gerard ’t Hooft at
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
21. There are more “secrets” hidden in the structure. The “professionals should be able to make the relationship and get a different understanding of neutrinos, quarks, "virtual particles", Casimir force, ISL, Big Bang, Black Holes, and Dark Matter, CMBR, etc.
22. All of this “new physics” will have an implication on the understanding of how the universe evolved.
processes
Doing processes, at this stage, would help to reveal more of the other secrets of the structure.
The final dynamics/processes of the structure have not yet been worked out.
We should not discount the possibility that the harmony of those 12 “waves” are being reflected into our everyday experiences…. Such as music.
Are there some of possible models/theories that are being used by the “amateurs” that could help?
Find them…. Bring them to the party with an explanation.
Maybe we will have some fishermen/professionals who will be able to tell us if we have a a “red fish” or something promising for … PLAN “B”.
See you at the party.
Name calling asside. We still have
QUOTE
Of interest to the “professionals". A comparison of all the different ways that the “problem” of gravity are being studied.
----------------------------
We are the first “CHILDREN OF THE WEB”. It would be a shame for the “professionals” not to take advantage of the growing numbers of “amateurs” to help them understand/figure out how the universe is made.
We, (the amateurs), are very well equipped to help the “professionals”.
We have the interest, the time to search the WEB and the computer models that have been developed by many amateurs.
Remember the fury that was caused by a geologist, (an amateur), who had the gall to say to the “professionals” that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a rock falling out of the sky.
Today, there is a huge amount of “specialized information” that is on the WEB and available to all the “amateurs”.
Which of these fields of specialized information would help us to understand the universe?
This is where the amateurs can help.
The “amateur” that ends up contributing the most insight could come from the most unexpected “discipline”. It could come from the creator of a XXX simulator or from a gamer.
The “professionals” of today have got to be open to getting their “insights” from any “amateur”.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Of interest to the “professionals". A comparison of all the different ways that the “problem” of gravity are being studied. |
----------------------------
We are the first “CHILDREN OF THE WEB”. It would be a shame for the “professionals” not to take advantage of the growing numbers of “amateurs” to help them understand/figure out how the universe is made.
We, (the amateurs), are very well equipped to help the “professionals”.
We have the interest, the time to search the WEB and the computer models that have been developed by many amateurs.
Remember the fury that was caused by a geologist, (an amateur), who had the gall to say to the “professionals” that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a rock falling out of the sky.
Today, there is a huge amount of “specialized information” that is on the WEB and available to all the “amateurs”.
Which of these fields of specialized information would help us to understand the universe?
This is where the amateurs can help.
The “amateur” that ends up contributing the most insight could come from the most unexpected “discipline”. It could come from the creator of a XXX simulator or from a gamer.
The “professionals” of today have got to be open to getting their “insights” from any “amateur”.
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.
What have “amateurs” been able to do?
Here is the summary of the “SPOT”?
units
We have identified a basic unit to work with …. A Planck size wave.
The holographic principle implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information.
structures
1. The structures of Hex. and Cubic arrangements, 2D packing and 3D packing has been identified as the basic structure.
2. As a result, we have 6 “waves” to work with in 2D and 12 “waves” to work with in 3D.
3. The Planck Scale Rules are applicable and cannot be violated. As a result it reveals more secrets of the structure.
4. There is a “Planck Volume” which is a void, and that void cannot be occupied for more than a Planck time.
5. The Planck distance imposes a minimum distance on a “Planck Volume” which is greater than a Plank Length.
6. The diameter of a 2D Planck Sphere is greater than one Planck Length.
7. The 3D Planck Sphere is a composite of 12 Planck waves in a dynamic configuration with a diameter equal to 2(3(2 pi )).
8. A solitary wave cannot “live”. Therefore, a “spot”, is a mathematical construct when considered by itself or in isolation. It cannot “live”.
9. The use of “a point” as the origin for gravity is not allowed because nothing is smaller than a Planck Length or a 2D Planck Sphere.
10. We cannot renormalize gravity from a 3D structure. That means that GRAVITY IS FROM A 2D STRUCTURE.
11. The use of “other dimensions” are only “mathematical constructs” to help in determining “dynamic processes”.
12. Scaling can bring the size of the 3D structure to 10^-18.
13. Quantum tunneling can be explained by the ”voids”.
14. Spacetime vacuum is full of these “voids”.
15. The spacetime structure is in equilibrium and presently undetectable. ("kT ln(2)")
16. The vacuum energy could be, ("kT ln(2)"). A Casimir force 'engine'.
17. Due to the “Carnot Cycle” of the 12 waves not being as efficient near “mass” (spacetime curvature) we would get a higher energy reading. Then this inefficiency could be what we call “Dark Matter”.
18. Uncertainty as a mathematical formula has been worked out and must be used on where the waves are located. This was worked out by ….. James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Stochastic Simulation of The Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum
19. The fine structure constant, * = cos(pi/N)/N. This formula gives the value of * to very great
accuracy when N is set equal to 137. * = cos(pi/137)/137 = 7.297351 10−3.
20. A Mathematical approach for using the “SPOT” has been suggested by …. Gerard ’t Hooft at
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
21. There are more “secrets” hidden in the structure. The “professionals should be able to make the relationship and get a different understanding of neutrinos, quarks, "virtual particles", Casimir force, ISL, Big Bang, Black Holes, and Dark Matter, CMBR, etc.
22. All of this “new physics” will have an implication on the understanding of how the universe evolved.
processes
Doing processes, at this stage, would help to reveal more of the other secrets of the structure.
The final dynamics/processes of the structure have not yet been worked out.
We should not discount the possibility that the harmony of those 12 “waves” are being reflected into our everyday experiences…. Such as music.
Are there some of possible models/theories that are being used by the “amateurs” that could help?
Find them…. Bring them to the party with an explanation.
Maybe we will have some fishermen/professionals who will be able to tell us if we have a a “red fish” or something promising for … PLAN “B”.
See you at the party.
Good Day all!
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’.
----------------------------------
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~wu2/paper1/paper1.html
INTRODUCTION TO PERCOLATION THEORY
Junqiao Wu
Mar. 10, 1997
He is using the hex. lattice.
------------------------------------------
http://pos.sissa.it//archive/conferences/0...LAT2005_292.pdf
The glue-ball spectrum of pure percolation
Stefano Lottini_, Ferdinando Gliozzi
Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, Università di Torino and INFN, Sezione di Torino,
Via P. Giuria, 1, I-10125 Torino, Italy
E-mail addresses: lottini@to.infn.it , gliozzi@to.infn.it
XXIIIrd International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory
25-30 July 2005
Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
--------------------------------------
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...p-lat%2F0304012
Vortex critical behavior at the de-confinement phase transition
Kurt Langfeld_
Insitut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at Karlsruhe
D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany.
and
Insitut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at T¨ubingen
Auf der Morgenstelle 14, D-72076 T¨ubingen, Germany.
(Dated: April 15, 2006)
--------------------------------------
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...p-lat%2F0304012
Vortex critical behavior at the de-confinement phase transition
Kurt Langfeld_
Insitut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at Karlsruhe
D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany.
and
Insitut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at T¨ubingen
Auf der Morgenstelle 14, D-72076 T¨ubingen, Germany.
(Dated: April 15, 2006)
The de-confinement phase transition in SU(2) Yang-Mills theory is revisited in the vortex picture.
Defining the world sheets of the confining vortices by maximal center projection, the percolation properties of the vortex lines in the hypercube consisting of the time axis and two spatial axis are studied. Using the percolation cumulant, the temperature for the percolation transition is seen to be in good agreement with the critical temperature of the thermal transition. The finite size scaling function for the cumulant is obtained. The critical index of the finite size scaling function is
consistent with the index of the 3D Ising model.
Any theory which purports certain degrees of freedom of being relevant for confinement should also be able to explain de-confinement at finite temperatures.
Note: M. Niedermaier, in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610018.pdf
The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity
has demonstrated that calculations for 4D (hypercubes) are = to 2D calculations.
------------------------------------
See you at the party.
jal
I can easily incorporate your prose into my “spot”.
The Planck scale creates the “nothing”, the “zero”, the “void”.
You can go around it (tunneling).
You can go partly through it (zigzagging/wave).
But you got to get out before you run out of Planck time.
--------------------------------------
(The following comments are for the beginners.)
There is a way of expressing “prose” more accurately….
Do you remember, in school, being given a paragraph of a “problem?
In order to solve the problem you had to change/represent the sentences to simple symbols…. Letters… a, b, x, y, etc.
It is because it was easier to manipulate those letters in a “formula”.
The “formulas” are the mathematical shorthand that reflect the way the universe function.
After, doing the manipulation you could put in the “numbers”.
One of the purposes of those school exercises was for you to learn how to become “precise” in your thinking.
If someone want to start a thread on how to communicate from “prose” to “Math” and back to “prose”, I’ll sign up as one of the students.
---------------------------------
Eric England
I’m spending a lot of time trying the find the people who have changed “my prose” to “math.”
Find someone who has changed your prose to “math” and bring it to the party.
We both might learn something new.
jal
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’.
----------------------------------
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~wu2/paper1/paper1.html
INTRODUCTION TO PERCOLATION THEORY
Junqiao Wu
Mar. 10, 1997
He is using the hex. lattice.
------------------------------------------
http://pos.sissa.it//archive/conferences/0...LAT2005_292.pdf
The glue-ball spectrum of pure percolation
Stefano Lottini_, Ferdinando Gliozzi
Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, Università di Torino and INFN, Sezione di Torino,
Via P. Giuria, 1, I-10125 Torino, Italy
E-mail addresses: lottini@to.infn.it , gliozzi@to.infn.it
XXIIIrd International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory
25-30 July 2005
Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
QUOTE
We present a high-precision numerical study of 3D random percolation viewed as a confining gauge theory. Using large correlation matrices among multiform Wilson loops we determine the low-lying masses in various spin channels.
The ensemble of the model is described as follows: consider a lattice (that in the following will be three-dimensional simple cubic),
The ensemble of the model is described as follows: consider a lattice (that in the following will be three-dimensional simple cubic),
--------------------------------------
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...p-lat%2F0304012
Vortex critical behavior at the de-confinement phase transition
Kurt Langfeld_
Insitut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at Karlsruhe
D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany.
and
Insitut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at T¨ubingen
Auf der Morgenstelle 14, D-72076 T¨ubingen, Germany.
(Dated: April 15, 2006)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We present a high-precision numerical study of 3D random percolation viewed as a confining gauge theory. Using large correlation matrices among multiform Wilson loops we determine the low-lying masses in various spin channels. The ensemble of the model is described as follows: consider a lattice (that in the following will be three-dimensional simple cubic), |
--------------------------------------
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...p-lat%2F0304012
Vortex critical behavior at the de-confinement phase transition
Kurt Langfeld_
Insitut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at Karlsruhe
D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany.
and
Insitut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at T¨ubingen
Auf der Morgenstelle 14, D-72076 T¨ubingen, Germany.
(Dated: April 15, 2006)
The de-confinement phase transition in SU(2) Yang-Mills theory is revisited in the vortex picture.
Defining the world sheets of the confining vortices by maximal center projection, the percolation properties of the vortex lines in the hypercube consisting of the time axis and two spatial axis are studied. Using the percolation cumulant, the temperature for the percolation transition is seen to be in good agreement with the critical temperature of the thermal transition. The finite size scaling function for the cumulant is obtained. The critical index of the finite size scaling function is
consistent with the index of the 3D Ising model.
Any theory which purports certain degrees of freedom of being relevant for confinement should also be able to explain de-confinement at finite temperatures.
Note: M. Niedermaier, in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610018.pdf
The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity
has demonstrated that calculations for 4D (hypercubes) are = to 2D calculations.
------------------------------------
See you at the party.
jal
Good Morning Everyone!
THERE IS LIGHT
As I struggle through the published paper, I am discovering that there are many scenarios that are being contemplated.
There are multiple versions of “higgs” along with “super partners”, “preons”, “k-k”, and Anyons.
It will take a monumental effort to reach a consensus of what is the best model of the universe.
There is not one scenario that will survive intact after the next generation of experiments at CERN.
The growing numbers of papers dealing with Holography and 2D makes me believe that a 2D approach will prove to be “plan “B” that will be able to unite all of the different approaches.
jal
THERE IS LIGHT As I struggle through the published paper, I am discovering that there are many scenarios that are being contemplated.
There are multiple versions of “higgs” along with “super partners”, “preons”, “k-k”, and Anyons.
It will take a monumental effort to reach a consensus of what is the best model of the universe.
There is not one scenario that will survive intact after the next generation of experiments at CERN.
The growing numbers of papers dealing with Holography and 2D makes me believe that a 2D approach will prove to be “plan “B” that will be able to unite all of the different approaches.
jal
Hi jal,
You know me, I want to get rid of all dimensions, to find a "real" 1 & 0.
A "spot" without an outside, containing a "spot" without an inside.
No environment whatsoever.
One "spot" at the center of another. 0/False at the center of 1/True.
No mass, space, or time.
Now there's an infinite "metaphorical" potential, containing a finite "illusion".
Oh geez, the science guys will be laughing now.
Oh well.
Eric
You know me, I want to get rid of all dimensions, to find a "real" 1 & 0.
A "spot" without an outside, containing a "spot" without an inside.
No environment whatsoever.
One "spot" at the center of another. 0/False at the center of 1/True.
No mass, space, or time.
Now there's an infinite "metaphorical" potential, containing a finite "illusion".
Oh geez, the science guys will be laughing now.
Oh well.
Eric
QUOTE
Eric England
You know me, I want to get rid of all dimensions, to find a "real" 1 & 0.
A "spot" without an outside, containing a "spot" without an inside.
No environment whatsoever.
One "spot" at the center of another. 0/False at the center of 1/True.
No mass, space, or time.
You know me, I want to get rid of all dimensions, to find a "real" 1 & 0.
A "spot" without an outside, containing a "spot" without an inside.
No environment whatsoever.
One "spot" at the center of another. 0/False at the center of 1/True.
No mass, space, or time.
I can easily incorporate your prose into my “spot”.
The Planck scale creates the “nothing”, the “zero”, the “void”.
You can go around it (tunneling).
You can go partly through it (zigzagging/wave).
But you got to get out before you run out of Planck time.
--------------------------------------
(The following comments are for the beginners.)
There is a way of expressing “prose” more accurately….
Do you remember, in school, being given a paragraph of a “problem?
In order to solve the problem you had to change/represent the sentences to simple symbols…. Letters… a, b, x, y, etc.
It is because it was easier to manipulate those letters in a “formula”.
The “formulas” are the mathematical shorthand that reflect the way the universe function.
After, doing the manipulation you could put in the “numbers”.
One of the purposes of those school exercises was for you to learn how to become “precise” in your thinking.
If someone want to start a thread on how to communicate from “prose” to “Math” and back to “prose”, I’ll sign up as one of the students.
---------------------------------
Eric England
I’m spending a lot of time trying the find the people who have changed “my prose” to “math.”
Find someone who has changed your prose to “math” and bring it to the party.
We both might learn something new.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Oct 13 2006, 06:42 PM)
I can easily incorporate your prose into my “spot”.
The Planck scale creates the “nothing”, the “zero”, the “void”.
You can go around it (tunneling).
You can go partly through it (zigzagging/wave).
But you got to get out before you run out of Planck time.
--------------------------------------
(The following comments are for the beginners.)
There is a way of expressing “prose” more accurately….
Do you remember, in school, being given a paragraph of a “problem?
In order to solve the problem you had to change/represent the sentences to simple symbols…. Letters… a, b, x, y, etc.
It is because it was easier to manipulate those letters in a “formula”.
The “formulas” are the mathematical shorthand that reflect the way the universe function.
After, doing the manipulation you could put in the “numbers”.
One of the purposes of those school exercises was for you to learn how to become “precise” in your thinking.
If someone want to start a thread on how to communicate from “prose” to “Math” and back to “prose”, I’ll sign up as one of the students.
---------------------------------
Eric England
I’m spending a lot of time trying the find the people who have changed “my prose” to “math.”
Find someone who has changed your prose to “math” and bring it to the party.
We both might learn something new.
jal
You're babling Jal and so is Eric England. You had serious attitude about math and stuff, now you seem to be joking, arent you? I'll cop on this one Jal.
The Planck scale creates the “nothing”, the “zero”, the “void”.
You can go around it (tunneling).
You can go partly through it (zigzagging/wave).
But you got to get out before you run out of Planck time.
--------------------------------------
(The following comments are for the beginners.)
There is a way of expressing “prose” more accurately….
Do you remember, in school, being given a paragraph of a “problem?
In order to solve the problem you had to change/represent the sentences to simple symbols…. Letters… a, b, x, y, etc.
It is because it was easier to manipulate those letters in a “formula”.
The “formulas” are the mathematical shorthand that reflect the way the universe function.
After, doing the manipulation you could put in the “numbers”.
One of the purposes of those school exercises was for you to learn how to become “precise” in your thinking.
If someone want to start a thread on how to communicate from “prose” to “Math” and back to “prose”, I’ll sign up as one of the students.
---------------------------------
Eric England
I’m spending a lot of time trying the find the people who have changed “my prose” to “math.”
Find someone who has changed your prose to “math” and bring it to the party.
We both might learn something new.
jal
You're babling Jal and so is Eric England. You had serious attitude about math and stuff, now you seem to be joking, arent you? I'll cop on this one Jal.
Jal,
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." – Einstein
If you have a problem with prose, you might want to use it more.
Actually, you can't. Your "spot" has an outside. Mine doesn't. You have to get out of yours before you "run out of Plank time".
__________________
Neil,
I used a 1 & 0. Not the one you're used to, but I used them nevertheless. What does your 1 & 0 tell you? Oh, you'll probably blow the question off, so I'll answer it. I hope you don't mind me making this assumption.
Your 1 & 0 have to be assumed (approximated). Pick either one of them and try to get to the other. It's impossible (infinity). So now, assume both of them and give 1 a +/–, with 0 stuck in the middle. Now use any combination of "finite" numbers to calculate anything you'd like.
All of your calculations will be based on an assumption and infinity still remains problematic.
Mathematics has yet to establish an absolute 1 or 0.
A little prose never hurts.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." – Einstein
If you have a problem with prose, you might want to use it more.
QUOTE
I can easily incorporate your prose into my “spot”.
The Planck scale creates the “nothing”, the “zero”, the “void”.
The Planck scale creates the “nothing”, the “zero”, the “void”.
