To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

jal
ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY---SHAPE OF SPACE

I want to approach this subject from a different angle. In relationship to spacetime NOT PARTICLES. By-the-way, all proposed theories must be able to explain the ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY.
With entropy at 0.0%,
It would be required that there not be any freedom of movement. Therefore, we would be referring to a solid ball with no change of distances, no change of dimensions and no time. Everything would be symmetrical. All dimensions would be either unreachable or occupied. There would be no movement and no change. Nothing can happen.
Also,
Potential energy would be at 100.0%.
What I want to do is to see if there are logical step to get us to the opposite end of the scale where entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%. This would be where all dimensions are empty and reachable. Therefore, nothing could happen.
All symmetry would be gone. This would be a full circle.

For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry". dry.gif

THEREFORE, THE FIRST BROKEN SYMMETRY WOULD BE...??? movement in the first dimension??

Yes!,... this is where I need your inputs. smile.gif
jal
MMC
QUOTE

For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry".


Or an imbalance...an imbalance can exist, yet maintain symmetry...it all depends on the shape, as the imbalance can be spread across any number of dimensions...

I don't see the need to break symmetry as such, merely delay it a little, which relativity does quite nicely...

We always come back to the chicken and the egg, nothing within this closed system can account for a "trigger factor" in a single point of creation...that should tell us, no such event ever occured...
jal
Hi!
I should add a bit of information on symmetry.
The broken symmetry can be observed or it can be done by movement.
For more information do a search... or look at...
wallpaper groups

QUOTE
To completely understand orbifold and orbifold notation, a background in topology is required. For those who are ignorant of topology (including the author), the following is a helpful description: One can think that orbifold notation as consisting of symbols that represent the generators of the group. An integer n indicate the presence of n-fold rotations. An asterisk "*" indicate presence of reflections. A cross "x" indicates presence of glide reflections. For example, the group 442 consists of two distinct sets of 4-fold rotations and a set of 2-fold rotations. If the numbers come after the asterisk, then it means those rotation centers are the intersection of mirror lines. For example, the group *442 has all rotations centered on mirror lines. The group 4*2 has only the 2-fold rotation on mirror lines. Conway emphasize that to think of orbifold notation as generators is really missing the point. The revolutionary feature of orbifold notation is that it uses topology to explain symmetry, and results a more geometric understanding than groups. (those interested in orbifold should see J. H. Conway's paper and related websites, the scanned article is available at the Reference Section)

Of course, You knew all of that... However, some might need a refresher.
jal smile.gif
MMC
QUOTE

The broken symmetry can be observed or it can be done by movement.


You are forgetting that symmetry can be maintained by dimensions that cannot be perceived...

"Broken symmetry" could be an illusion of human perception...that would fit well with the fact that it would require "information loss" which the majority will fail to support...including Hawking now...

The jury is still out on this one...
jal
Hi!
....MMC
QUOTE
"Broken symmetry" could be an illusion of human perception...that would fit well with the fact that it would require "information loss" which the majority will fail to support...including Hawking now...

I think that the current perception is that all information is lost in a black hole and that all the information started at the big bang.
Later, I will want to investigate the validity of those assumptions.
Could we agree if I used the phrase/said, "something different/not as symmetrical"?
jal
jal
.... forgot to say, "information lost=broken symmetry=?" .
We could also look at the ? later.
jal
jal
Hi!
A little more refresher information.
kissing numbers
QUOTE
The following table gives the largest known kissing numbers in dimension  for lattice () and nonlattice (NL) packings (if a nonlattice packing with higher number exists). In nonlattice packings, the kissing number may vary from sphere to sphere, so the largest value is given below (Conway and Sloane 1993, p. 15). A more extensive and up-to-date tabulation is maintained by Sloane and Nebe.

The table did not quote. Here are some extracts.
dimension kissing number
1 -----------2
2 -----------6
3 -----------12
4 -----------24
10 ---------->336
12 ---------->756

The kissing numbers are equal to freedom of movements.
If you have more dimensions you will get more entropy, less potential energy and more broken symmetry.