Actually, you can't. Your "spot" has an outside. Mine doesn't. You have to get out of yours before you "run out of Plank time".
__________________
Neil,
I used a 1 & 0. Not the one you're used to, but I used them nevertheless. What does your 1 & 0 tell you? Oh, you'll probably blow the question off, so I'll answer it. I hope you don't mind me making this assumption.
Your 1 & 0 have to be assumed (approximated). Pick either one of them and try to get to the other. It's impossible (infinity). So now, assume both of them and give 1 a +/–, with 0 stuck in the middle. Now use any combination of "finite" numbers to calculate anything you'd like.
All of your calculations will be based on an assumption and infinity still remains problematic.
Mathematics has yet to establish an absolute 1 or 0.
A little prose never hurts.
QUOTE (Eric England+Oct 14 2006, 12:24 AM)
Your 1 & 0 have to be assumed (approximated). Pick either one of them and try to get to the other. It's impossible (infinity). So now, assume both of them and give 1 a +/–, with 0 stuck in the middle. Now use any combination of "finite" numbers to calculate anything you'd like.
All of your calculations will be based on an assumption and infinity still remains problematic.
Mathematics has yet to establish an absolute 1 or 0.
A little prose never hurts.
Utter mathematical gibberish. You've obviously never studied mathematics, particularly analysis, in any formal way beyond school level. 1 & 0 aren't assumed in maths, they are derived from the basic axioms of maths.
Also, even if you're using something less basic like the Peano axioms, you assume the existence of 0 and then derive the existence of 1, 2, 3, etc along with notions like addition is commutative and then derive multiplication (and it's commutivity for real numbers). It's pretty simple stuff actually (it has to be if I followed it, I'm useless at analysis).
As I also explained to you before, there's plenty of maths dealing with infinity. Once you've given a precise definition to the notion of 'countable infinities' you can precisely show the existence of an infinitely number of fundamentally different infinities.
You say there's assumptions and a lack of precision, yet you assumed the existence of -1, something maths doesn't do, you derive it when trying to construct a field or group involving the natural numbers (every element is required to have an inverse under the binary operation of addition and 1+(-1)=0, so if 1 exists in the field or group, so must -1).
Stop spouting crap of a pseudo-philisophical nature about all these holes in maths in such a basic level, you're wrong. There are ton of books on the derivation of maths from it's axioms, and they go a lot deeper than 1 and 0. If you want to really see it, see if you can get your hands on the Russell and Whitehead book Principia Mathematics (not to be confused with Newton's). They go through the derivation of as much maths as possible from principle axioms. It takes 365 pages to derive the existence of the number 1 !!! It takes that long because they assume practically nothing and do every single step of logic required to make sure there's no room for error.
All of your calculations will be based on an assumption and infinity still remains problematic.
Mathematics has yet to establish an absolute 1 or 0.
A little prose never hurts.
Utter mathematical gibberish. You've obviously never studied mathematics, particularly analysis, in any formal way beyond school level. 1 & 0 aren't assumed in maths, they are derived from the basic axioms of maths.
Also, even if you're using something less basic like the Peano axioms, you assume the existence of 0 and then derive the existence of 1, 2, 3, etc along with notions like addition is commutative and then derive multiplication (and it's commutivity for real numbers). It's pretty simple stuff actually (it has to be if I followed it, I'm useless at analysis).
As I also explained to you before, there's plenty of maths dealing with infinity. Once you've given a precise definition to the notion of 'countable infinities' you can precisely show the existence of an infinitely number of fundamentally different infinities.
You say there's assumptions and a lack of precision, yet you assumed the existence of -1, something maths doesn't do, you derive it when trying to construct a field or group involving the natural numbers (every element is required to have an inverse under the binary operation of addition and 1+(-1)=0, so if 1 exists in the field or group, so must -1).
Stop spouting crap of a pseudo-philisophical nature about all these holes in maths in such a basic level, you're wrong. There are ton of books on the derivation of maths from it's axioms, and they go a lot deeper than 1 and 0. If you want to really see it, see if you can get your hands on the Russell and Whitehead book Principia Mathematics (not to be confused with Newton's). They go through the derivation of as much maths as possible from principle axioms. It takes 365 pages to derive the existence of the number 1 !!! It takes that long because they assume practically nothing and do every single step of logic required to make sure there's no room for error.
AlphaNumeric ...Eric England
Further discussion (Principia Mathematics) should be carried out in the TOE thread from whence it came from.
As for me, .... I'll continue searching and relying on the only math that I know.
jal
...Eric England Further discussion (Principia Mathematics) should be carried out in the TOE thread from whence it came from.
As for me, .... I'll continue searching and relying on the only math that I know.
jal
jal,
It's your thread, so it's your call.
AlphaNumeric,
I'm sticking our discussion into "mathematical implications". Utter gibberish, my arse.
You can't show an absolute 1 or 0, count from one to the other, or actually have anything other than an "infinity of infinites", if your education depended on it. Nor can any of your professors.
WOW! That's a lot of pages to get to somthing that admittedly, ASSUMES SOMETHING.
Let's go over there and you can help me make my case.
Sorry jal, couldn't help myself.
Eric
It's your thread, so it's your call.
AlphaNumeric,
I'm sticking our discussion into "mathematical implications". Utter gibberish, my arse.
You can't show an absolute 1 or 0, count from one to the other, or actually have anything other than an "infinity of infinites", if your education depended on it. Nor can any of your professors.
QUOTE
It takes 365 pages to derive the existence of the number 1 !!! It takes that long because THEY ASSUME PRACTICALLY NOTHING and do every single step of logic required to make sure there's no room for error.
WOW! That's a lot of pages to get to somthing that admittedly, ASSUMES SOMETHING.
Let's go over there and you can help me make my case.
Sorry jal, couldn't help myself.
Eric
Eric England
Thank you ...I'll follow the discussion over there.
jal
Thank you ...I'll follow the discussion over there.
jal
QUOTE (Eric England+Oct 14 2006, 02:12 AM)
jal,
It's your thread, so it's your call.
AlphaNumeric,
I'm sticking our discussion into "mathematical implications". Utter gibberish, my arse.
You can't show an absolute 1 or 0, count from one to the other, or actually have anything other than an "infinity of infinites", if your education depended on it. Nor can any of your professors.
WOW! That's a lot of pages to get to somthing that admittedly, ASSUMES SOMETHING.
Let's go over there and you can help me make my case.
Sorry jal, couldn't help myself.
Eric
I came in int the middle of this converation. What book are you taslking about that took 365 pages to define one?
It's your thread, so it's your call.
AlphaNumeric,
I'm sticking our discussion into "mathematical implications". Utter gibberish, my arse.
You can't show an absolute 1 or 0, count from one to the other, or actually have anything other than an "infinity of infinites", if your education depended on it. Nor can any of your professors.
WOW! That's a lot of pages to get to somthing that admittedly, ASSUMES SOMETHING.
Let's go over there and you can help me make my case.
Sorry jal, couldn't help myself.
Eric
I came in int the middle of this converation. What book are you taslking about that took 365 pages to define one?
Good Day!
Do you have your media player and speakers?
Would you like to see and hear Lee Smolin give his presentation of
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0609/0609109.pdf
Could quantum mechanics be an approximation to another theory?
Lee Smolin
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada,
and
Department of Physics, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
(Dated: September 14, 2006)
In that case go to
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca:81/m...uldResize=False
Make sure that you click on "seminar series" on the left. As of today Lee Smolin is the first paper listed.
Enjoy
jal
Do you have your media player and speakers?
Would you like to see and hear Lee Smolin give his presentation of
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0609/0609109.pdf
Could quantum mechanics be an approximation to another theory?
Lee Smolin
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada,
and
Department of Physics, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
(Dated: September 14, 2006)
In that case go to
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca:81/m...uldResize=False
Make sure that you click on "seminar series" on the left. As of today Lee Smolin is the first paper listed.
Enjoy
jal
QUOTE (jal+Oct 14 2006, 04:02 PM)
Good Day!
Do you have your media player and speakers?
Would you like to see and hear Lee Smolin give his presentation of
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0609/0609109.pdf
Could quantum mechanics be an approximation to another theory?
Lee Smolin
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada,
and
Department of Physics, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
(Dated: September 14, 2006)
In that case go to
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca:81/m...uldResize=False
Make sure that you click on "seminar series" on the left. As of today Lee Smolin is the first paper listed.
Enjoy
jal
Yeah it could be an approximation.
Do you have your media player and speakers?
Would you like to see and hear Lee Smolin give his presentation of
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0609/0609109.pdf
Could quantum mechanics be an approximation to another theory?
Lee Smolin
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada,
and
Department of Physics, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
(Dated: September 14, 2006)
In that case go to
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca:81/m...uldResize=False
Make sure that you click on "seminar series" on the left. As of today Lee Smolin is the first paper listed.
Enjoy
jal
Yeah it could be an approximation.
Hi Neil Farbstein
Lee Smolin dropped a bomb in that talk.
The first was "Strings do not need all of those dimensions to work. They can be on a 2D surface."
Sound like a pretty good decission to me.
Confused2 Lee Smolin gave two examples of fuzzy.
1. uncertainty of position in GR due to time with a light cone.
2. uncertainty of position in (forgot) due to location in space using a light cone.
I found that listening to the talks was too slow for me to get the info that I was searching for.
What I did was to click on a talk and then looked at the slides...then I did a preview of those that caught my attention.
I found that they all had poor "showmanship".
jal
Lee Smolin dropped a bomb in that talk.
The first was "Strings do not need all of those dimensions to work. They can be on a 2D surface."
Sound like a pretty good decission to me.
Confused2 Lee Smolin gave two examples of fuzzy.
1. uncertainty of position in GR due to time with a light cone.
2. uncertainty of position in (forgot) due to location in space using a light cone.
I found that listening to the talks was too slow for me to get the info that I was searching for.
What I did was to click on a talk and then looked at the slides...then I did a preview of those that caught my attention.
I found that they all had poor "showmanship".
jal
QUOTE (jal+Oct 15 2006, 02:19 AM)
..Strings do not need all of those dimensions to work. They can be on a 2D surface...Sound like a pretty good decision to me..
Lee Smolin (& you) probably never heard about M(embrane) theory, Aether foam the less...
Lee Smolin (& you) probably never heard about M(embrane) theory, Aether foam the less...
QUOTE (jal+Oct 14 2006, 11:19 PM)
Hi Neil Farbstein
Lee Smolin dropped a bomb in that talk.
The first was "Strings do not need all of those dimensions to work. They can be on a 2D surface."
Sound like a pretty good decission to me.
Confused2 Lee Smolin gave two examples of fuzzy.
1. uncertainty of position in GR due to time with a light cone.
2. uncertainty of position in (forgot) due to location in space using a light cone.
I found that listening to the talks was too slow for me to get the info that I was searching for.
What I did was to click on a talk and then looked at the slides...then I did a preview of those that caught my attention.
I found that they all had poor "showmanship".
jal
What two dimenional surface? We live in three spatial and one temporal dimension.
Lee Smolin dropped a bomb in that talk.
The first was "Strings do not need all of those dimensions to work. They can be on a 2D surface."
Sound like a pretty good decission to me.
Confused2 Lee Smolin gave two examples of fuzzy.
1. uncertainty of position in GR due to time with a light cone.
2. uncertainty of position in (forgot) due to location in space using a light cone.
I found that listening to the talks was too slow for me to get the info that I was searching for.
What I did was to click on a talk and then looked at the slides...then I did a preview of those that caught my attention.
I found that they all had poor "showmanship".
jal
What two dimenional surface? We live in three spatial and one temporal dimension.
I'm just waiting for the "professionals" to make the next steps and figure out that there is only one possible structure model to chose from without violating the Planck Scale. Then, they will be able to work on a dynamic model.
jal
jal
QUOTE (jal+Oct 15 2006, 05:27 AM)
I'm just waiting for the "professionals" to make the next steps and figure out that there is only one possible structure model to chose from without violating the Planck Scale.
The structure of what do you really talking about? These "professionals" don't believe in some structure of vacuum at all, just the particles, vacuum is simply void for them. You shouldn't expect some particular structure of vacuum/particles, just to compute it. The Universe "doesn't know" about some particular structure predicted by people, everything is the result of some consequences.
BTW Why the Planck scale "cannot be violated"? Who said this?
The structure of what do you really talking about? These "professionals" don't believe in some structure of vacuum at all, just the particles, vacuum is simply void for them. You shouldn't expect some particular structure of vacuum/particles, just to compute it. The Universe "doesn't know" about some particular structure predicted by people, everything is the result of some consequences.
BTW Why the Planck scale "cannot be violated"? Who said this?
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Oct 15 2006, 02:23 AM)
What two dimenional surface? We live in three spatial and one temporal dimension.
NF,
I think the temporal dimension is an illusion created by the 4th dimension as I feel the universe/multiverse is simply n-dimension Eucidean; however from the perspective of each n to n+1 dimension this transit space we label time.
NF,
I think the temporal dimension is an illusion created by the 4th dimension as I feel the universe/multiverse is simply n-dimension Eucidean; however from the perspective of each n to n+1 dimension this transit space we label time.
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Oct 15 2006, 08:14 AM)
...I feel the universe/multiverse is simply n-dimension Eucidean; however from the perspective of each n to n+1 dimension this transit space we label time...
I suppose, the spatial & time dimension duality (i.e. the fact, they're not interchangeable) has a deeper reason in stochastic character of Aether controlled by diffusion of fluctuations. We can even imagine the multidimensional time instead of time, because it's just a matter of wavelength which dimension you'll use for distance and time measurement. For example the bat is using a time interval measurement for space measurement, because the sound has rather low speed with compare of light. We are using a light energy spreading for observations instead, so we prefer the time measurements based on spatial measurements - but this is the only conceptual difference between space and time.
By such way, the time - space duality represents the chaos - organization duality in fact. In the more chaotic volume areas of Aether the time quantity is more pronounced, whereas in the less chaotic (with more spatial gradients controlled by diffusion) the space quantity is more pronounced. The most simplistic example between time and space exchange is the temporary fluctuations of molecules density inside the atmosphere. At the places, where more molecules will met together at the same time, some concentration gradient appears, i.e. the volume are, where the diffusion can take place. Such place can be considered as the nucleation of new space-time with respect of mechanical wave spreading.
The spatial dimensions existence appears rather clear from AWT perspective - during condensation of Aether the dense dynamic foam of gradients appears by the same way, like at the case of (supercritical) vapor condensation. Most of energy spreads through these gradients after than and by such way the spatial metric appears. We can imagine such foam as the result of dynamic exchange (the diffusion) of more chaotic areas of Aether (virtual particles or bubbles) with the more dense and organized ones. Such foam can be modeled easily by particle models controlled by attractive and repulsive forces ("charges") at the some time. We know, these forces are having the origin in the curvature of foam, because the energy spreading along gradients always prefers the shortest and most straight path available, having the character of diffusional concentration leveling.
These gradients inside the foam are behaving exactly like the density gradient of water surface: they serving as the spatial waveguides for energy spreading in transversal waves. This is pretty easy and natural model, it fits all these less or more abstract contemporary theories conceptually and I've no need to change it without serious reason. By such way, the universe appears as rather simple and understandable system, whole its complexity is givened by recursive character of this model. To estimate the true beginning of this model goes far outside the scope of our reality understanding. Don't forget, each the particle or wave concept is based on gradient concept and the gradient concept is unthinkable without further gradients, forming its environment. By such way, whole our reality perceving is infinitely recursive - we cannot imagine the reality without less or more hidden another reality, forming its environment. The understanding of the nature of such environment is the another logical step in understanding of the origin of our Universe.
How to create the chaos density gradient without some less or more continuous field of another underlying gradients? This is pretty tricky question.
I suppose, the spatial & time dimension duality (i.e. the fact, they're not interchangeable) has a deeper reason in stochastic character of Aether controlled by diffusion of fluctuations. We can even imagine the multidimensional time instead of time, because it's just a matter of wavelength which dimension you'll use for distance and time measurement. For example the bat is using a time interval measurement for space measurement, because the sound has rather low speed with compare of light. We are using a light energy spreading for observations instead, so we prefer the time measurements based on spatial measurements - but this is the only conceptual difference between space and time.
By such way, the time - space duality represents the chaos - organization duality in fact. In the more chaotic volume areas of Aether the time quantity is more pronounced, whereas in the less chaotic (with more spatial gradients controlled by diffusion) the space quantity is more pronounced. The most simplistic example between time and space exchange is the temporary fluctuations of molecules density inside the atmosphere. At the places, where more molecules will met together at the same time, some concentration gradient appears, i.e. the volume are, where the diffusion can take place. Such place can be considered as the nucleation of new space-time with respect of mechanical wave spreading.
The spatial dimensions existence appears rather clear from AWT perspective - during condensation of Aether the dense dynamic foam of gradients appears by the same way, like at the case of (supercritical) vapor condensation. Most of energy spreads through these gradients after than and by such way the spatial metric appears. We can imagine such foam as the result of dynamic exchange (the diffusion) of more chaotic areas of Aether (virtual particles or bubbles) with the more dense and organized ones. Such foam can be modeled easily by particle models controlled by attractive and repulsive forces ("charges") at the some time. We know, these forces are having the origin in the curvature of foam, because the energy spreading along gradients always prefers the shortest and most straight path available, having the character of diffusional concentration leveling.
These gradients inside the foam are behaving exactly like the density gradient of water surface: they serving as the spatial waveguides for energy spreading in transversal waves. This is pretty easy and natural model, it fits all these less or more abstract contemporary theories conceptually and I've no need to change it without serious reason. By such way, the universe appears as rather simple and understandable system, whole its complexity is givened by recursive character of this model. To estimate the true beginning of this model goes far outside the scope of our reality understanding. Don't forget, each the particle or wave concept is based on gradient concept and the gradient concept is unthinkable without further gradients, forming its environment. By such way, whole our reality perceving is infinitely recursive - we cannot imagine the reality without less or more hidden another reality, forming its environment. The understanding of the nature of such environment is the another logical step in understanding of the origin of our Universe.
How to create the chaos density gradient without some less or more continuous field of another underlying gradients? This is pretty tricky question.
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Oct 15 2006, 05:14 AM)
NF,
I think the temporal dimension is an illusion created by the 4th dimension as I feel the universe/multiverse is simply n-dimension Eucidean; however from the perspective of each n to n+1 dimension this transit space we label time.
That's an interesting theroy but i dont belive it. Time is different. time passes in one direction. You can treat time like the other dime4nsions mathematically but that is not representative of the real world.
I think the temporal dimension is an illusion created by the 4th dimension as I feel the universe/multiverse is simply n-dimension Eucidean; however from the perspective of each n to n+1 dimension this transit space we label time.
That's an interesting theroy but i dont belive it. Time is different. time passes in one direction. You can treat time like the other dime4nsions mathematically but that is not representative of the real world.
Back to the subject of this thread .....
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
"Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions: The Case of a Closed Universe"
Steven Carlip
jal
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
"Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions: The Case of a Closed Universe"
Steven Carlip
QUOTE
Abstract
In three spacetime dimensions, general relativity drastically simplifies, becoming a “topological” theory with no propagating local degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, many of the difficult conceptual problems of quantizing gravity are still present. In this review, I summarize the rather large body of work that has gone towards quantizing (2+1)-dimensional vacuum gravity in the setting of a spatially closed universe.
In three spacetime dimensions, general relativity drastically simplifies, becoming a “topological” theory with no propagating local degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, many of the difficult conceptual problems of quantizing gravity are still present. In this review, I summarize the rather large body of work that has gone towards quantizing (2+1)-dimensional vacuum gravity in the setting of a spatially closed universe.
jal
I was just looking at your first post jal. Sorry if this is not relevant, 29 pages is too much to catch up on. Personally I'm not a fan of any +1 dimension, but you suggested that the first broken symmetry would be movement in the first dimension. The thing is, before you had any movement, you didn't have any +1 dimension. As soon as you have movement in any of your n dimensions, your +1 dimension has "broken" out.
Farsight
That is one of the subtleties that need to be worked out in the TOE project.
At the very less the term "Big Bang" will dissappear in the TOE project.
The actual mechanism, which are dynamic, are yet to be defined in any Cosmology model.
Hopefully, we will be able to do that in the TOE project.
jal
ps. Right now, I'm trying to understand (studying ) the details in the ref. of my last post.
How the Ricci tensor , and the Weyl tensor could accomplish this movement.
Look up my summary to get a fast idea of what has been presented.
QUOTE
As soon as you have movement in any of your n dimensions, your +1 dimension has "broken" out.
That is one of the subtleties that need to be worked out in the TOE project.
At the very less the term "Big Bang" will dissappear in the TOE project.
The actual mechanism, which are dynamic, are yet to be defined in any Cosmology model.
Hopefully, we will be able to do that in the TOE project.
jal
ps. Right now, I'm trying to understand (studying
) the details in the ref. of my last post.How the Ricci tensor , and the Weyl tensor could accomplish this movement.
Look up my summary to get a fast idea of what has been presented.
Uh, 63 pages jal. I think I'll wait until I'm at work to print that. I did skip to the end though and noticed this:
"The world is not (2+1)-dimensional, and (2+1)-dimensional quantum gravity is certainly not a realistic model of our Universe. Nonetheless, the (2+1)-dimensional model reflects many of the fundamental conceptual issues of real world quantum gravity, and work in this field has provided some valuable insights...
The idea that “frozen time” quantum gravity is a Heisenberg picture corresponding to a fixed-time-slicing Schrodinger picture is a central insight of (2+1)-dimensional gravity...
Like I was saying, I'm not a fan of the +1.
"The world is not (2+1)-dimensional, and (2+1)-dimensional quantum gravity is certainly not a realistic model of our Universe. Nonetheless, the (2+1)-dimensional model reflects many of the fundamental conceptual issues of real world quantum gravity, and work in this field has provided some valuable insights...
The idea that “frozen time” quantum gravity is a Heisenberg picture corresponding to a fixed-time-slicing Schrodinger picture is a central insight of (2+1)-dimensional gravity...
Like I was saying, I'm not a fan of the +1.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 15 2006, 03:06 PM)
I was just looking at your first post jal. Sorry if this is not relevant, 29 pages is too much to catch up on. Personally I'm not a fan of any +1 dimension, but you suggested that the first broken symmetry would be movement in the first dimension. The thing is, before you had any movement, you didn't have any +1 dimension. As soon as you have movement in any of your n dimensions, your +1 dimension has "broken" out.
Great insight.
Great insight.
Should a dimensionless point, with one dimension of location in a spatial extent, have anything to do with the discussion? Geometry 101? Immovable, however, without defining the extent of the spatial extent. I doubt you can define two dimensions, without first defining the spatial extent. Then there can be two-dimensional movement.
Good Day Gentlemen!
By studying the following link and following the references supplied, it will become apparent that the "professionals" are doing a lot of work on a 2D structure and how it can represent our universe.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
"Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions: The Case of a Closed Universe"
Steven Carlip
Bring your evaluation to the party.
See you at the party.
jal
By studying the following link and following the references supplied, it will become apparent that the "professionals" are doing a lot of work on a 2D structure and how it can represent our universe.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
"Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions: The Case of a Closed Universe"
Steven Carlip
QUOTE
Abstract
In three spacetime dimensions, general relativity drastically simplifies, becoming a “topological” theory with no propagating local degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, many of the difficult conceptual problems of quantizing gravity are still present. In this review, I summarize the rather large body of work that has gone towards quantizing (2+1)-dimensional vacuum gravity in the setting of a spatially closed universe.
In three spacetime dimensions, general relativity drastically simplifies, becoming a “topological” theory with no propagating local degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, many of the difficult conceptual problems of quantizing gravity are still present. In this review, I summarize the rather large body of work that has gone towards quantizing (2+1)-dimensional vacuum gravity in the setting of a spatially closed universe.
Bring your evaluation to the party.
See you at the party.
jal
Hi guys, I would like to help with this theory. I know math and physics and computers. I have PHD. Quantum gravity looks complicated, but only from maths. It is simple physics - even easy for young people like us LOL!
I see that they like Ricci curvature to the Weyl tensor, which is interesting. But not from convectional math, because the manifold isn't differencable where the curvature is not infinity. But I might be wrong - but definitely the time isn't right in the topology.
Olaf.
I see that they like Ricci curvature to the Weyl tensor, which is interesting. But not from convectional math, because the manifold isn't differencable where the curvature is not infinity. But I might be wrong - but definitely the time isn't right in the topology.
Olaf.
ParticlePhysics
Take your time ...get familiar with the discussions that we have already done.
The above ref. covers a lot of models.
Maybe you will join us with a contribution for the party 31 Oct. 2006
jal
Take your time ...get familiar with the discussions that we have already done.
The above ref. covers a lot of models.
Maybe you will join us with a contribution for the party 31 Oct. 2006
jal
QUOTE (jal+Oct 15 2006, 06:11 PM)
ParticlePhysics
Take your time ...get familiar with the discussions that we have already done.
The above ref. covers a lot of models.
Maybe you will join us with a contribution for the party 31 Oct. 2006
jal
Helo Jal, I have read this forum for long time. I have read theories, and like most. I would like to add some math to it (which I have prepared if you don't mind) which holds for calculations. Basied on topological argument of the chaos theory (in sometimes) and othertimes on simple calculus of particle physics.
I would like to help, but I need to speak to people about my maths so people can check and understand in it. It is important to understand.
olaf.
Take your time ...get familiar with the discussions that we have already done.
The above ref. covers a lot of models.
Maybe you will join us with a contribution for the party 31 Oct. 2006
jal
Helo Jal, I have read this forum for long time. I have read theories, and like most. I would like to add some math to it (which I have prepared if you don't mind) which holds for calculations. Basied on topological argument of the chaos theory (in sometimes) and othertimes on simple calculus of particle physics.
I would like to help, but I need to speak to people about my maths so people can check and understand in it. It is important to understand.
olaf.
Thanks NF.
jal: I like topological. I can feel topological. But not in 2D. I'll print the paper out tomorrow and read it properly.
PP: What's that about the time not being right? That's a bugbear of mine.
Gotta go. Vino Tinto. Ciao.
jal: I like topological. I can feel topological. But not in 2D. I'll print the paper out tomorrow and read it properly.
PP: What's that about the time not being right? That's a bugbear of mine.
Gotta go. Vino Tinto. Ciao.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 15 2006, 06:24 PM)
jal: I like topological. I can feel topological. But not in 2D. I'll print the paper out tomorrow and read it properly.
PP: What's that about the time not being right? That's a bugbear of mine.
Helo Farsight. I think we will be good thinking together. I also "feel" the topology, even though I know the math. The math is not needed- just thought and shape. Can I ask you a few questions about your thought of topology of time?
It is important, because one of my math models does not work because of tolopgy of time, which suggests something wrong. I think something to do with chaotic transistions into hidden dimensions where we can't measure events.
What do you think?
Olaf.
PP: What's that about the time not being right? That's a bugbear of mine.
Helo Farsight. I think we will be good thinking together. I also "feel" the topology, even though I know the math. The math is not needed- just thought and shape. Can I ask you a few questions about your thought of topology of time?
It is important, because one of my math models does not work because of tolopgy of time, which suggests something wrong. I think something to do with chaotic transistions into hidden dimensions where we can't measure events.
What do you think?
Olaf.
ParticlePhysics!@
The best thing for you to do would be to start a thread.... then we will have a place to look at your "stuff".
Maybe we won't be able to help.
Maybe we will learn more.
jal
The best thing for you to do would be to start a thread.... then we will have a place to look at your "stuff".
Maybe we won't be able to help.
Maybe we will learn more.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Oct 15 2006, 06:34 PM)
ParticlePhysics!@
The best thing for you to do would be to start a thread.... then we will have a place to look at your "stuff".
Maybe we won't be able to help.
Maybe we will learn more.
jal
I start a thread here, on this forum called "Shape of space and time ". Maybe you look?
Olaf.
The best thing for you to do would be to start a thread.... then we will have a place to look at your "stuff".
Maybe we won't be able to help.
Maybe we will learn more.
jal
I start a thread here, on this forum called "Shape of space and time ". Maybe you look?
Olaf.
Hi!
"Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions: The Case of a Closed Universe" by Steven Carlip is a gold mine.
Do you recall….
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
I found another approach.
It uses the Planck scale void created by the six waves.
Unfortunately, for me, I cannot figure out if he has applied the Planck Scale rule.
If your math is good in that area then you can tell me.
If your math is that good then you can write a follow up on his paper and include the Planck Scale restriction.
Then it will be only a small step to go to double hyperbolic tetrahedron for 3D packing.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0305/0305113.pdf
6j SYMBOLS FOR Uq(sl2) AND NON-EUCLIDEAN
TETRAHEDRA
YUKA U. TAYLOR AND CHRISTOPHER T. WOODWARD
13 May 2005
Jal
"Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions: The Case of a Closed Universe" by Steven Carlip is a gold mine.
Do you recall….
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
I found another approach.
It uses the Planck scale void created by the six waves.
Unfortunately, for me, I cannot figure out if he has applied the Planck Scale rule.
If your math is good in that area then you can tell me.
If your math is that good then you can write a follow up on his paper and include the Planck Scale restriction.
Then it will be only a small step to go to double hyperbolic tetrahedron for 3D packing.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0305/0305113.pdf
6j SYMBOLS FOR Uq(sl2) AND NON-EUCLIDEAN
TETRAHEDRA
YUKA U. TAYLOR AND CHRISTOPHER T. WOODWARD
13 May 2005
Jal
I'm sorry to spoil the party, but I highly doubt ANY of you have the firs clue about the highly complex subject that is Quantum Gravity. Infact, I don't just have high amounts of doubt: I don't think ANY of you have the first clue about Quantum Gravity.
You see, QG is an area in which real physicists/mathematicians work. Not a place where internet cranks delve. Now if you could all get back to waving your arms; some of us are waiting to be entertained!
You see, QG is an area in which real physicists/mathematicians work. Not a place where internet cranks delve. Now if you could all get back to waving your arms; some of us are waiting to be entertained!
Euler
You are absolutely right.
AND I'M TRYING TO LEARN WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
Can you help me?
Have you got some links related to the path that I'm following?
Do you have a particular theory/model that you want to share that is related to the path that I'm following?
jal
QUOTE
You see, QG is an area in which real physicists/mathematicians work
You are absolutely right.
AND I'M TRYING TO LEARN WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
Can you help me?
Have you got some links related to the path that I'm following?
Do you have a particular theory/model that you want to share that is related to the path that I'm following?
jal
Euler,
Please see my post here..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=124770
For various reasons many of us can't go to college, whether we have no money or have been born in the wrong country or something else.
Physics IS difficult and does require a lot of maths, just the number of assumptions and notations that each 'field' acquires is bad enough.
At present I think we (on this thread) have got no further than attempting to establish whether or not 'structured space' is a viable (hand waving) option. With all due respect to jal I have to admit that I have seen nothing to convince me that it is .. but the search goes on.
In the process of looking and sniffing at space I (personally) hope that other people will think "I NEED to know about this" and instead of choosing media studies they will choose physics and/or maths.
This isn't an "I'm smarter than you so I win" type of game, nor even an "I'm better educated than you so I win" game .. this is kinda 'life' .. goes on outside colleges and universities .. someone has to milk the goats while other people work on the LHC. 'Research' has to be paid for and it needs to recruit the best people .. starting at the lowest level.
Do you think your attitude (here) is helpful?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Please see my post here..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=124770
For various reasons many of us can't go to college, whether we have no money or have been born in the wrong country or something else.
Physics IS difficult and does require a lot of maths, just the number of assumptions and notations that each 'field' acquires is bad enough.
At present I think we (on this thread) have got no further than attempting to establish whether or not 'structured space' is a viable (hand waving) option. With all due respect to jal I have to admit that I have seen nothing to convince me that it is .. but the search goes on.
In the process of looking and sniffing at space I (personally) hope that other people will think "I NEED to know about this" and instead of choosing media studies they will choose physics and/or maths.
This isn't an "I'm smarter than you so I win" type of game, nor even an "I'm better educated than you so I win" game .. this is kinda 'life' .. goes on outside colleges and universities .. someone has to milk the goats while other people work on the LHC. 'Research' has to be paid for and it needs to recruit the best people .. starting at the lowest level.
Do you think your attitude (here) is helpful?
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 15 2006, 08:33 PM)
For various reasons many of us can't go to college, whether we have no money or have been born in the wrong country or something else.
You've obviously got a connection to the internet - which serves as the worlds largest library. All the education you'll ever need is out there. This goes for anyone else on the forum.
You've obviously got a connection to the internet - which serves as the worlds largest library. All the education you'll ever need is out there. This goes for anyone else on the forum.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 15 2006, 08:33 PM)
Physics IS difficult and does require a lot of maths, just the number of assumptions and notations that each 'field' acquires is bad enough.
So assuming the other people in this thread feel the same, why are you jumping onto topics such as Quantum Gravity? How on earth, given you've admitted the subject is difficult and requires lots of maths, do you expect to jump to cutting edge theories with (in the majority of cases) a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic physics and mathematics?
So assuming the other people in this thread feel the same, why are you jumping onto topics such as Quantum Gravity? How on earth, given you've admitted the subject is difficult and requires lots of maths, do you expect to jump to cutting edge theories with (in the majority of cases) a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic physics and mathematics?
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 15 2006, 08:33 PM)
At present I think we (on this thread) have got no further than attempting to establish whether or not 'structured space' is a viable (hand waving) option. With all due respect to jal I have to admit that I have seen nothing to convince me that it is .. but the search goes on.
So do you assume that the people in this thread will be able to build up the last 200 years of physics indepedently? Why don't you talk of Kepler's laws, or Newton's derivation of elliptical orbits, or just basic calculus. I'd far rather see 1 person hold their hands up and say "I don't quite understand Newton's second law", rather than 100 people jump in together in an armwaving frenzy which hopes to correspond to cutting edge physics.
So do you assume that the people in this thread will be able to build up the last 200 years of physics indepedently? Why don't you talk of Kepler's laws, or Newton's derivation of elliptical orbits, or just basic calculus. I'd far rather see 1 person hold their hands up and say "I don't quite understand Newton's second law", rather than 100 people jump in together in an armwaving frenzy which hopes to correspond to cutting edge physics.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 15 2006, 08:33 PM)
This isn't an "I'm smarter than you so I win" type of game, nor even an "I'm better educated than you so I win" game .. this is kinda 'life' .. goes on outside colleges and universities .. someone has to milk the goats while other people work on the LHC. 'Research' has to be paid for and it needs to recruit the best people .. starting at the lowest level.
If you think ANYONE is going to be recruited into a research position by babbling on an internet forum about the "chaos of the ether underlining the existence of nature" then you're sawly mistaken. As you so rightly pointed out earlier, Physics (and mathematics) can be hard. And to fully grasp what they offer, a lot of work is needed. People (on this forum especially) seem to want to bypass this work by feeling they can get to grips with the most complex theories on the planet by waving their arms.
If you think ANYONE is going to be recruited into a research position by babbling on an internet forum about the "chaos of the ether underlining the existence of nature" then you're sawly mistaken. As you so rightly pointed out earlier, Physics (and mathematics) can be hard. And to fully grasp what they offer, a lot of work is needed. People (on this forum especially) seem to want to bypass this work by feeling they can get to grips with the most complex theories on the planet by waving their arms.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 15 2006, 08:33 PM)
Do you think your attitude (here) is helpful?
If any of you people ever read my posts and think "hold on, he's right - I don't know what I'm on about and maybe I'd have a better chance if I actually went off and learnt something" then I'd be thrilled. But I don't think this is likely to happen very often, because people want the easy option. And throwing ones arms in the air promclaiming a divine understanding of the universe is far easier than taking the time out to learn some very complex physics and mathematics.
And even if it's not that helpful - I gain immense pleasure from exposing idiots.
If any of you people ever read my posts and think "hold on, he's right - I don't know what I'm on about and maybe I'd have a better chance if I actually went off and learnt something" then I'd be thrilled. But I don't think this is likely to happen very often, because people want the easy option. And throwing ones arms in the air promclaiming a divine understanding of the universe is far easier than taking the time out to learn some very complex physics and mathematics.
And even if it's not that helpful - I gain immense pleasure from exposing idiots.
Euler
Help me or leave.
Go talk to the "professionals."
Here is a discussion by the “professionals”
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-76972.html
Noncommutative Geometry
jal
Help me or leave.
Go talk to the "professionals."
Here is a discussion by the “professionals”
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-76972.html
Noncommutative Geometry
jal
QUOTE (jal+Oct 15 2006, 09:09 PM)
Help me or leave.
Yeah, good one.
Yeah, good one.