All dimensions must be considered when considering entropy, potential energy.
You cannot fudge by hiding energy (kinetic) in unseen dimensions and pretend that the law of conservation of energy is being followed.
jal
ps.
Are there any members interested in adding more information? smile.gif
MMC
QUOTE

I think that the current perception is that all information is lost in a black hole


Nope...information must be maintained. Hawking's accepted this when he recently agreed that quantum fluctuations would allow information to escape...
jal
ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY---SHAPE OF SPACE
1) The kissing numbers are equal to freedom of movements.

2) If you have more dimensions you will get more entropy, less potential energy and more broken symmetry which results in a greater diffusions of information.

3) All dimensions must be considered when considering entropy, potential energy.
(You cannot fudge by hiding energy (kinetic) in unseen dimensions and pretend that the law of conservation of energy is being followed.)

A) Initial conditions

When entropy is at 0.0% potential energy is at 100.0%. THIS WOULD BE A SOLID. This requires that there not be any freedom of movement. All dimensions are either unreacheable or occupied.
With the reverse situation, entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%, all dimensions are empty and reachable. THIS IS A VOID.
cool.gif first step

cool.gif One dimension has 2 degree of freedom. It's not our universe. A string is 1D BUT it could be operating in a higher dimensional environment. dry.gif

second step
Two dimension has 6 degree of freedom. Would this be enough to make our universe? A string would be able to move in this environment. Lets look closer.

A practical example would be a 2d membrane.
A string could vibrate in a flat configuration and therefore could be making a two dimensional membrane. Therefore, string and m-theories calculations could have a place to start.
A 2D sheet/membrane made up of packed vibrating strings would have to take the configuration of "packed circles." One of these circles would be what Hawkins termed "an instanton." In 2d there would be a sheet of "instantons". Packed circles have 6 kissing points. This is the degree of freedom that a would be permitted. The packing density of circles is 90.69%.

What happened to ENTROPY?
It went from zero to 9.31%.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY?
It went from 100% to 90.69%.
What happened to SYMMETRY?
A SOLID HAD/HAS 100% SYMMETRY. The total amount of possible information. Therefore, there is a lost of information in a 2D configuration. Therefore, there
was a broken symmetry. There only exist the symmetry of packed circle and the information that can be contained in that configuration.

third step
Three dimension
A "true" 3d object is a "solid ball." Our universe is not "solid".

Therefore, to get to a new dimension/equilibrium it is necessary to break the symmetry of 2d.
HOW?... BY OPENING A DOOR/punch a hole in the 2d membrane.
This is accomplished by having one of the instantons/"spot" spinning at right angle to the 2d membrane.

The result would be a cascading of "instantons/spots" into a 3d configuration - spheres. Therefore, what appear to be the beginning from one instantons is really a whole lot of instantons/spots coming from the same area out of 2d space and into 3d configuration. The size of the door only needs to be the size of a "instanton/spot". The term "Big Bang" has been misleading everyone. What we had was the opening of a door from the second dimension. This created what we refer to as inflation.

What happened to ENTROPY?
It went from zero to 25.95%.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY?
It went from 100% to 74.05%.
What happened to SYMMETRY?

Spheres have a packing density of 74.05%. Spheres have 12 kissing points. Therefore, the information that was contained in a 2d configuration will now be diffused through 12 contact points.
Therefore, it is possible to use a "spin quantum gravity" and twistor mathematic.

The more dimensions that are available the worst and more improbable it will become to have "our universe."
The 3d structure of these "instantons/spots" of spacetime has been in equilibrium for 14 B.L.Y. A very stable configuration.

Anomalies are the result of having some "instantons/spots" failing to take a 3d sphere configurations. There were at 10^80 failures which we call particles. Theses "instantons/spots" that failed to get into the structure of spacetime are causing stress to the 3d spacetime and the spacetime is collapsing back into its 2d configuration which we call....