More on the use of tetrahedron
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408079.pdf
Background independence in a nutshell:
the dynamics of a tetrahedron
Daniele Colosi, Luisa Doplicher, Winston Fairbairn,
Leonardo Modesto, Karim Noui, Carlo Rovelli
May 19, 2006
-------------------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0301/0301113.pdf
Spin Foam Models for Quantum Gravity
Alejandro Perez
Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry,
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802, USA
and
Erwin Schr¨odinger International
Institute for Mathematical Physics
Boltzmanngasse 9,A-1090, Wien, Austria
May 19, 2006
-------------------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0301/0301113.pdf
Spin Foam Models for Quantum Gravity
Alejandro Perez
Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry,
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802, USA
and
Erwin Schr¨odinger International
Institute for Mathematical Physics
Boltzmanngasse 9,A-1090, Wien, Austria
May 19, 2006
Conclusion
The suggestion that quantum gravity should be described in terms of discrete combinatorial structures can be traced all the way back to Einstein
For all these models the common structure arising is given by spin foams: colored 2-complexes where the geometric degrees of freedom are encoded in a fully combinatorial manner. Spin foam models appear as a beautiful realization of Einstein’s idea. There are certainly many difficult open questions and we have tried to point out those which we judge the most important ones.
We hope that new ideas and hard work will continue to contribute to their resolution in he near future.
Confused2.. .but the search goes on.
jal
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408079.pdf
Background independence in a nutshell:
the dynamics of a tetrahedron
Daniele Colosi, Luisa Doplicher, Winston Fairbairn,
Leonardo Modesto, Karim Noui, Carlo Rovelli
May 19, 2006
QUOTE
Abstract
We study how physical information can be extracted from a background independent quantum system. We use an extremely simple ‘minimalist’ system that models a finite region of 3d euclidean quantum spacetime with a single equilateral tetrahedron. We show that the physical information can be expressed as a boundary amplitude. We illustrate how the notions of “evolution”
in a boundary proper-time and “vacuum” can be extracted from the background independent dynamics.
Conclusion
The model has some notable specific features. For instance, energy is bounded from below as well as a from above. This fact was first noticed in 3d quantum gravity by ‘t Hooft [24]. The consequence is that the proper time T itself is quantized, as in loop quantum cosmology [25].
We think that this simple model illustrates how quantum field theory can be defined and consistently interpreted in the absence of a background spacetime. In particular, the formalism and its interpretation are well-defined without the need of selecting a time variable. The relation with an approximate notion of time evolution is also illustrated by this model. The application of these ideas
to full quantum general relativity in four dimensions is of course nontrivial, but this simple example indicates rather clearly a direction for defining observables and obtaining predictions in the general context.
We study how physical information can be extracted from a background independent quantum system. We use an extremely simple ‘minimalist’ system that models a finite region of 3d euclidean quantum spacetime with a single equilateral tetrahedron. We show that the physical information can be expressed as a boundary amplitude. We illustrate how the notions of “evolution”
in a boundary proper-time and “vacuum” can be extracted from the background independent dynamics.
Conclusion
The model has some notable specific features. For instance, energy is bounded from below as well as a from above. This fact was first noticed in 3d quantum gravity by ‘t Hooft [24]. The consequence is that the proper time T itself is quantized, as in loop quantum cosmology [25].
We think that this simple model illustrates how quantum field theory can be defined and consistently interpreted in the absence of a background spacetime. In particular, the formalism and its interpretation are well-defined without the need of selecting a time variable. The relation with an approximate notion of time evolution is also illustrated by this model. The application of these ideas
to full quantum general relativity in four dimensions is of course nontrivial, but this simple example indicates rather clearly a direction for defining observables and obtaining predictions in the general context.
-------------------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0301/0301113.pdf
Spin Foam Models for Quantum Gravity
Alejandro Perez
Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry,
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802, USA
and
Erwin Schr¨odinger International
Institute for Mathematical Physics
Boltzmanngasse 9,A-1090, Wien, Austria
May 19, 2006
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract We study how physical information can be extracted from a background independent quantum system. We use an extremely simple ‘minimalist’ system that models a finite region of 3d euclidean quantum spacetime with a single equilateral tetrahedron. We show that the physical information can be expressed as a boundary amplitude. We illustrate how the notions of “evolution” in a boundary proper-time and “vacuum” can be extracted from the background independent dynamics. Conclusion The model has some notable specific features. For instance, energy is bounded from below as well as a from above. This fact was first noticed in 3d quantum gravity by ‘t Hooft [24]. The consequence is that the proper time T itself is quantized, as in loop quantum cosmology [25]. We think that this simple model illustrates how quantum field theory can be defined and consistently interpreted in the absence of a background spacetime. In particular, the formalism and its interpretation are well-defined without the need of selecting a time variable. The relation with an approximate notion of time evolution is also illustrated by this model. The application of these ideas to full quantum general relativity in four dimensions is of course nontrivial, but this simple example indicates rather clearly a direction for defining observables and obtaining predictions in the general context. |
-------------------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0301/0301113.pdf
Spin Foam Models for Quantum Gravity
Alejandro Perez
Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry,
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802, USA
and
Erwin Schr¨odinger International
Institute for Mathematical Physics
Boltzmanngasse 9,A-1090, Wien, Austria
May 19, 2006
Conclusion
The suggestion that quantum gravity should be described in terms of discrete combinatorial structures can be traced all the way back to Einstein
For all these models the common structure arising is given by spin foams: colored 2-complexes where the geometric degrees of freedom are encoded in a fully combinatorial manner. Spin foam models appear as a beautiful realization of Einstein’s idea. There are certainly many difficult open questions and we have tried to point out those which we judge the most important ones.
We hope that new ideas and hard work will continue to contribute to their resolution in he near future.
Confused2.. .but the search goes on.
jal
Euler,
I had a long post prepared but I think jal covered it in one line.
-C2.
I had a long post prepared but I think jal covered it in one line.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 15 2006, 09:28 PM)
I had a long post prepared but I think jal covered it in one line.
How insightful.
Can I ask what you people hope to extract from recent papers on Quantum Gravity? For instance on page 64 of the second paper just linked to, the author conveys to the reader that the underlying principles behind one of the ideas is to use harmonic analysis on SL(2,C)xSU(1,1)/Z_2. Are you honestly trying to say you follow the arguments used, and the theorems which are refered to?
Obviously the answer is NO. You'd LIKE to understand this stuff, but because you're not willing to put in any effort (where years worth is needed), you'll never understand modern theory.
How insightful.
Can I ask what you people hope to extract from recent papers on Quantum Gravity? For instance on page 64 of the second paper just linked to, the author conveys to the reader that the underlying principles behind one of the ideas is to use harmonic analysis on SL(2,C)xSU(1,1)/Z_2. Are you honestly trying to say you follow the arguments used, and the theorems which are refered to?
Obviously the answer is NO. You'd LIKE to understand this stuff, but because you're not willing to put in any effort (where years worth is needed), you'll never understand modern theory.
For those who can understand
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
Is length quantized?
Another long-standing expectation has been that quantum gravity will lead to discrete, quantized lengths, with a minimum length on the order of the Planck length. Partial results in quantum geometry and spin foam approaches to (2+1)-dimensional quantum gravity suggest that this may be true, but also that the problem is a bit subtle [197 , 251, 241] . The most recent result in this area [130 ] relates the spectrum of lengths to representations of the (2+ 1)-dimensional Lorentz group, which can be discrete or continuous. Freidel et al. argue that spacelike intervals are continuous, while timelike intervals are discrete, with a spectrum of the form . The analysis is a bit tricky, since the length “observables” do not, in general, commute with the Hamiltonian constraint. A first step towards defining truly invariant operators describing distances between point particles supports this picture [215 ], but the results are not yet conclusive.
“Doubly special relativity”
Quantum gravity contains two fundamental dimensionful constants, the Planck length and the speed of light . This has suggested to some that special relativity might itself be altered so that both and are constants. This requires a nonlinear deformation of the Poincaré algebra, and leads to a set of theories collectively called “doubly special relativity” [17, 185, 171] . It has recently been pointed out that (2+1)-dimensional gravity automatically displays such a deformation [197 , 18, 126] . A few attempts have been made to connect this picture to noncommutative spacetime, mainly in the context of point particles [197, 275, 38], but it seems too early to evaluate them.
Quantized geometry
We saw above that there is some evidence for quantization of timelike intervals in (2+ 1)-dimensional gravity. A systematic exploration of this issue might teach us a good deal about differences among approaches to quantization. In particular, it would be very interesting to see whether any corresponding result appears in reduced phase space quantization, Wheeler-DeWitt quantization, or path integral approaches. To address this problem properly, one must introduce genuine observables for quantities such as length and area, either by adding point particles [215] or by looking at shortest geodesics around noncontractible cycles. Note that for the torus universe, the moduli can be considered as ratios of lengths, and there is no sign that these need be discrete. This does not contradict the claims of [130], since the lengths in question are spacelike, but it does suggest an interesting dilemma in Euclidean quantum gravity, where spacelike as well as timelike intervals might naturally be quantized [238] .
One might also hope that a careful analysis of the coupling of matter in 2+1 dimensions could reveal useful details concerning the vacuum energy contribution to , perhaps in a setting that goes beyond the usual effective field theory approach. For example, there is evidence that the matter Hamiltonian is bounded above in (2+1)-dimensional gravity [27] ; perhaps this could cut off radiative contributions to the cosmological constant at an interesting scale.
jal
Obviously the answer is NO. You'd LIKE to understand this stuff, but because you're not willing to put in any effort (where years worth is needed), you'll never understand modern theory.
?
You seem intent on plucking defeat from the jaws of victory, the folly of youth.
'Confused2' .. bit of a clue there .. wouldn't you say? 'Currently posting at a credibility level of' .. another clue? C'mon kiddo .. surely you're not a complete fool. I rely on the site moderators to remove me at the point when I become a liability. Meanwhile I'd like to try to encourage people to go for something I see as 'real' rather than (say) media studies or religion.
More seriously, I would request that you post your support for a physics 101 thread.
-C2.
sawly? .. try 'sorely' (the best dictionary in the world is at your fingertips)
Now do excuse me, but I have to go and get paid to do some proper research...
"hey punk, get me some coffee!"
you are such a loser!
C'mon kiddo .. surely you're not a complete fool.
And just what kind of fool is it that argues with someone who agrees with him?
-C2.
(sorry jal .. couldn't resist it)
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
QUOTE
The Lorentzian dynamical triangulation model can also be translated into a two-matrix model, the so-called ABAB model. The Feynman diagrams of the matrix model correspond to dual graphs of a triangulation, and matrix model amplitudes become particular sums of transfer matrix elements in the gravitational theory [11, 14 , 15 ] . In principle, this connection can be used to solve the gravitational model analytically. While this goal has not yet been achieved (though see [15]), a number of interesting analytical results exist. For example, the matrix model connection can be used to show that Newton’s constant and the cosmological constant are additively renormalized [14], and to analyze the apparent nonrenormalizability of ordinary field theoretical approach
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Lorentzian dynamical triangulation model can also be translated into a two-matrix model, the so-called ABAB model. The Feynman diagrams of the matrix model correspond to dual graphs of a triangulation, and matrix model amplitudes become particular sums of transfer matrix elements in the gravitational theory [11, 14 , 15 ] . In principle, this connection can be used to solve the gravitational model analytically. While this goal has not yet been achieved (though see [15]), a number of interesting analytical results exist. For example, the matrix model connection can be used to show that Newton’s constant and the cosmological constant are additively renormalized [14], and to analyze the apparent nonrenormalizability of ordinary field theoretical approach |
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
Is length quantized?
Another long-standing expectation has been that quantum gravity will lead to discrete, quantized lengths, with a minimum length on the order of the Planck length. Partial results in quantum geometry and spin foam approaches to (2+1)-dimensional quantum gravity suggest that this may be true, but also that the problem is a bit subtle [197 , 251, 241] . The most recent result in this area [130 ] relates the spectrum of lengths to representations of the (2+ 1)-dimensional Lorentz group, which can be discrete or continuous. Freidel et al. argue that spacelike intervals are continuous, while timelike intervals are discrete, with a spectrum of the form . The analysis is a bit tricky, since the length “observables” do not, in general, commute with the Hamiltonian constraint. A first step towards defining truly invariant operators describing distances between point particles supports this picture [215 ], but the results are not yet conclusive.
“Doubly special relativity”
Quantum gravity contains two fundamental dimensionful constants, the Planck length and the speed of light . This has suggested to some that special relativity might itself be altered so that both and are constants. This requires a nonlinear deformation of the Poincaré algebra, and leads to a set of theories collectively called “doubly special relativity” [17, 185, 171] . It has recently been pointed out that (2+1)-dimensional gravity automatically displays such a deformation [197 , 18, 126] . A few attempts have been made to connect this picture to noncommutative spacetime, mainly in the context of point particles [197, 275, 38], but it seems too early to evaluate them.
Quantized geometry
We saw above that there is some evidence for quantization of timelike intervals in (2+ 1)-dimensional gravity. A systematic exploration of this issue might teach us a good deal about differences among approaches to quantization. In particular, it would be very interesting to see whether any corresponding result appears in reduced phase space quantization, Wheeler-DeWitt quantization, or path integral approaches. To address this problem properly, one must introduce genuine observables for quantities such as length and area, either by adding point particles [215] or by looking at shortest geodesics around noncontractible cycles. Note that for the torus universe, the moduli can be considered as ratios of lengths, and there is no sign that these need be discrete. This does not contradict the claims of [130], since the lengths in question are spacelike, but it does suggest an interesting dilemma in Euclidean quantum gravity, where spacelike as well as timelike intervals might naturally be quantized [238] .
One might also hope that a careful analysis of the coupling of matter in 2+1 dimensions could reveal useful details concerning the vacuum energy contribution to , perhaps in a setting that goes beyond the usual effective field theory approach. For example, there is evidence that the matter Hamiltonian is bounded above in (2+1)-dimensional gravity [27] ; perhaps this could cut off radiative contributions to the cosmological constant at an interesting scale.
jal
QUOTE (Euler+)
Obviously the answer is NO. You'd LIKE to understand this stuff, but because you're not willing to put in any effort (where years worth is needed), you'll never understand modern theory.
?
You seem intent on plucking defeat from the jaws of victory, the folly of youth.
'Confused2' .. bit of a clue there .. wouldn't you say? 'Currently posting at a credibility level of' .. another clue? C'mon kiddo .. surely you're not a complete fool. I rely on the site moderators to remove me at the point when I become a liability. Meanwhile I'd like to try to encourage people to go for something I see as 'real' rather than (say) media studies or religion.
More seriously, I would request that you post your support for a physics 101 thread.
-C2.
sawly? .. try 'sorely' (the best dictionary in the world is at your fingertips)
jal, please accept my apologies for further contamination of thread. -C2.
Confused2
... We will keep searching ... and try to understand what the "professionals" have found...
jal
Your signature...is it gone?
... We will keep searching ... and try to understand what the "professionals" have found...
jal
Your signature...is it gone?
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 15 2006, 10:19 PM)
?
You seem intent on plucking defeat from the jaws of victory, the folly of youth.
'Confused2' .. bit of a clue there .. wouldn't you say? 'Currently posting at a credibility level of' .. another clue? C'mon kiddo .. surely you're not a complete fool. I rely on the site moderators to remove me at the point when I become a liability. Meanwhile I'd like to try to encourage people to go for something I see as 'real' rather than (say) media studies or religion.
More seriously, I would request that you post your support for a physics 101 thread.
From the jaws of victory? You actually think you have something? Now come on, only people living on a funny farm are that daft. In regards to my earlier point, are you now trying to make out that you ARE well versed in Harmonic Analysis and understand what that paper presents?
Or, infact, are you living in a dreamworld? Me thinks it is so. Now do excuse me, but I have to go and get paid to do some proper research...
You seem intent on plucking defeat from the jaws of victory, the folly of youth.
'Confused2' .. bit of a clue there .. wouldn't you say? 'Currently posting at a credibility level of' .. another clue? C'mon kiddo .. surely you're not a complete fool. I rely on the site moderators to remove me at the point when I become a liability. Meanwhile I'd like to try to encourage people to go for something I see as 'real' rather than (say) media studies or religion.
More seriously, I would request that you post your support for a physics 101 thread.
From the jaws of victory? You actually think you have something? Now come on, only people living on a funny farm are that daft. In regards to my earlier point, are you now trying to make out that you ARE well versed in Harmonic Analysis and understand what that paper presents?
Or, infact, are you living in a dreamworld? Me thinks it is so. Now do excuse me, but I have to go and get paid to do some proper research...
Now do excuse me, but I have to go and get paid to do some proper research...
"hey punk, get me some coffee!"
you are such a loser!
QUOTE (me to Euler~mancur+)
C'mon kiddo .. surely you're not a complete fool.
And just what kind of fool is it that argues with someone who agrees with him?
-C2.
(sorry jal .. couldn't resist it)
Good Day Confused2....all!
The link that I gave yesterday
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions:The Case of a Closed Universe
Contained a lot of references to other good papers.
I pulled out a few for your info.
There is a definite surge in the interest of looking at 2D to get an understanding of the universe.
If you have not found or prepared anything to bring to the party then look through those papers.
Of course.... I would expect that any "professional" will accompany their "link" with a summary and an indication of what would need to be done to the calculations so that the Planck Scale is not violated.
The Planck Scale is the "lower bound" which prevents you from travelling faster than the speed of light.
See you at the party
jal
The link that I gave yesterday
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions:The Case of a Closed Universe
Contained a lot of references to other good papers.
I pulled out a few for your info.
There is a definite surge in the interest of looking at 2D to get an understanding of the universe.
If you have not found or prepared anything to bring to the party then look through those papers.
Of course.... I would expect that any "professional" will accompany their "link" with a summary and an indication of what would need to be done to the calculations so that the Planck Scale is not violated.
The Planck Scale is the "lower bound" which prevents you from travelling faster than the speed of light.
See you at the party
jal
jal, C2, et al,
No wanting to cause a wrinkle [pun] but maybe just a slight different perspective dealing with the subject above.
http://www.interactions.org/pdf/Quantum_Universe.pdf
BEST to you ALL.
ciao_
yquantum
No wanting to cause a wrinkle [pun] but maybe just a slight different perspective dealing with the subject above.
http://www.interactions.org/pdf/Quantum_Universe.pdf
BEST to you ALL.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (euler~mancur+Oct 16 2006, 06:53 AM)
you are such a loser!
Ouch, now that one hurt. Moving on, I don't seem to have had any response from:
Today is not going to be a good day
Where are the answers to my questions?
------------------------------------------
I HAVE LEARNED FROM THE “PROFESSIONALS”:
The Planck Length is arrived by assuming that the speed of light, (distance/unit of time), is a constant at all scales.
There are no distances smaller than Planck Length.
There is nothing smaller than a Planck size wave.
There is nothing smaller than the Planck scale structure which I have pointed out has been proven by two “professionals”.( Read my thread)
It is impossible to reduce the size of the units of spacetime, (making them 50% smaller would double the speed of light.)
It is impossible to have a distance smaller than the Planck Scale.
A point is impossible.
A point does not exist.
Gravity cannot have R equal to zero.
FROM MY LEARNING:
I’ll accept the M&M experiments.
I’ll accept the light cone.
I’ll accept relativity.
I’ll accept that gravity travels at the speed of light.
I’ll accept SM, QFT.
I’ll accept that there is such a thing as a spacetime structure.
I’ll accept that in the presence of gravity the units of the spacetime structures are changing the path that the light will take.
THEREFORE:
I refuse to accept that anything can go faster than the speed of light.
I refuse to accept any model that does not respect the speed of light (Planck Scale).
I refuse to accept that I’m too ignorant to analyze the effects of the speed of light (the Planck Scale) and the proposed models of quantum gravity.
--------------------------------
I refuse to accept your insults.
----------------------------------
You have insulted my intelligence and the intelligence of all the participants of this forum.
More over, you have insulted the intelligence of every “amateur” who has a higher education/degree who does not work in “quantum gravity”.
I have never seen such a terrible display of immature inflated egos.
Pontification from a pompour old fart are not in vogue ….Grow out of your childishness ….
Challenge the information that the “professionals” have done which I provided for everyone to evaluation.
----------------------------------
Rather than answer a very legitimate question, and helping …you stooped to name calling.
You apologized … then doubled your insults by insulting everybody’s intelligence.
----------------------------------------
Present the proof that you can violate the speed of light (Planck Length)
Show your qualifications… Send me a PM of the papers that you have published on Quantum Gravity.
-------------------------------------------
Where are all the defenders of relativity?
Where are all the defenders of M&M?
Where are all those people that said that it would take 8 minutes for us to notice that the sun was gone?
Where are all the defenders of spacetime?
Where are the defenders of SM, QFT?
Where are all the “professionals” that I quoted?
----------------------------------------------
Are you all going to accept those insults without saying a word?
If you do ….. You might as well close down this forum.
------------------------------------------
I have presented the data, made by the “professionals”.
There is a minimum Planck Scale structure.
It is forbidden to exceed the speed of light. (Planck Scale)
I have repeatedly demonstrated that the Quantum gravity calculations are violating the speed of light (Planck Length) by using a point.
--------------------------------------
Where is your proof that you can go faster than the speed of light. (Violate the Planck Scale)
Why do you refuse to address the question?
Why do you attack everybody’s intelligence?
Why do you refuse to challenge the “professionals”?
I have been presenting this information for a year. (Read my thread)
Prove that the “professionals” are wrong …challenge their work…
Then send me a copy of your published paper.
--------------------------------------
Do not bother to give me a word salad/answer if you do not have the proof.
Get to work or get out of my sandbox/thread.
-------------------------------------------
The party is not going to get cancelled because you refuse to accept the facts that were made by the “professionals” which I presented.
I did not invent anything.
I just presented the information that I gathered from the “professionals”.
--------------------------------------
More proof will be presented at the party.
Not having the formal education does not mean that we are stupid and that we cannot evaluate the models provided by the “professionals”.
---------------------------------------
If you want to know about Neutrinos …. Read this report
It was made by “professionals" for non-professionals.
http://www.sc.doe.gov/henp/np/nsac/docs/nu...port2_final.pdf
If the results from the neutrino experiments are not available for the next round of experiments at CERN, ….How will it affect the compilation of the CERN DATA?
….and the search goes on….Plan “B”
Jal
Ouch, now that one hurt. Moving on, I don't seem to have had any response from:
QUOTE (Euler+)
Can I ask what you people hope to extract from recent papers on Quantum Gravity? For instance on page 64 of the second paper just linked to, the author conveys to the reader that the underlying principles behind one of the ideas is to use harmonic analysis on SL(2,C)xSU(1,1)/Z_2. Are you honestly trying to say you follow the arguments used, and the theorems which are refered to?
Now what to conclude from this silence.... hmmm?
Now what to conclude from this silence.... hmmm?
Euler
If you are going to stay around then I would expect that you would do it with the intent of helping.
We are not professionals.
You know that ... we know that.
We want to understand and if you are not willing to help then leave.
If you are a professional then you have had to do your time in front of a classroom when you were getting your qualifications.
I have repeatedly requested help in asking for explanations... if you are willing to help then I'll learn faster and your presence will be welcomed.
Your choice.
Hi yquantum No wrinkles.
However, let's not change the speed of light.
It would be nice if, in your capacity as a "professional", you would be able to bring an explanation, to the party, that even gravity does not travel faster than light.
When your reduce the Planck Length (by assuming that gravity originated from a point) and keep the speed of light constant you are violating the Planck Length.
jal
If you are going to stay around then I would expect that you would do it with the intent of helping.
We are not professionals.
You know that ... we know that.
We want to understand and if you are not willing to help then leave.
If you are a professional then you have had to do your time in front of a classroom when you were getting your qualifications.
I have repeatedly requested help in asking for explanations... if you are willing to help then I'll learn faster and your presence will be welcomed.
Your choice.
Hi yquantum No wrinkles.
However, let's not change the speed of light.
It would be nice if, in your capacity as a "professional", you would be able to bring an explanation, to the party,
that even gravity does not travel faster than light. When your reduce the Planck Length (by assuming that gravity originated from a point) and keep the speed of light constant you are violating the Planck Length.
jal
jal, et al,
I will give this some thought and see if we can find a proper and good introduction to the fundamental approach of recent research that can be understood to help you on this topic.
My time has been limited but what ever I do I want it to be helpful and constructive in it's concept that has experimental validity that will assist you.
Hope all is well,
ciao_
yquantum
I will give this some thought and see if we can find a proper and good introduction to the fundamental approach of recent research that can be understood to help you on this topic.
My time has been limited but what ever I do I want it to be helpful and constructive in it's concept that has experimental validity that will assist you.
Hope all is well,
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (jal+Oct 16 2006, 04:28 PM)
Euler
If you are going to stay around then I would expect that you would do it with the intent of helping.
We are not professionals.
You know that ... we know that.
We want to understand and if you are not willing to help then leave.
If you are a professional then you have had to do your time in front of a classroom when you were getting your qualifications.
I have repeatedly requested help in asking for explanations... if you are willing to help then I'll learn faster and your presence will be welcomed.
Your choice.
Ok, firstly I apologise for being overly harsh initially, but I still stand by the point I was trying to get across. It is a noble thing, to try and take on the world of physics with very little previous knowldege, but sadly noble becomes naive when you jump into subjects like quantum gravity. It's extremely difficult to even comprehend how advanced this stuff is, if you haven't much knowldege of mathematics and theoretical physics. The basics needed to even get to that level (let alone start understanding it straight off) would be a solid grounding in:
Real Analysis, Linear Algebra, Probability, classical geometry, group theory, dynamics, Rings & Fields, Complex Analysis, Topology, QM (basics using wavefunction approach), PDEs, Fourier analysis, SR, wave theory, Variational Principles, functional analysis, Lagrangian mechanics, QM (dirac formalism), Differential geometry, GR, Lie groups and algebras, Quantum Field Theory, Standard Model Physics.
And these subjects, in my mind, would be the bare minimum needed to get in a position where you can begin to even think about Quantum Gravity! This would take a pretty talented individual quite a few years to get through (at least!). And you'd only be able to started on the beginning of that list with a good grounding in Calculus, complex numbers, vectors, matrices, theory of functions. And this is more or less, just the maths stuff - there'll be lots of mathematical physics I've forgotten to mention! To give you a scale: people with degrees in Maths, Mathematical Physics, Physics, Theoretical physics wouldn't have enough grounding to go straight into something like Quantum Gravity - and these are people who have spent years studying nothing but relevant material!
With this in mind, do you perhaps think that Quantum Gravity is aiming your sights just a little too high to start with? Why not use this place as a source of knowldege, discuss your learning with others, ask for advice etc. Instead of (putting it bluntly) wasting peoples time with talk of Quantum Gravity and suchlike? Even the greats like Einstein, Feynman, von Neumann, Newton, Poincaré, Witten et al started at the basics! So you'd be in good company.
If you are going to stay around then I would expect that you would do it with the intent of helping.
We are not professionals.
You know that ... we know that.
We want to understand and if you are not willing to help then leave.
If you are a professional then you have had to do your time in front of a classroom when you were getting your qualifications.
I have repeatedly requested help in asking for explanations... if you are willing to help then I'll learn faster and your presence will be welcomed.
Your choice.
Ok, firstly I apologise for being overly harsh initially, but I still stand by the point I was trying to get across. It is a noble thing, to try and take on the world of physics with very little previous knowldege, but sadly noble becomes naive when you jump into subjects like quantum gravity. It's extremely difficult to even comprehend how advanced this stuff is, if you haven't much knowldege of mathematics and theoretical physics. The basics needed to even get to that level (let alone start understanding it straight off) would be a solid grounding in:
Real Analysis, Linear Algebra, Probability, classical geometry, group theory, dynamics, Rings & Fields, Complex Analysis, Topology, QM (basics using wavefunction approach), PDEs, Fourier analysis, SR, wave theory, Variational Principles, functional analysis, Lagrangian mechanics, QM (dirac formalism), Differential geometry, GR, Lie groups and algebras, Quantum Field Theory, Standard Model Physics.
And these subjects, in my mind, would be the bare minimum needed to get in a position where you can begin to even think about Quantum Gravity! This would take a pretty talented individual quite a few years to get through (at least!). And you'd only be able to started on the beginning of that list with a good grounding in Calculus, complex numbers, vectors, matrices, theory of functions. And this is more or less, just the maths stuff - there'll be lots of mathematical physics I've forgotten to mention! To give you a scale: people with degrees in Maths, Mathematical Physics, Physics, Theoretical physics wouldn't have enough grounding to go straight into something like Quantum Gravity - and these are people who have spent years studying nothing but relevant material!
With this in mind, do you perhaps think that Quantum Gravity is aiming your sights just a little too high to start with? Why not use this place as a source of knowldege, discuss your learning with others, ask for advice etc. Instead of (putting it bluntly) wasting peoples time with talk of Quantum Gravity and suchlike? Even the greats like Einstein, Feynman, von Neumann, Newton, Poincaré, Witten et al started at the basics! So you'd be in good company.
jal, Euler, et al,
jal by your own omission you wanted some help on this subject as Euler has stated is difficult at best but not impossible to understand the basic premise of some thought in the field.
As we all know it truly depends on who you speak with and the information that seems to have the potential of discovery in better understanding due to the data collected as of this year.
The subject on this post is exponentially growing because of technology, data, creating new ways of experimenting, also many great minds are working day and night in the field for deeper insight dealing with the SM, QFT with its subtle yet profound nuances of possibilities, just to name a few.
I hope this will give you a foot-hole or at least appreciation of the difficulty we all face.
http://www.hep.caltech.edu/~ajw/ph199/
Best to you both and thank you Euler in your effort to guide others to a better understanding of the subject on this Forum.
ciao_
yquantum
jal by your own omission you wanted some help on this subject as Euler has stated is difficult at best but not impossible to understand the basic premise of some thought in the field.
As we all know it truly depends on who you speak with and the information that seems to have the potential of discovery in better understanding due to the data collected as of this year.
The subject on this post is exponentially growing because of technology, data, creating new ways of experimenting, also many great minds are working day and night in the field for deeper insight dealing with the SM, QFT with its subtle yet profound nuances of possibilities, just to name a few.
I hope this will give you a foot-hole or at least appreciation of the difficulty we all face.
http://www.hep.caltech.edu/~ajw/ph199/
Best to you both and thank you Euler in your effort to guide others to a better understanding of the subject on this Forum.
ciao_
yquantum
Just to clarify my interest..
When (if) a reasonably settled model emerges I'd like to try to turn it into a program we can actually run and have a look at. Previous mildly related 'fun' projects have included evolving memory structures from random interconnections, watching dust collecting to form a planet (it didn't) and a communications network using moving nodes (actually buses) to allow signals to hop around until they found their destination.
The 'fun' bit (for me) is watching non-obvious behaviours emerge from (hopefully) a fairly simple starting point.
If Euler feels LQG is so complicated that he can't even begin to describe it (my thanks to him for sharing, I have no reason to doubt his word on this) .. then bye-bye Euler and possibly bye-bye LQG.
One of the most interesting papers (to me) so far has been the holographic theory .. but I can't see how to make it work in 3D.
My thanks to all (most anyway ) who contribute and make this such a fascinating thread to follow.
Best wishes,
-C2.
When (if) a reasonably settled model emerges I'd like to try to turn it into a program we can actually run and have a look at. Previous mildly related 'fun' projects have included evolving memory structures from random interconnections, watching dust collecting to form a planet (it didn't) and a communications network using moving nodes (actually buses) to allow signals to hop around until they found their destination.
The 'fun' bit (for me) is watching non-obvious behaviours emerge from (hopefully) a fairly simple starting point.
If Euler feels LQG is so complicated that he can't even begin to describe it (my thanks to him for sharing, I have no reason to doubt his word on this) .. then bye-bye Euler and possibly bye-bye LQG.
One of the most interesting papers (to me) so far has been the holographic theory .. but I can't see how to make it work in 3D.
My thanks to all (most anyway
) who contribute and make this such a fascinating thread to follow.Best wishes,
-C2.
IMHO the phrase is "Intellectual Arrogance". Euler puts up barriers because his mathematical trappings blind him to what it all means, and he knows it. Come on Euler, prove me wrong. Give me an armchair distillation, a short essay explaining Loop Quantum Gravity. It's about time
you contributed something useful. I don't care if you use google.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-1/
you contributed something useful. I don't care if you use google.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-1/
Today is not going to be a good day Where are the answers to my questions?
------------------------------------------
I HAVE LEARNED FROM THE “PROFESSIONALS”:
The Planck Length is arrived by assuming that the speed of light, (distance/unit of time), is a constant at all scales.
There are no distances smaller than Planck Length.
There is nothing smaller than a Planck size wave.
There is nothing smaller than the Planck scale structure which I have pointed out has been proven by two “professionals”.( Read my thread)
It is impossible to reduce the size of the units of spacetime, (making them 50% smaller would double the speed of light.)
It is impossible to have a distance smaller than the Planck Scale.
A point is impossible.
A point does not exist.
Gravity cannot have R equal to zero.
FROM MY LEARNING:
I’ll accept the M&M experiments.
I’ll accept the light cone.
I’ll accept relativity.
I’ll accept that gravity travels at the speed of light.
I’ll accept SM, QFT.
I’ll accept that there is such a thing as a spacetime structure.
I’ll accept that in the presence of gravity the units of the spacetime structures are changing the path that the light will take.
THEREFORE:
I refuse to accept that anything can go faster than the speed of light.
I refuse to accept any model that does not respect the speed of light (Planck Scale).
I refuse to accept that I’m too ignorant to analyze the effects of the speed of light (the Planck Scale) and the proposed models of quantum gravity.
--------------------------------
I refuse to accept your insults.
----------------------------------
You have insulted my intelligence and the intelligence of all the participants of this forum.
More over, you have insulted the intelligence of every “amateur” who has a higher education/degree who does not work in “quantum gravity”.
I have never seen such a terrible display of immature inflated egos.
Pontification from a pompour old fart are not in vogue ….Grow out of your childishness ….
Challenge the information that the “professionals” have done which I provided for everyone to evaluation.
----------------------------------
Rather than answer a very legitimate question, and helping …you stooped to name calling.
You apologized … then doubled your insults by insulting everybody’s intelligence.
----------------------------------------
Present the proof that you can violate the speed of light (Planck Length)
Show your qualifications… Send me a PM of the papers that you have published on Quantum Gravity.
-------------------------------------------
Where are all the defenders of relativity?
Where are all the defenders of M&M?
Where are all those people that said that it would take 8 minutes for us to notice that the sun was gone?
Where are all the defenders of spacetime?
Where are the defenders of SM, QFT?
Where are all the “professionals” that I quoted?
----------------------------------------------
Are you all going to accept those insults without saying a word?
If you do ….. You might as well close down this forum.
------------------------------------------
I have presented the data, made by the “professionals”.
There is a minimum Planck Scale structure.
It is forbidden to exceed the speed of light. (Planck Scale)
I have repeatedly demonstrated that the Quantum gravity calculations are violating the speed of light (Planck Length) by using a point.
--------------------------------------
Where is your proof that you can go faster than the speed of light. (Violate the Planck Scale)
Why do you refuse to address the question?
Why do you attack everybody’s intelligence?
Why do you refuse to challenge the “professionals”?
I have been presenting this information for a year. (Read my thread)
Prove that the “professionals” are wrong …challenge their work…
Then send me a copy of your published paper.
--------------------------------------
Do not bother to give me a word salad/answer if you do not have the proof.
Get to work or get out of my sandbox/thread.
-------------------------------------------
The party is not going to get cancelled because you refuse to accept the facts that were made by the “professionals” which I presented.
I did not invent anything.
I just presented the information that I gathered from the “professionals”.
--------------------------------------
More proof will be presented at the party.
Not having the formal education does not mean that we are stupid and that we cannot evaluate the models provided by the “professionals”.
---------------------------------------
If you want to know about Neutrinos …. Read this report
It was made by “professionals" for non-professionals.
http://www.sc.doe.gov/henp/np/nsac/docs/nu...port2_final.pdf
If the results from the neutrino experiments are not available for the next round of experiments at CERN, ….How will it affect the compilation of the CERN DATA?
….and the search goes on….Plan “B”
Jal
jal, et al,
I had put in some long hours and I just wanted to see you proceed with your idea without insult from anyone. I did not take sides we all know much is still be be learned in the field of QFT, etc., that is what I meant.
We will see many that think that they have the answers to all question I am not able to say this about myself, but I do know that if they insult we must not react and that was my intention to show by example.
BTW, I have reacted and it does not achieve the goal I had, that they would just leave if they could not keep from insulting and overrunning the post to further there cause.
Some people just do not know how to disagree when put in a corner they will just insult the person they do not agree with.