BLACK HOLES

Black holes are the result of the collapsing of the 3d configuration of space back to its previous 2d configuration. Since Black Holes are recycling 3d space back into the 2d space and since the universe is suppose to be expanding then the conclusion is that there is more 2d space being made into 3d space then what is being recycled to 2d space by the black holes. Not all information is lost.

Your theories can be accommodated into the structure of spacetime. Your theories deal with particles that did not get incorporated into the structure of spacetime.

I have not invented anything new. I have only restated things more clearly from a different prospective.
"IT'S SO-O-O SIMPLE. IT CANNOT BE RIGHT."
huh.gif HAVE FUN ohmy.gif
JAL
Zephir
If you're looking for the real space dimensionality/entropy curve... smile.gif

user posted image
jal
Hi!
Sorry,
This can be treated as a two body problem.
jal
user posted image
jal
Hi everyone!
I have been avoiding discussing particles in my discussion for a very good reason...someone else has done it before me.
Chris Quigg .... he calls it a double simplex. I assume that everyone can download, in PDF, his published papers.
Chris Quigg
I cannot give you his picture but I found one that might be able to do some justice to his idea.
user posted image
Here is what he has to say:
QUOTE
The mathematical underpinnings of the double simplex do bring discipline to the questions it elicits. The structure of the double simplex is based on SU(4)
SU(2) SU(2) decomposition of SO(10). A three-dimensional solid (tetrahedron) represents the fundamental 4 representation of SU(4). It is decorated at the vertices with dumbbells representing the SU(2)L and SU(2)R quantum numbers. The vertical coordinate of SU(4) can be read as B − L, the difference of baryon number and lepton number. The group SO(10) is a useful classification symmetry, because its 16-dimensional fundamental representation contains an entire generation of the known quarks and leptons. Using SO(10) as a coordinate system, if you like, carries no implication that it is the symmetry of the world, or that it is the basis of a unified theory of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions.
QUOTE
But the fact is that the electroweak symmetry is broken, so the world without a Higgs mechanism—but with strong-coupling QCD—is a world in which the SU(2)L U(1)Y becomes U(1)em. Because the W and Z have masses, the weak-isospin force, which we might have taken to be a confining force in the absence of symmetry breaking, is not confining.

Einstein came up with spacetime.
Hawkins came up with instanton and the 2d "information" for black holes.
Chris Quigg came up with "a new way to envision particles and interactions" the double simplex.
I found that nature builds a double simplex.
"A SPOT" as the unit particle of spacetime.
This cannot be coincidence.
The "spot" could be the shape that they are searching for to make the topology of spacetime in LQG and M-theories.
Maybe spacetime has a lot more to say in how the universe of particles works than what we could possibly imagine.
Further insight from this forum would be appreciated.
Thank you.
jal
jal
Yin_Yang ohmy.gif
One cannot exist without the other.Yin and yang can transform into one another
Most forces in nature can be broken down into their respective yin and yang states, and the two are usually in movement rather than held in absolute stasis.
Yin Yang is a way of thinking about phenomena, and a way to describe how things function and interact with each other in the Universe.
rolleyes.gif
(Note: If my images do not download it's because my web sit is overloaded. Try later to see the images.)
SPACE AND TIME ARE YIN_YANG. dry.gif
The two are similar and are one.
user posted image
A SPACETIME UNIT
PARTICLES FIT INTO SPACETIME LIKE A HAND INTO A GLOVE--YIN_YANG.
jal
jal
Important note for all!....
Do you want to be a "math. kid?"
Read the following pages:
by Gerard 't Hooft
QUOTE
It should be possible, these days, to collect all knowledge you need from the internet. Problem then is, there is so much junk on the internet. Is it possible to weed out those very rare pages that may really be of use? I know exactly what should be taught to the beginning student.