I wish you the best and I do not think you would give a site or calculation's that would not back up what you have said.
Once again I believe you would not post unless you could show fundamental evidence to support your premise.
ciao_
yquantum
I had put in some long hours and I just wanted to see you proceed with your idea without insult from anyone. I did not take sides we all know much is still be be learned in the field of QFT, etc., that is what I meant.
We will see many that think that they have the answers to all question I am not able to say this about myself, but I do know that if they insult we must not react and that was my intention to show by example.
BTW, I have reacted and it does not achieve the goal I had, that they would just leave if they could not keep from insulting and overrunning the post to further there cause.
Some people just do not know how to disagree when put in a corner they will just insult the person they do not agree with.
I wish you the best and I do not think you would give a site or calculation's that would not back up what you have said.
Once again I believe you would not post unless you could show fundamental evidence to support your premise.
ciao_
yquantum
yquantum ..confused2...Farsight... and all
The sun is shinning and I feel good.
Quantum Geometry is in crying need of a model that has “a lower bound”.
The professional who publishes a paper on the Planck Scale 2D sphere will end up with one of two outcome.
1. It will be ignored, as are 90% of the published papers.
2. It will be the most cited paper in years
It would become the starting point for all the quantum geometry approaches.
It is has everything going for it.
Don’t be a latecomer… nobody remembers who came in second.
Catch the boat….
Catch the next wave of discovery…
Become the leader of the next phase of model building
I predict that it will be published within 12 month.
See how close they are to what I have been saying.
----------------------------
Confused2….
I’m sure that you are intelligent enough to understand the following paper.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0606/0606061.pdf
Gravity: A New Holographic Perspective
T. Padmanabhan
IUCAA, Pune University Campus,
Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007, INDIA
email: nabhan@iucaa.ernet.in
27 June 2006
I’m sure that you are intelligent enough to understand the following paper.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0606/0606061.pdf
Gravity: A New Holographic Perspective
T. Padmanabhan
IUCAA, Pune University Campus,
Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007, INDIA
email: nabhan@iucaa.ernet.in
27 June 2006
We desperately need a guiding principle or symmetry to determine these higher order terms.
So the answer to “why fix it while it works?” is that, if you listen carefully, you hear creaking noises from the machinery all over the place.
4 Conclusions
I have taken a rather deductive approach in the above discussion, raising a set of
issues related to conventional approach to gravity and showing how they lead to
a new perspective based on surface degrees of freedom.
Maybe a "professional" will bring it to the party.
Jal
Today is not going to be a good day
Where are the answers to my questions?
------------------------------------------
I HAVE LEARNED FROM THE “PROFESSIONALS”:
The Planck Length is arrived by assuming that the speed of light, (distance/unit of time), is a constant at all scales.
There are no distances smaller than Planck Length.
There is nothing smaller than a Planck size wave.
There is nothing smaller than the Planck scale structure which I have pointed out has been proven by two “professionals”.( Read my thread)
It is impossible to reduce the size of the units of spacetime, (making them 50% smaller would double the speed of light.)
It is impossible to have a distance smaller than the Planck Scale.
A point is impossible.
A point does not exist.
Gravity cannot have R equal to zero.
FROM MY LEARNING:
I’ll accept the M&M experiments.
I’ll accept the light cone.
I’ll accept relativity.
I’ll accept that gravity travels at the speed of light.
I’ll accept SM, QFT.
I’ll accept that there is such a thing as a spacetime structure.
I’ll accept that in the presence of gravity the units of the spacetime structures are changing the path that the light will take.
THEREFORE:
I refuse to accept that anything can go faster than the speed of light.
I refuse to accept any model that does not respect the speed of light (Planck Scale).
I refuse to accept that I’m too ignorant to analyze the effects of the speed of light (the Planck Scale) and the proposed models of quantum gravity.
--------------------------------
I refuse to accept your insults.
----------------------------------
You have insulted my intelligence and the intelligence of all the participants of this forum.
More over, you have insulted the intelligence of every “amateur” who has a higher education/degree who does not work in “quantum gravity”.
I have never seen such a terrible display of immature inflated egos.
Pontification from a pompour old fart are not in vogue ….Grow out of your childishness ….
Challenge the information that the “professionals” have done which I provided for everyone to evaluation.
----------------------------------
Rather than answer a very legitimate question, and helping …you stooped to name calling.
You apologized … then doubled your insults by insulting everybody’s intelligence.
----------------------------------------
Present the proof that you can violate the speed of light (Planck Length)
Show your qualifications… Send me a PM of the papers that you have published on Quantum Gravity.
-------------------------------------------
Where are all the defenders of relativity?
Where are all the defenders of M&M?
Where are all those people that said that it would take 8 minutes for us to notice that the sun was gone?
Where are all the defenders of spacetime?
Where are the defenders of SM, QFT?
Where are all the “professionals” that I quoted?
----------------------------------------------
Are you all going to accept those insults without saying a word?
If you do ….. You might as well close down this forum.
------------------------------------------
I have presented the data, made by the “professionals”.
There is a minimum Planck Scale structure.
It is forbidden to exceed the speed of light. (Planck Scale)
I have repeatedly demonstrated that the Quantum gravity calculations are violating the speed of light (Planck Length) by using a point.
--------------------------------------
Where is your proof that you can go faster than the speed of light. (Violate the Planck Scale)
Why do you refuse to address the question?
Why do you attack everybody’s intelligence?
Why do you refuse to challenge the “professionals”?
I have been presenting this information for a year. (Read my thread)
Prove that the “professionals” are wrong …challenge their work…
Then send me a copy of your published paper.
--------------------------------------
Do not bother to give me a word salad/answer if you do not have the proof.
Get to work or get out of my sandbox/thread.
-------------------------------------------
The party is not going to get cancelled because you refuse to accept the facts that were made by the “professionals” which I presented.
I did not invent anything.
I just presented the information that I gathered from the “professionals”.
--------------------------------------
More proof will be presented at the party.
Not having the formal education does not mean that we are stupid and that we cannot evaluate the models provided by the “professionals”.
---------------------------------------
If you want to know about Neutrinos …. Read this report
It was made by “professionals" for non-professionals.
http://www.sc.doe.gov/henp/np/nsac/docs/nu...port2_final.pdf
If the results from the neutrino experiments are not available for the next round of experiments at CERN, ….How will it affect the compilation of the CERN DATA?
….and the search goes on….Plan “B”
Jal
I support you goal, but there are ramifications , Jal.
The sun is shinning and I feel good.
Quantum Geometry is in crying need of a model that has “a lower bound”.
The professional who publishes a paper on the Planck Scale 2D sphere will end up with one of two outcome.
1. It will be ignored, as are 90% of the published papers.
2. It will be the most cited paper in years
It would become the starting point for all the quantum geometry approaches.
It is has everything going for it.
Don’t be a latecomer… nobody remembers who came in second.
Catch the boat….
Catch the next wave of discovery…
Become the leader of the next phase of model building
I predict that it will be published within 12 month.
See how close they are to what I have been saying.
----------------------------
Confused2….
QUOTE
One of the most interesting papers (to me) so far has been the holographic theory .. but I can't see how to make it work in 3D.
I’m sure that you are intelligent enough to understand the following paper.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0606/0606061.pdf
Gravity: A New Holographic Perspective
T. Padmanabhan
IUCAA, Pune University Campus,
Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007, INDIA
email: nabhan@iucaa.ernet.in
27 June 2006
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One of the most interesting papers (to me) so far has been the holographic theory .. but I can't see how to make it work in 3D. |
I’m sure that you are intelligent enough to understand the following paper.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0606/0606061.pdf
Gravity: A New Holographic Perspective
T. Padmanabhan
IUCAA, Pune University Campus,
Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007, INDIA
email: nabhan@iucaa.ernet.in
27 June 2006
We desperately need a guiding principle or symmetry to determine these higher order terms.
So the answer to “why fix it while it works?” is that, if you listen carefully, you hear creaking noises from the machinery all over the place.
4 Conclusions
I have taken a rather deductive approach in the above discussion, raising a set of
issues related to conventional approach to gravity and showing how they lead to
a new perspective based on surface degrees of freedom.
Maybe a "professional" will bring it to the party.
Jal
QUOTE (jal+Oct 17 2006, 03:44 PM)
Today is not going to be a good day Where are the answers to my questions?
------------------------------------------
I HAVE LEARNED FROM THE “PROFESSIONALS”:
The Planck Length is arrived by assuming that the speed of light, (distance/unit of time), is a constant at all scales.
There are no distances smaller than Planck Length.
There is nothing smaller than a Planck size wave.
There is nothing smaller than the Planck scale structure which I have pointed out has been proven by two “professionals”.( Read my thread)
It is impossible to reduce the size of the units of spacetime, (making them 50% smaller would double the speed of light.)
It is impossible to have a distance smaller than the Planck Scale.
A point is impossible.
A point does not exist.
Gravity cannot have R equal to zero.
FROM MY LEARNING:
I’ll accept the M&M experiments.
I’ll accept the light cone.
I’ll accept relativity.
I’ll accept that gravity travels at the speed of light.
I’ll accept SM, QFT.
I’ll accept that there is such a thing as a spacetime structure.
I’ll accept that in the presence of gravity the units of the spacetime structures are changing the path that the light will take.
THEREFORE:
I refuse to accept that anything can go faster than the speed of light.
I refuse to accept any model that does not respect the speed of light (Planck Scale).
I refuse to accept that I’m too ignorant to analyze the effects of the speed of light (the Planck Scale) and the proposed models of quantum gravity.
--------------------------------
I refuse to accept your insults.
----------------------------------
You have insulted my intelligence and the intelligence of all the participants of this forum.
More over, you have insulted the intelligence of every “amateur” who has a higher education/degree who does not work in “quantum gravity”.
I have never seen such a terrible display of immature inflated egos.
Pontification from a pompour old fart are not in vogue ….Grow out of your childishness ….
Challenge the information that the “professionals” have done which I provided for everyone to evaluation.
----------------------------------
Rather than answer a very legitimate question, and helping …you stooped to name calling.
You apologized … then doubled your insults by insulting everybody’s intelligence.
----------------------------------------
Present the proof that you can violate the speed of light (Planck Length)
Show your qualifications… Send me a PM of the papers that you have published on Quantum Gravity.
-------------------------------------------
Where are all the defenders of relativity?
Where are all the defenders of M&M?
Where are all those people that said that it would take 8 minutes for us to notice that the sun was gone?
Where are all the defenders of spacetime?
Where are the defenders of SM, QFT?
Where are all the “professionals” that I quoted?
----------------------------------------------
Are you all going to accept those insults without saying a word?
If you do ….. You might as well close down this forum.
------------------------------------------
I have presented the data, made by the “professionals”.
There is a minimum Planck Scale structure.
It is forbidden to exceed the speed of light. (Planck Scale)
I have repeatedly demonstrated that the Quantum gravity calculations are violating the speed of light (Planck Length) by using a point.
--------------------------------------
Where is your proof that you can go faster than the speed of light. (Violate the Planck Scale)
Why do you refuse to address the question?
Why do you attack everybody’s intelligence?
Why do you refuse to challenge the “professionals”?
I have been presenting this information for a year. (Read my thread)
Prove that the “professionals” are wrong …challenge their work…
Then send me a copy of your published paper.
--------------------------------------
Do not bother to give me a word salad/answer if you do not have the proof.
Get to work or get out of my sandbox/thread.
-------------------------------------------
The party is not going to get cancelled because you refuse to accept the facts that were made by the “professionals” which I presented.
I did not invent anything.
I just presented the information that I gathered from the “professionals”.
--------------------------------------
More proof will be presented at the party.
Not having the formal education does not mean that we are stupid and that we cannot evaluate the models provided by the “professionals”.
---------------------------------------
If you want to know about Neutrinos …. Read this report
It was made by “professionals" for non-professionals.
http://www.sc.doe.gov/henp/np/nsac/docs/nu...port2_final.pdf
If the results from the neutrino experiments are not available for the next round of experiments at CERN, ….How will it affect the compilation of the CERN DATA?
….and the search goes on….Plan “B”
Jal
I support you goal, but there are ramifications , Jal.
Given the total avoidance of the points I've made, can I assume that none of you actually have knowledge of the prerequisites I mentioned? I've no doubt that you've read everything Wiki has to offer on the subject: but sadly (for you) these things are QUANTITATIVE subjects.
If you really think you're making progress, and that ANY of your thoughts are profound then send your "results" to a dept in which they work on Quantum Gravity. Infact, I'll go one further: send me an e-mail and I will be sure to pass it on (personally) to the relevant parties at one of the top institutions in the UK.
As I mentioned earlier, all the greats had to start from the basics: it is only the cranks that jump on subjects like "disproving relativity", "Quantum Gravity", "Elementary proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem", "counterexample to Goldbach's Conjecture" with a clear lack of the most basic of concepts. Not only are you people without any form of intelligence, but completely lack the capacity for hard work.
However, it would seem that common sense and rational thought don't sit well in this thread: many of you will no doubt continue to babble on for the rest of your lives in a hope to achieve your dreamworld status of scientist/theoretician. Well, by all means carry on - but let it be known that people are laughing at you (literally).
If you really think you're making progress, and that ANY of your thoughts are profound then send your "results" to a dept in which they work on Quantum Gravity. Infact, I'll go one further: send me an e-mail and I will be sure to pass it on (personally) to the relevant parties at one of the top institutions in the UK.
As I mentioned earlier, all the greats had to start from the basics: it is only the cranks that jump on subjects like "disproving relativity", "Quantum Gravity", "Elementary proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem", "counterexample to Goldbach's Conjecture" with a clear lack of the most basic of concepts. Not only are you people without any form of intelligence, but completely lack the capacity for hard work.
However, it would seem that common sense and rational thought don't sit well in this thread: many of you will no doubt continue to babble on for the rest of your lives in a hope to achieve your dreamworld status of scientist/theoretician. Well, by all means carry on - but let it be known that people are laughing at you (literally).
Good Day!
For the readers who want to get a review of what is being done in gravity, check out http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...06-3/title.html
The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment
Clifford M. Will
McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences
Department of Physics
Washington University
St. Louis, MO 63130, U.S.A.
cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/
jal
For the readers who want to get a review of what is being done in gravity, check out http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...06-3/title.html
The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment
Clifford M. Will
McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences
Department of Physics
Washington University
St. Louis, MO 63130, U.S.A.
cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/
QUOTE
Abstract
The status of experimental tests of general relativity and of theoretical frameworks for analyzing them is reviewed. Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments such as the Eötvös experiment, tests of special relativity, and the gravitational redshift experiment. Ongoing tests of EEP and of the inverse square law are searching for new interactions arising from unification or quantum gravity. Tests of general relativity at the post-Newtonian level have reached high precision, including the light deflection, the Shapiro time delay, the perihelion advance of Mercury, and the Nordtvedt effect in lunar motion. Gravitational wave damping has been detected in an amount that agrees with general relativity to better than half a percent using the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar, and other binary pulsar systems have yielded other tests, especially of strong-field effects. When direct observation of gravitational radiation from astrophysical sources begins, new tests of general relativity will be possible.
The status of experimental tests of general relativity and of theoretical frameworks for analyzing them is reviewed. Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments such as the Eötvös experiment, tests of special relativity, and the gravitational redshift experiment. Ongoing tests of EEP and of the inverse square law are searching for new interactions arising from unification or quantum gravity. Tests of general relativity at the post-Newtonian level have reached high precision, including the light deflection, the Shapiro time delay, the perihelion advance of Mercury, and the Nordtvedt effect in lunar motion. Gravitational wave damping has been detected in an amount that agrees with general relativity to better than half a percent using the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar, and other binary pulsar systems have yielded other tests, especially of strong-field effects. When direct observation of gravitational radiation from astrophysical sources begins, new tests of general relativity will be possible.
jal
yquantum and all!
I did not understand a lot of what was explained…due to my lack of the necessary math background (which I have not pretended to have).
Now, I understand why you feel that Higgs models are the best models.
However, I will still continue with plan “B” because there is ambiguity.
There are a lot of things that are not covered by the SM and the Higgs.
I have a good model to learn more and more about the universe.
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/L...14Strassler.pdf
p. 38….. We are left with a certain ambiguity
_ Maybe fine-tuning is an illusion --- incorrect understanding of theory
_ Maybe fine-tuning is true but achieved through an as-yet unknown mechanism
_ Maybe fine-tuning is a consequence of observers being possible only in weird
corners of the universe that have small Higgs vev and mass
_ Or maybe the standard model really is invalid above 1 TeV
Is there enough neutrino information to be sure of detecting the Higgs?
Is there enough neutrino information to be sure of detecting the Higgs?
Produce P tc in WW, WZ Vector Boson Fusion, though very challenging to detect and study at LHC
Here is the best line of the presentation
See you at the party.
jal
I did not understand a lot of what was explained…due to my lack of the necessary math background (which I have not pretended to have).
Now, I understand why you feel that Higgs models are the best models.
However, I will still continue with plan “B” because there is ambiguity.
There are a lot of things that are not covered by the SM and the Higgs.
I have a good model to learn more and more about the universe.
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/L...14Strassler.pdf
QUOTE
p. 38….. We are left with a certain ambiguity
_ Maybe fine-tuning is an illusion --- incorrect understanding of theory
_ Maybe fine-tuning is true but achieved through an as-yet unknown mechanism
_ Maybe fine-tuning is a consequence of observers being possible only in weird
corners of the universe that have small Higgs vev and mass
_ Or maybe the standard model really is invalid above 1 TeV
Is there enough neutrino information to be sure of detecting the Higgs?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
p. 38….. We are left with a certain ambiguity _ Maybe fine-tuning is an illusion --- incorrect understanding of theory _ Maybe fine-tuning is true but achieved through an as-yet unknown mechanism _ Maybe fine-tuning is a consequence of observers being possible only in weird corners of the universe that have small Higgs vev and mass _ Or maybe the standard model really is invalid above 1 TeV |
Is there enough neutrino information to be sure of detecting the Higgs?
Produce P tc in WW, WZ Vector Boson Fusion, though very challenging to detect and study at LHC
Here is the best line of the presentation
QUOTE
p. 25 … All cosmological constraints have loopholes!!
_ In general, I suggest you listen politely to a theorist giving you a list of cosmological constraints, but ignore the constraints when doing collider analyses!
_ If you assume these constraints, you eliminate the possibility of testing standard cosmology using collider data
– and you might miss a discovery!
_ In general, I suggest you listen politely to a theorist giving you a list of cosmological constraints, but ignore the constraints when doing collider analyses!
_ If you assume these constraints, you eliminate the possibility of testing standard cosmology using collider data
– and you might miss a discovery!
See you at the party.
jal
Good Day everyone!
Well I hope that they are following that advice.
However,.... for the rest of us....
When reading the following papers keep reminding yourself that the only way that this can happen is if the edges and the surfaces are arranged as in my model.
The other important fact is that the authors have not included my latest and most important fact….
You cannot violate the Planck scale.
That will be in their future paper.
Send them an e-mail….they might present their improvement at the party
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0609177
Analytic Results in 2D Causal Dynamical Triangulations: A Review
S. Zohren†
Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University
Leuvenlaan 4, NL-3584 CE Utrecht, The Netherlands
and
Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik E, RWTH-Aachen
D-52056 Aachen, Germany
E-Mail: zohren@physik.rwth-aachen.de
Based on the author’s thesis for the Master of Science in Theoretical Physics, supervised by R. Loll and co-supervised by J. Ambjørn, J. Jers´ak, July 2005.
25 Sep 2006
Well I hope that they are following that advice.
However,.... for the rest of us....
When reading the following papers keep reminding yourself that the only way that this can happen is if the edges and the surfaces are arranged as in my model.
The other important fact is that the authors have not included my latest and most important fact….
You cannot violate the Planck scale.
That will be in their future paper.
Send them an e-mail….they might present their improvement at the party
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0609177
Analytic Results in 2D Causal Dynamical Triangulations: A Review
S. Zohren†
Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University
Leuvenlaan 4, NL-3584 CE Utrecht, The Netherlands
and
Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik E, RWTH-Aachen
D-52056 Aachen, Germany
E-Mail: zohren@physik.rwth-aachen.de
Based on the author’s thesis for the Master of Science in Theoretical Physics, supervised by R. Loll and co-supervised by J. Ambjørn, J. Jers´ak, July 2005.
25 Sep 2006
"We describe the motivation behind the recent formulation of a nonperturbative path integral for Lorentzian quantum gravity defined through Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT). In the case of two dimensions the model is analytically solvable, leading to a genuine continuum theory of quantum gravity whose ground state describes a two-dimensional "universe" completely governed by quantum fluctuations. One observes that two-dimensional Lorentzian and Euclidean quantum gravity are distinct. In the second part of the review we address the question of how to incorporate a sum over space-time topologies in the gravitational path integral. It is shown that, provided suitable causality restrictions are imposed on the path integral histories, there exists a well-defined nonperturbative gravitational path integral including an explicit sum over topologies in the setting of CDT. A complete analytical solution of the quantum continuum dynamics is obtained uniquely by means of a double scaling limit. We show that in the continuum limit there is a finite density of infinitesimal wormholes. (That’s a science fiction word. I call this …not violating the Planck scale) Remarkably, the presence of wormholes leads to a decrease in the effective cosmological constant, reminiscent of the suppression mechanism considered by Coleman and others in the context of a Euclidean path integral formulation of four-dimensional quantum gravity in the continuum. In the last part of the review universality and certain generalizations of the original model are discussed, providing additional evidence that CDT define a genuine continuum theory of two-dimensional Lorentzian quantum gravity.
I'll bring in some more papers on Dynamical Triangulations which should help to inform you on the validity of what I have been presenting.
jal
QUOTE
In general, I suggest you listen politely to a theorist giving you a list of cosmological constraints, but ignore the constraints when doing collider analyses!
Well I hope that they are following that advice.
However,.... for the rest of us....
When reading the following papers keep reminding yourself that the only way that this can happen is if the edges and the surfaces are arranged as in my model.
The other important fact is that the authors have not included my latest and most important fact….
You cannot violate the Planck scale.
That will be in their future paper.
Send them an e-mail….they might present their improvement at the party
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0609177
Analytic Results in 2D Causal Dynamical Triangulations: A Review
S. Zohren†
Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University
Leuvenlaan 4, NL-3584 CE Utrecht, The Netherlands
and
Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik E, RWTH-Aachen
D-52056 Aachen, Germany
E-Mail: zohren@physik.rwth-aachen.de
Based on the author’s thesis for the Master of Science in Theoretical Physics, supervised by R. Loll and co-supervised by J. Ambjørn, J. Jers´ak, July 2005.
25 Sep 2006
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In general, I suggest you listen politely to a theorist giving you a list of cosmological constraints, but ignore the constraints when doing collider analyses! |
Well I hope that they are following that advice.
However,.... for the rest of us....
When reading the following papers keep reminding yourself that the only way that this can happen is if the edges and the surfaces are arranged as in my model.
The other important fact is that the authors have not included my latest and most important fact….
You cannot violate the Planck scale.
That will be in their future paper.
Send them an e-mail….they might present their improvement at the party
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0609177
Analytic Results in 2D Causal Dynamical Triangulations: A Review
S. Zohren†
Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University
Leuvenlaan 4, NL-3584 CE Utrecht, The Netherlands
and
Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik E, RWTH-Aachen
D-52056 Aachen, Germany
E-Mail: zohren@physik.rwth-aachen.de
Based on the author’s thesis for the Master of Science in Theoretical Physics, supervised by R. Loll and co-supervised by J. Ambjørn, J. Jers´ak, July 2005.
25 Sep 2006
"We describe the motivation behind the recent formulation of a nonperturbative path integral for Lorentzian quantum gravity defined through Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT). In the case of two dimensions the model is analytically solvable, leading to a genuine continuum theory of quantum gravity whose ground state describes a two-dimensional "universe" completely governed by quantum fluctuations. One observes that two-dimensional Lorentzian and Euclidean quantum gravity are distinct. In the second part of the review we address the question of how to incorporate a sum over space-time topologies in the gravitational path integral. It is shown that, provided suitable causality restrictions are imposed on the path integral histories, there exists a well-defined nonperturbative gravitational path integral including an explicit sum over topologies in the setting of CDT. A complete analytical solution of the quantum continuum dynamics is obtained uniquely by means of a double scaling limit. We show that in the continuum limit there is a finite density of infinitesimal wormholes. (That’s a science fiction word. I call this …not violating the Planck scale) Remarkably, the presence of wormholes leads to a decrease in the effective cosmological constant, reminiscent of the suppression mechanism considered by Coleman and others in the context of a Euclidean path integral formulation of four-dimensional quantum gravity in the continuum. In the last part of the review universality and certain generalizations of the original model are discussed, providing additional evidence that CDT define a genuine continuum theory of two-dimensional Lorentzian quantum gravity.
I'll bring in some more papers on Dynamical Triangulations which should help to inform you on the validity of what I have been presenting.
jal
Hey jal,
Have you seen J. Ambjørn, J. Jurkiewicz, and R. Loll's recent paper on CDT?
The Universe from Scratch
Have you seen J. Ambjørn, J. Jurkiewicz, and R. Loll's recent paper on CDT?
The Universe from Scratch
QUOTE
Abstract
A fascinating and deep question about nature is what one would see if one could
probe space and time at smaller and smaller distances. Already the 19th-century
founders of modern geometry contemplated the possibility that a piece of empty
space that looks completely smooth and structureless to the naked eye might
have an intricate microstructure at a much smaller scale. Our vastly increased
understanding of the physical world acquired during the 20th century has made
this a certainty. The laws of quantum theory tell us that looking at spacetime
at ever smaller scales requires ever larger energies, and, according to Einstein’s
theory of general relativity, this will alter spacetime itself: it will acquire structure
in the form of curvature. What we still lack is a definitive theory of quantum
gravity to give us a detailed and quantitative description of the highly curved
and quantum-fluctuating geometry of spacetime at this so-called Planck scale. –
This article outlines a particular approach to constructing such a theory, that of
Causal Dynamical Triangulations, and its achievements so far in deriving from
first principles why spacetime is what it is, from the tiniest realms of the quantum
to the large-scale structure of the universe.
A fascinating and deep question about nature is what one would see if one could
probe space and time at smaller and smaller distances. Already the 19th-century
founders of modern geometry contemplated the possibility that a piece of empty
space that looks completely smooth and structureless to the naked eye might
have an intricate microstructure at a much smaller scale. Our vastly increased
understanding of the physical world acquired during the 20th century has made
this a certainty. The laws of quantum theory tell us that looking at spacetime
at ever smaller scales requires ever larger energies, and, according to Einstein’s
theory of general relativity, this will alter spacetime itself: it will acquire structure
in the form of curvature. What we still lack is a definitive theory of quantum
gravity to give us a detailed and quantitative description of the highly curved
and quantum-fluctuating geometry of spacetime at this so-called Planck scale. –
This article outlines a particular approach to constructing such a theory, that of
Causal Dynamical Triangulations, and its achievements so far in deriving from
first principles why spacetime is what it is, from the tiniest realms of the quantum
to the large-scale structure of the universe.
Why Not?
You're good!!
Yes.... I've got it ready somewher for posting... WITH my observations...of course.
I'll be back in a little while.
jal
You're good!!
Yes.... I've got it ready somewher for posting... WITH my observations...of course.
I'll be back in a little while.
jal
Hi Why Not?
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0509/0509010.pdf
The Universe from Scratch
J. Ambjørn, J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll
14 Oct 2006
….However, in order to cut a long story short, there is still not a single theory
of quantum gravity that is both reasonably complete and internally consistent
mathematically.
…..The short-distance cutoff a is an important part of our regularization of the
spacetime geometries in the gravitational propagator. We will take the limit
a → 0 as part of the search for a so-called continuum limit of the path integral
over the regularized geometries.
Note: a … cannot go to zero. It can only go to the Planck scale size. The inside of the equilateral triangles are the Planck scale “void”
Note: a … cannot go to zero. It can only go to the Planck scale size. The inside of the equilateral triangles are the Planck scale “void”
…. As mentioned in footnote 10, all simplices used in DT are equilateral14,
…. Therefore, the topology of the spacetimes contributing to the nonperturbative path integral has to be fixed. It is typically chosen to be a four-dimensional sphere or torus.
… it is from this starting point that the original approach of Dynamical Triangulations proceeded
…. The ensemble of spacetimes underlying the path integral is simulated by Monte Carlo methods [28], generating a random walk in the space of all configurations according to a probability distribution defined by (3).16 The limitations of the computer imply that this procedure can only be implemented on a (possibly large but) finite space of geometric configurations. This is usually taken into account by performing the simulations on the ensemble of triangulations of a fixed discrete volume N4. By repeating the numerical measurements for a variety of different N4’s, one then tries to extrapolate
the results in a systematic way to the physically relevant limit N4 → ∞.
This well-known technique is known as “finite-size scaling”.
…. It should be a geometric object which can be obtained by evolving a purely spatial geometry in time, in such a way that its spatial topology (the way in which
space hangs together) is unchanged as a function of time.
….We have emphasized in the last section the importance of the emergence of classical geometry as a test for potential quantum gravity theories. The dimensionality of spacetime is only one of many quantum observables one may try to evaluate in order to determine the properties of the ground state geometry generated by CDT at various length scales.
Having gathered some nontrivial evidence that CDT’s quantum geometry reproduces well-known aspects of classical general relativity on sufficiently large scales, the main focus of research has to be on what the actual quantum modifications of this structure are.
As we have seen, CDT offers already some tantalizing glimpses of what spacetime may look like at or near the Planck scale.
What remains to be shown is that a single such theory with the correct properties
exists. Because of the minimalist input we have used in our construction
(no new symmetries, no new dynamical fields or other extended objects, no additional spacetime dimensions, and thus no associated new free parameters) we are unlikely to run into the converse, “M-theoretic” problem of having vast numbers of possible vacua [38] and therefore possible theories of quantum gravity,
with a continuum of different physical predictions. The paradigm of spacetime
beginning to emerge from CDT is that of a scale-invariant, fractal and effectively
lower-dimensional structure at the Planck scale, which only at a larger scale acquires well-known features of geometry which accord with our classical intuition.
The deeper reasons for how and why this comes about remain to be understood.
When you are looking at my drawing which shows the Planck Scale locations of the waves (wheel within a wheel ) keep in mind that they are in motion and the uncertainty is the location of where the waves are located and will produce a shape of the “void” which will becomes the following.
All of the “action” is on the exterior. Do not forget that this structure can be scaled up to 10^-18.
I have not seen any study to prevent the scaling of the Planck scale structure.
If this keeps up we will have all of the toy disclosed before the party.
Oh! Well!…. Invite the authors to give their opinions.
I’m keeping my best toy a secret.
jal
Here is the work of an “amateur” that has been completely ignored by the “professionals”.
His work should be the reference manual for quantum geometry
Take the time to look at his index and the pages that might interest you.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s06/p2200.html
Unfortunately.... we cannot invite him to the party.... he passed away.
jal
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0509/0509010.pdf
The Universe from Scratch
J. Ambjørn, J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll
14 Oct 2006
QUOTE
….However, in order to cut a long story short, there is still not a single theory
of quantum gravity that is both reasonably complete and internally consistent
mathematically.
…..The short-distance cutoff a is an important part of our regularization of the
spacetime geometries in the gravitational propagator. We will take the limit
a → 0 as part of the search for a so-called continuum limit of the path integral
over the regularized geometries.
Note: a … cannot go to zero. It can only go to the Planck scale size. The inside of the equilateral triangles are the Planck scale “void”
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
….However, in order to cut a long story short, there is still not a single theory of quantum gravity that is both reasonably complete and internally consistent mathematically. …..The short-distance cutoff a is an important part of our regularization of the spacetime geometries in the gravitational propagator. We will take the limit a → 0 as part of the search for a so-called continuum limit of the path integral over the regularized geometries. |
Note: a … cannot go to zero. It can only go to the Planck scale size. The inside of the equilateral triangles are the Planck scale “void”
…. As mentioned in footnote 10, all simplices used in DT are equilateral14,
…. Therefore, the topology of the spacetimes contributing to the nonperturbative path integral has to be fixed. It is typically chosen to be a four-dimensional sphere or torus.
… it is from this starting point that the original approach of Dynamical Triangulations proceeded
…. The ensemble of spacetimes underlying the path integral is simulated by Monte Carlo methods [28], generating a random walk in the space of all configurations according to a probability distribution defined by (3).16 The limitations of the computer imply that this procedure can only be implemented on a (possibly large but) finite space of geometric configurations. This is usually taken into account by performing the simulations on the ensemble of triangulations of a fixed discrete volume N4. By repeating the numerical measurements for a variety of different N4’s, one then tries to extrapolate
the results in a systematic way to the physically relevant limit N4 → ∞.
This well-known technique is known as “finite-size scaling”.
…. It should be a geometric object which can be obtained by evolving a purely spatial geometry in time, in such a way that its spatial topology (the way in which
space hangs together) is unchanged as a function of time.
….We have emphasized in the last section the importance of the emergence of classical geometry as a test for potential quantum gravity theories. The dimensionality of spacetime is only one of many quantum observables one may try to evaluate in order to determine the properties of the ground state geometry generated by CDT at various length scales.
Having gathered some nontrivial evidence that CDT’s quantum geometry reproduces well-known aspects of classical general relativity on sufficiently large scales, the main focus of research has to be on what the actual quantum modifications of this structure are.
As we have seen, CDT offers already some tantalizing glimpses of what spacetime may look like at or near the Planck scale.
What remains to be shown is that a single such theory with the correct properties
exists. Because of the minimalist input we have used in our construction
(no new symmetries, no new dynamical fields or other extended objects, no additional spacetime dimensions, and thus no associated new free parameters) we are unlikely to run into the converse, “M-theoretic” problem of having vast numbers of possible vacua [38] and therefore possible theories of quantum gravity,
with a continuum of different physical predictions. The paradigm of spacetime
beginning to emerge from CDT is that of a scale-invariant, fractal and effectively
lower-dimensional structure at the Planck scale, which only at a larger scale acquires well-known features of geometry which accord with our classical intuition.
The deeper reasons for how and why this comes about remain to be understood.
When you are looking at my drawing which shows the Planck Scale locations of the waves (wheel within a wheel
) keep in mind that they are in motion and the uncertainty is the location of where the waves are located and will produce a shape of the “void” which will becomes the following.All of the “action” is on the exterior. Do not forget that this structure can be scaled up to 10^-18.
I have not seen any study to prevent the scaling of the Planck scale structure.
If this keeps up we will have all of the toy disclosed before the party.
Oh! Well!…. Invite the authors to give their opinions.
I’m keeping my best toy a secret.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Oct 19 2006, 08:48 PM)
I’m keeping my best toy a secret.
All these closely packed spheres and/or triangles are nice at the first look, but I don't believe in abstract models of structure, just in wave mechanic of dynamic foam, forming the Aether.
Such model fits both these "triangles", both the packed sphere models naturally and it still remains solely physical. The very some foam appears during condensation of supercritical vapor or in Bose-Einstein condensates. This diamond shaped structure appears inside foam, as it supplies an easy mechanism, how to condense such foam by nearly continuous way - by simply adding of new cross-membranes and traverse structures expanding from corner fillets of such foam, where is the highest energy density due the surface tension, i.e. lowest curvature radius.
All these closely packed spheres and/or triangles are nice at the first look, but I don't believe in abstract models of structure, just in wave mechanic of dynamic foam, forming the Aether.
Such model fits both these "triangles", both the packed sphere models naturally and it still remains solely physical. The very some foam appears during condensation of supercritical vapor or in Bose-Einstein condensates. This diamond shaped structure appears inside foam, as it supplies an easy mechanism, how to condense such foam by nearly continuous way - by simply adding of new cross-membranes and traverse structures expanding from corner fillets of such foam, where is the highest energy density due the surface tension, i.e. lowest curvature radius.
It's good that Holography + 2D packing/3D packing + the Planck Scale restrictions are causing you to reflect on your model.
However, do not start to hyperventilate....
What the "professional math kids" will end up producing from this approach will not produce your pictures for any explanations of the universe.
I would be surprised if what I have produced will even get a passing mention by the "professional math kids".
I'll just be happy to get a better understanding of the universe... and a beer
Therefore, keep watching the development of the "spot".
jal
However, do not start to hyperventilate....
What the "professional math kids" will end up producing from this approach will not produce your pictures for any explanations of the universe.
I would be surprised if what I have produced will even get a passing mention by the "professional math kids".