by Warren Siegel, High energy physics from easy to hard
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It should be possible, these days, to collect all knowledge you need from the internet. Problem then is, there is so much junk on the internet. Is it possible to weed out those very rare pages that may really be of use? I know exactly what should be taught to the beginning student.


by Warren Siegel, High energy physics from easy to hard
This story is about the impressions many people have about physics, and how they differ from the real thing. (See also Are you a quack?) In particular, it is also about high energy physics, the most fundamental part of physics, and the misconceptions of it held even by many students of physics.

smile.gif yep!!! ... We could all be wrong. smile.gif
Jal
jal
Hi All!
Dark Matter
From where I live, there was a beautifull big moon last night. The atmosphere was doing some "lensing" and making it look bigger.
We all heard that the sun (gravity) does some "lensing". We, also heard about galaxies doing "lensing" and focusing/bringing us light from way back of that galaxie. The "Einstein Cross" is the most famous.
Now, I don't know too much, I don't get invited to the conferences and workshops with the "doctorates".
Therefore, I have never heard any discussion, over a bottle of beer, on the possibility that our own galaxy is doing any "lensing".
Have you heard anything on "lensing" by our galaxy?
Have you seen anything published which would rule out "lensing" by our galaxy as a cause of us not seeing 95% of the sunlight?

Just leave a simple yes or no answer with the reference.
(Otherwise, I'm going to keep believing in something possible?? rolleyes.gif or impossible huh.gif and that does not make good science.)
jal
jal
Hi!
Here is that NASA link concerning Black holes, Superluminar jets, neutron stars etc.
I don't see any conflict with what I presented. (Of course, since I'm prejudice, I might be blinded and cannot see the conflict).
Do you see any conflicting evidence?
jal
superluminar jets
black holes
genius
"BLACK HOLES
Black holes are the result of the collapsing of the 3d configuration of space back to its previous 2d configuration. Since Black Holes are recycling 3d space back into the 2d space and since the universe is suppose to be expanding then the conclusion is that there is more 2d space being made into 3d space then what is being recycled to 2d space by the black holes. Not all information is lost."

COOL STUFF!!!! smile.gif
jal
WaterBreath... your link to Dark Energy Stars is one that I could not pass.
QUOTE
Event horizons and closed time-like curves cannot exist in the real world for the simple reason that they are inconsistent with quantum mechanics. Following ideas originated by Robert Laughlin, Pawel Mazur, Emil Mottola, David Santiago, and the speaker it is now possible to describe in some detail what happens physically when one approaches and crosses a region of space-time where classical general relativity predicts there should be an infinite red shift surface. This quantum critical physics provides a new perspective on a variety of enigmatic astrophysical phenomena, including supernovae explosions, gamma ray bursts, positron emission, and dark matter.

It's another possible reason that could explain "DARK MATTER", gamma ray and what I have been presenting. smile.gif
jal
jal
Hi!
It is time to bring these 3 threads together with matter/particles.
HOW GRAVITY AFFECTS THE SHAPE OF SPACETIME/SPOT

What would be the shape of spacetime in gravity? We have been told that spacetime is bent by gravity. We have been told that photons are red shifted by gravity. We have been told that lenght increases as you get closer to a black hole. Therefore, what would be the shape of spacetime that would cause these observations? (THE QUESTION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED.)

See the shape of spacetime in progressively increasing gravity. (space, earth, sun, big sun, and black hole. Or, if you like, no particle to progressing to more particles.) Therefore, there should be some observations in quantum physics.

It becomes obvious that there should be red shift perpendicular to the horizon and that there should be blue shift horizontal to the horizon. The blue shift cannot be detected. However, the bending is detected.

There should be variations in the experimental observations of the Inverse Square Law. The RADIUS IS DIFFERENT (X,Y,Z), THE SURFACES AREA IS DIFFERENT (X,Y,Z). SPACE IS NOT A SPHERE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITY. Therefore, space MUST have an internal structure. THE EVENT HORIZON OF A BLACK HOLE IS 2 DIMENSIONAL.
The reason that we do not detect a difference when measuring forces that depend on the Inverse Square Law, is because of the internal structure of the packed "spots". In 3d there are still 12 "kissing numbers".