I'll just be happy to get a better understanding of the universe... and a beer
Therefore, keep watching the development of the "spot".
jal
Good Day
One more link ...just to round off the corners heheh
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0505/0505165.pdf
A statistical formalism of Causal Dynamical Triangulations
Mohammad H. Ansari∗ and Fotini Markopoulou†
Perimeter Institute, Waterloo, On, Canada N2L 2Y5
University of Waterloo,Waterloo, On, Canada N2L 3G1
May 24, 2006
This suggest, to me, that the “SPOT” model would be worth investigating.
I wonder,…. out of all the authors that I have quoted, and informed that I had quoted them, which one will be the first to publish?
Good reading... don't forget to send your e-mails....see you at the party
jal
One more link ...just to round off the corners heheh
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0505/0505165.pdf
A statistical formalism of Causal Dynamical Triangulations
Mohammad H. Ansari∗ and Fotini Markopoulou†
Perimeter Institute, Waterloo, On, Canada N2L 2Y5
University of Waterloo,Waterloo, On, Canada N2L 3G1
May 24, 2006
QUOTE
6 Discussion
• There is an analogy between curvature and the hamiltonian of an antiferromagnetic spin system. The reason is that a triangulated 2d flat spacetime corresponds to the case in which the triangles in each time slice alternate between up and down triangles. In the dual spin system this is a configuration in which up spins alternate with down spins. Also, the causality conditions require that the spins alternate between up and down in the timelike direction.
Hence, if the ground state of the gravity theory for small cosmological
constant is locally approximated by flat spacetime, this will correspond to a
configuration of spins which alternates in both the space and time directions.
This suggests that the ground state of the gravity system should resemble the
ground state of a two-dimensional antiferromagnetic system. Whether this
generalizes in higher dimensions will be investigated in future work.
• There is an analogy between curvature and the hamiltonian of an antiferromagnetic spin system. The reason is that a triangulated 2d flat spacetime corresponds to the case in which the triangles in each time slice alternate between up and down triangles. In the dual spin system this is a configuration in which up spins alternate with down spins. Also, the causality conditions require that the spins alternate between up and down in the timelike direction.
Hence, if the ground state of the gravity theory for small cosmological
constant is locally approximated by flat spacetime, this will correspond to a
configuration of spins which alternates in both the space and time directions.
This suggests that the ground state of the gravity system should resemble the
ground state of a two-dimensional antiferromagnetic system. Whether this
generalizes in higher dimensions will be investigated in future work.
This suggest, to me, that the “SPOT” model would be worth investigating.
I wonder,…. out of all the authors that I have quoted, and informed that I had quoted them, which one will be the first to publish?
Good reading... don't forget to send your e-mails....see you at the party
jal
Good Day
Often there are two dates on a paper.
For example
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...ep-ph%2F9912370
FLAVOR ASYMMETRY OF THE SEA QUARK DISTRIBUTIONS
Jen-Chieh Peng and Gerald T. Garvey
May 2, 2006 vs 06 jan 2000 which is on the side.
Physics Division
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA
Is there a reader who can explain the reason for those two different dates?
jal
Often there are two dates on a paper.
For example
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...ep-ph%2F9912370
FLAVOR ASYMMETRY OF THE SEA QUARK DISTRIBUTIONS
Jen-Chieh Peng and Gerald T. Garvey
May 2, 2006 vs 06 jan 2000 which is on the side.
Physics Division
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA
Is there a reader who can explain the reason for those two different dates?
jal
Good Day!
We use two dimensions in the math. ....
Why do you think that it cannot be the real thing?
I’ll let the “professionals” read and decide.
Maybe they will come and leave us a comment at the party.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/9906/9906453.pdf
Paired states of fermions in two dimensions with breaking of parity
and time-reversal symmetries, and the fractional quantum Hall effect
N. Read and Dmitry Green
Departments of Physics and Applied Physics, Yale University,
P.O. Box 208120, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8120
(May 17, 2006)
Party time is getting closer
jal
We use two dimensions in the math. ....
Why do you think that it cannot be the real thing?
I’ll let the “professionals” read and decide.
Maybe they will come and leave us a comment at the party.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/9906/9906453.pdf
Paired states of fermions in two dimensions with breaking of parity
and time-reversal symmetries, and the fractional quantum Hall effect
N. Read and Dmitry Green
Departments of Physics and Applied Physics, Yale University,
P.O. Box 208120, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8120
(May 17, 2006)
Party time is getting closer
jal
Good Day!
You want to come to the party..... you want to add something to the progress of the discussion.... You don't have anything prepared....
Try this link.... pick out a good paper...
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_c...d/0/1/0/all/0/1
jal
You want to come to the party..... you want to add something to the progress of the discussion.... You don't have anything prepared....
Try this link.... pick out a good paper...
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_c...d/0/1/0/all/0/1
jal
QUOTE (jail+Oct 21 2006, 08:23 PM)
Try this link.... pick out a good paper...
The random picking and quotation of articles doesn't replace the understanding of physic, the explanation the less, jail..
How the stupid "Relativity + Special + Deformed" keywords search is related to "Entropy and potential energy topic"? I can introduce thousands of such searches per day for the readers of this forum, but it will not simplify the understanding of physic by any way and it doesn't creates some theory for me.
You're just bringing your topic to the top of history list obstinately and the posts of yours have no other motivation, obviously. But why we should be interested about some topic placement in topic history list? Can it be helpful for us by some way?
I don't think so...
The random picking and quotation of articles doesn't replace the understanding of physic, the explanation the less, jail..
How the stupid "Relativity + Special + Deformed" keywords search is related to "Entropy and potential energy topic"? I can introduce thousands of such searches per day for the readers of this forum, but it will not simplify the understanding of physic by any way and it doesn't creates some theory for me.
You're just bringing your topic to the top of history list obstinately and the posts of yours have no other motivation, obviously. But why we should be interested about some topic placement in topic history list? Can it be helpful for us by some way?
I don't think so...
Here is the work of an “amateur” that has been completely ignored by the “professionals”.
His work should be the reference manual for quantum geometry
Take the time to look at his index and the pages that might interest you.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s06/p2200.html
QUOTE
Tetrahedron has the extraordinary capability of remaining symmetrically coordinate and entertaining 15 pairs of completely disparate rates of change of three different classes of energy behaviors in respect to the rest of Universe and not changing its size. As such, it becomes a universal joint to couple disparate actions in Universe. So we should not be surprised at all to find nature using such a facility and moving around Universe to accommodate all kinds of local transactions, such as coordination in the organic chemistry or in the metals.
Unfortunately.... we cannot invite him to the party.... he passed away.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Oct 21 2006, 09:43 PM)
Here is the work of an “amateur” that has been completely ignored by the “professionals”.
Plzzz consider, the chatting on some anonymous public forum isn't any serious work at all. The work is the activity, for which you CAN obtain some money.
The chatting is just an entertainment - no less, no more.
Plzzz consider, the chatting on some anonymous public forum isn't any serious work at all. The work is the activity, for which you CAN obtain some money.
The chatting is just an entertainment - no less, no more.
Here is a unique application of the double Tetrahedron.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/nucl-th/papers/0309/0309035.pdf
Is it wonderfull how the geometric quantum structure can shows up in our everyday life.
jal
http://arxiv.org/ftp/nucl-th/papers/0309/0309035.pdf
QUOTE
The double tetrahedron structure of the nucleus
Expanding a double tetrahedron formation of equal spheres arranged in fcc structure correlation between the positions of the nucleons and quantum numbers has been detected. The number of protons in the structure is not simply consistent with all the corresponding quantum numbers but also bears the same physical meaning as in quantum mechanics. The detected correlations between lattice positions of the protons and quantum numbers raise the possibility the solid nuclear structure might be able to provide an explanation for the single particle properties of the nuclei.
Expanding a double tetrahedron formation of equal spheres arranged in fcc structure correlation between the positions of the nucleons and quantum numbers has been detected. The number of protons in the structure is not simply consistent with all the corresponding quantum numbers but also bears the same physical meaning as in quantum mechanics. The detected correlations between lattice positions of the protons and quantum numbers raise the possibility the solid nuclear structure might be able to provide an explanation for the single particle properties of the nuclei.
Is it wonderfull how the geometric quantum structure can shows up in our everyday life.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Oct 22 2006, 01:09 AM)
Is it wonderful how the geometric quantum structure can shows up in our everyday life.
The story of the double icosahedron... Of course, it has nothing to do with your drawings or our everyday life..
The story of the double icosahedron... Of course, it has nothing to do with your drawings or our everyday life..
Here is another unique application of the double Tetrahedron.
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-element.asp
The search for the elementary particle
jal
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-element.asp
The search for the elementary particle
QUOTE
Our spherical tetrahedron model shown above is indeed based on this speculation and clearly indicates that the six quarks connecting up the protons & neutrons are equivalent to the six sides of the spherical tetrahedron. Protons and neutrons are just the point effects of their points of intersection, and these types of hadrons can therefore be defined as the intersection point of 3 standing wave planes.
jal
Good Day!
For the late comers… Let’s go through the numbers one more time.
This time take a close look at the work done by the following 3 “professionals”.
You will soon spot the errors of their logic/calculations.
They should have applied simple quantum geometry at the Planck Scale.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0510/0510245.pdf
Self-consistency in Theories with a Minimal Length
S. Hossenfelder
Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9530, USA
E-mail: sabine@physics.ucsb.edu
21 Feb 2006
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9403/9403008.pdf
Quantum gravity and minimum length
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0305/0305019.pdf
Selected topics in Planck-scale physics
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0410/0410122.pdf
THE MINIMAL LENGTH AND LARGE EXTRA DIMENSIONS
All of the above mentioned papers have made one fatal error.
They could not figure out the minimum Planck sphere for 2D or for 3D.
They should have applied simple quantum geometry at the Planck Scale. .
I'm willing to accept that the smallest Planck scale sphere that can exist is when considering 6 waves in 2 dimensional waves.
It is also supported by the fact that in geometry r=3 V= 113.1 A= 113.1
does not work because the 6 waves are only point size on the surface of the volume.
It is necessary to scale the 2D sphere to the minimum size that can accept the area of 6 Planck size waves.
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 and the waves are as a result the minimum Planck length. (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?
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
and
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0305/0305113.pdf
6j SYMBOLS FOR Uq(sl2) AND NON-EUCLIDEAN TETRAHEDRA
YUKA U. TAYLOR AND CHRISTOPHER T. WOODWARD
13 May 2005
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. ( don’t forget the other two waves on the z axis which are not shown.)
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.
In the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle 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.
Lets see …..for 3D… would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? That would mean that it takes 12 waves to make a 3D sphere. Let’s review… 6 waves = 2D packing… 12 waves = 3D packing.
(check my calculations/logic)
Ghee!!!! Thing sure are growing bigger and faster.
How far are we from 10^-18? We have definitely left the Planck Scale.
Since science has not reached the stage of being able to do the dynamic of the waves in motion (time) then we must satisfy ourselves with “snapshots”.
Those snapshots result in the double tetrahedron.
The double tetrahedron is the “Planck void”.
The “waves” are the “outside foundation” of the “house”.
That is the reason that when we look around us that we see so many examples of the double tetrahedron. The “house” is following the shape of the “foundation”.
See you at the party.
JAL
For the late comers… Let’s go through the numbers one more time.
This time take a close look at the work done by the following 3 “professionals”.
You will soon spot the errors of their logic/calculations.
They should have applied simple quantum geometry at the Planck Scale.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0510/0510245.pdf
Self-consistency in Theories with a Minimal Length
S. Hossenfelder
Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9530, USA
E-mail: sabine@physics.ucsb.edu
21 Feb 2006
QUOTE
Abstract.
The aim of this paper is to clarify the relation between three different
approaches of theories with a minimal length scale: A modification of the Lorentz-
group in the ’Deformed Special Relativity’, theories with a ’Generalized Uncertainty
Principle’ and those with ’Modified Dispersion Relations’. It is shown that the first
two are equivalent, how they can be translated into each other, and how the third can
be obtained from them. An adequate theory with a minimal length scale requires all
three features to be present.
4. Conclusions
We have shown that theories with a Generalized Uncertainty Principle are equivalent to these with a Deformed Special Relativity and that they can be obtained from each other in a straightforward way. We have derived how both result in a modified version of the dispersion relation, which needs not necessarily imply a varying speed of light.
The explicit translations between the existing approaches have been given. Provided that all three modifications are made together, the framework is self-consistent and can be used to extend the Standard Model.
The aim of this paper is to clarify the relation between three different
approaches of theories with a minimal length scale: A modification of the Lorentz-
group in the ’Deformed Special Relativity’, theories with a ’Generalized Uncertainty
Principle’ and those with ’Modified Dispersion Relations’. It is shown that the first
two are equivalent, how they can be translated into each other, and how the third can
be obtained from them. An adequate theory with a minimal length scale requires all
three features to be present.
4. Conclusions
We have shown that theories with a Generalized Uncertainty Principle are equivalent to these with a Deformed Special Relativity and that they can be obtained from each other in a straightforward way. We have derived how both result in a modified version of the dispersion relation, which needs not necessarily imply a varying speed of light.
The explicit translations between the existing approaches have been given. Provided that all three modifications are made together, the framework is self-consistent and can be used to extend the Standard Model.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9403/9403008.pdf
Quantum gravity and minimum length
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0305/0305019.pdf
Selected topics in Planck-scale physics
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0410/0410122.pdf
THE MINIMAL LENGTH AND LARGE EXTRA DIMENSIONS
All of the above mentioned papers have made one fatal error.
They could not figure out the minimum Planck sphere for 2D or for 3D.
They should have applied simple quantum geometry at the Planck Scale. .
I'm willing to accept that the smallest Planck scale sphere that can exist is when considering 6 waves in 2 dimensional waves.
It is also supported by the fact that in geometry r=3 V= 113.1 A= 113.1
does not work because the 6 waves are only point size on the surface of the volume.
It is necessary to scale the 2D sphere to the minimum size that can accept the area of 6 Planck size waves.
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 and the waves are as a result the minimum Planck length. (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?
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
and
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0305/0305113.pdf
6j SYMBOLS FOR Uq(sl2) AND NON-EUCLIDEAN TETRAHEDRA
YUKA U. TAYLOR AND CHRISTOPHER T. WOODWARD
13 May 2005
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. ( don’t forget the other two waves on the z axis which are not shown.)
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.
In the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle 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.
Lets see …..for 3D… would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? That would mean that it takes 12 waves to make a 3D sphere. Let’s review… 6 waves = 2D packing… 12 waves = 3D packing.
(check my calculations/logic)
Ghee!!!! Thing sure are growing bigger and faster.
How far are we from 10^-18? We have definitely left the Planck Scale.
Since science has not reached the stage of being able to do the dynamic of the waves in motion (time) then we must satisfy ourselves with “snapshots”.
Those snapshots result in the double tetrahedron.
The double tetrahedron is the “Planck void”.
The “waves” are the “outside foundation” of the “house”.
That is the reason that when we look around us that we see so many examples of the double tetrahedron. The “house” is following the shape of the “foundation”.
See you at the party.
JAL
Good Day!
SCALING... such a small word.
This is a job/application for the “math kids”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_transformations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_transformations
In mathematics, a linear transformation (also called linear map or linear operator) is a function between two vector spaces that preserves the operations of vector addition and scalar multiplication.
In the language of abstract algebra, a linear transformation is a homomorphism of vector spaces, or a morphism in the category of vector spaces over a given field.
When applying scaling from the minimum Planck length and the minimum Planck time we are imposing a “scaling scale”. It is a linear transformation because we are in 2D.
It is easy to notice that if you double the Planck area and then wrap it to make a sphere you do not have a unit number for the radius. Therefore, this begs the question, “which unit numbers do we need to preserve?” The radius or the area?
Is there a “scaling scale” up to 10^-18 and then does it transform itself into another “scaling scale”?
Would it be one of the “scaling scale” which reproduces the ISL?
Would the “scaling scale” be able to reproduce the “light spectrum”?
I would think that this task should be simpler than what string theories are trying to do.
The “scaling scale” has to be the right one that reproduces our experimental observations and our everyday world. Hehehe the Planck scale “void”.
The shape of the “foundation” is visible/reflected/observable in the shape of the “house”.
See you at the party.
JAL
SCALING... such a small word.
This is a job/application for the “math kids”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaling
QUOTE
The term scaling can have several meanings:
• it can be defined as the determination of the interdependency of variables in a physical system. It involves a combination of dimensional analysis and physical reasoning, and typically requires an appreciation, or intuition of physical systems. It can, however, be used to great advantage in solving otherwise intractable problems. See also Similitude (model) and nondimensionalization.
• in geometry can refer to linear transformations.
• it can be defined as the determination of the interdependency of variables in a physical system. It involves a combination of dimensional analysis and physical reasoning, and typically requires an appreciation, or intuition of physical systems. It can, however, be used to great advantage in solving otherwise intractable problems. See also Similitude (model) and nondimensionalization.
• in geometry can refer to linear transformations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_transformations
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The term scaling can have several meanings: • it can be defined as the determination of the interdependency of variables in a physical system. It involves a combination of dimensional analysis and physical reasoning, and typically requires an appreciation, or intuition of physical systems. It can, however, be used to great advantage in solving otherwise intractable problems. See also Similitude (model) and nondimensionalization. • in geometry can refer to linear transformations. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_transformations
In mathematics, a linear transformation (also called linear map or linear operator) is a function between two vector spaces that preserves the operations of vector addition and scalar multiplication.
In the language of abstract algebra, a linear transformation is a homomorphism of vector spaces, or a morphism in the category of vector spaces over a given field.
When applying scaling from the minimum Planck length and the minimum Planck time we are imposing a “scaling scale”. It is a linear transformation because we are in 2D.
It is easy to notice that if you double the Planck area and then wrap it to make a sphere you do not have a unit number for the radius. Therefore, this begs the question, “which unit numbers do we need to preserve?” The radius or the area?
Is there a “scaling scale” up to 10^-18 and then does it transform itself into another “scaling scale”?
Would it be one of the “scaling scale” which reproduces the ISL?
Would the “scaling scale” be able to reproduce the “light spectrum”?
I would think that this task should be simpler than what string theories are trying to do.
The “scaling scale” has to be the right one that reproduces our experimental observations and our everyday world. Hehehe
the Planck scale “void”.The shape of the “foundation” is visible/reflected/observable in the shape of the “house”.
See you at the party.
JAL
Hi jal,
Here ..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=27
Chapter 4 (posssibly 5) might be helpful
Best wishes,
-C2 .
Here ..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=27
Chapter 4 (posssibly 5) might be helpful
Best wishes,
-C2
.
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.