However, when space is close to the event horizon of a black hole the 3d dimension is squashed and the event horizon is 2 dimensional and the kissing numbers are reduced to 6.
User posted image

The bending of light by a gravitational body was predicted by Einstein (1912) a few years before the publication of General Relativity in 1916. For a point mass the defection can be calculated and is one of the classical tests of general relativity.
See
Deflecting of light by a gravitational field
Here is how the packing of spots would look like in gravity.

user posted image

Comments on these presentations are appreciated.
Is GR and SR being violated or being explained? smile.gif
jal
jal
Hi!
It appears that the Heim's Theory has a "Big Bang" version similar to mine.
Introduction to Heim's Mass Formula
QUOTE
Since the phenomenological part which appears in Einstein’s field equations now is totally geometrizised, there is, according to Heim, no “big bang“ with an infinitely dense energy. Instead, matter appears only after very long evolution of a world without any physical measurable objects, which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.

jal smile.gif
Zephir
QUOTE (jal+Mar 14 2006, 10:42 PM)
...matter appears only after very long evolution of a world without any physical measurable objects, which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.

Do you mean this, or some "kissing spheres" model?

user posted image user posted image user posted image
jal
Hi!
It appears that the Heim's Theory has a "Big Bang" version similar to mine.
Introduction to Heim's Mass Formula
QUOTE
Since the phenomenological part which appears in Einstein’s field equations now is totally geometrizised, there is, according to Heim, no “big bang“ with an infinitely dense energy. Instead, matter appears only after very long evolution of a world without any physical measurable objects, which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.

I mean which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.

Let's talk about your theory in your thread
jal
jal
Hi!
It appears that the Heim's Theory is a version similar to mine.
He used the hexagonal lattice (6 sides) which is the densest packing of circles in the plane.
see CirclePacking
The largest number of unit circles which can touch a given unit circle is six. For spheres, the maximum number is 12.

QUOTE
which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.

See the following
protosimplex/summary
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.

See the following
protosimplex/summary
Responsible for the inertial mass are the protosimplexes, i.e. the basic building blocks of flux aggregates, which form the structures of the k + 1 subconstituents in R3. They compose 4 concentric spherical shell-like configuration zones maintaining a dynamical equilibrium, during whose existence there appears a measurable particle mass. However, an attempt to measure the mass of a subconstituent part by scattering experiments will result in a very broad, variable bandwidth of measurements, because such a mass depends on the instantaneous flux phase. The sum of the k + 1 subconstituent masses, on the other hand, is constant and gives in essence the measurable particle mass. The relevant quantity in this connection is the degree to which the 4 configuration zones in R3 are occupied by dynamic flux elements .

Here is my visual interpretation (to be modified as I improve my knowledge)
user posted image
QUOTE
The protosimplex flow is a circulatory, periodic motion similar to an oscillation. A particle can only exist if the flux period comprises at least one full cycle, so that the duration of a particle's stability is always expressible as an integer multiple of the flux period.

You can chose more than one way to view the topology. However, the packing is the same. In 2d there are 6 comunication paths. In 3d there are 12 communication paths.
user posted image
Here is how I visualize the dynamic flux elements.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The protosimplex flow is a circulatory, periodic motion similar to an oscillation. A particle can only exist if the flux period comprises at least one full cycle, so that the duration of a particle's stability is always expressible as an integer multiple of the flux period.

You can chose more than one way to view the topology. However, the packing is the same. In 2d there are 6 comunication paths. In 3d there are 12 communication paths.
user posted image
Here is how I visualize the dynamic flux elements.
For k = 1 and k = 2 there are altogether 25 sets of 6 quantum numbers each, characterizing the occupation of configuration zones and the corresponding invariant rest masses. The particles belonging to these invariant basic patterns are in turn combined into several families of spin isomorphisms,in which the spatial flux dynamics of the configuration zones is in dynamic equilibrium .

user posted image
This is the voids in the center of the spot.
jal smile.gif
edit: added ref to hexagonal lattice
jal
Hi!
I will try to give my simple explanation of the 12 dimensions found in the protosimplex/summary.
protosimplex/summary

He used the hexagonal lattice (6 sides) which is the densest packing of circles in the plane.
Expanding that to 3d you then have cubes or sphere packing which has 12 connections. ( do a search on circle packing and sphere packing). You can think of those connections as being the 12 dimensions existing in 3d.
I reject cubes for the reason that solitons are not cubic. That leave only sphere that will pack in a 3d hexagonal lattice.
Each point of contact in 3d, (there are 12), can be thought of as doing a dual role.
Connecting to a lower dimension. Yes, .... I mean lower. Do not think of higher, hidden or curled up. You'll lose your way.... just like everyone else. smile.gif
We are all familiar with 2d. You won't get lost. smile.gif
The dual role that is played by each of those contact point is to link to the 2d and to give homogeneity to 3d. There cannot be less than one contact at any one time.
There cannot be more than 6 contact at any one time. Why 6? Because 2d has only 6 contact points.
The contact point do not need to be the same ones all the time. They can rotate among the 12 contact point in 3d.
There does not need to be 6 contact points at all times.
The contact points from 3d do not need to connect to the same contact points in 2d. Movement/rotation is permitted.
I cannot show you an image of this 3d statement. However, you can see it in the 2d image in the previous post where I divided the time and space into a 4X4 grid. In 2d you can see the the metron/spot/circle has 4 lens. The 4 lens make up the soliton. The solitons are dynamic.
In 3d, the best image that I can do, for now, is the following:
(If you make a better one.... can I borrow it?) (Not yours Zephir. They are only good for preschoolers) smile.gif
Jal
User posted image

Montec
Hi jal

When I compare time dilation from SR and time dilation from GR I get the following formula.

(1) V^2=2GM/R where

V is velocity of ?
G is gravitational constant
M is mass of ?
R is radius ?

Converting this into a density function (of space ?) I get

(2) Density = V^2/2(pi)RG

The thing is that this density is only a two dimensional function.

A one dimensional density (D1) is mass divided by a point (singularity).
A two dimensional density (D2) is mass divided by an area.
A three dimensional density (D3) is mass divided by a volume.

Didn't your spot idea start out as a two dimensional object?

This may lead to nothing but I found it interesting.

smile.gif



jal
Hi! Montec!... smile.gif
Now that I found a partners....eh..eh... biggrin.gif with the math. biggrin.gif
protosimplex/summary discusses gravity, area of interaction etc. with a circle which shows less and less possible interaction as you get toward the middle. ( I think)
I must study/learn more about how it all fits together.
You should have asked me before I discovered H.T. with the math. now I am probably saying something that is not tenable.
My present thinking (under review/change) what we call gravity (G) is because of the shape of spacetime. (in the extreme ... a black hole (a 2d surface) smile.gif )
Matter is sitting in a dip in the smooth structure of space time. This would give us the short range forces (W) which get stronger the farther they go from the center. (like going up a hill... you need more energy to go higher as the hill gets steeper.)
QUOTE
A two dimensional density (D2) is mass divided by an area.

Which to me, is a connection to the lower dimension (2d).
As far as GR and SR. I think.... spacetime=spacetime'. In order to achieve that then space OR time must increase/decrease. depending on which side of the equation you are (frame of reference.)
I hope that you are interested in studying the meanings of this new theory with me. That could be fun. smile.gif Better than s.f.
( It has the math. to be called a theory)
From my first posts I was asking if someone knew if the math was out there.
All I had was an understanding and sound logic going for me. Now I got to examine if I have a theory. biggrin.gif
Have you got any pictures that we can share for explaining "spots"/metrons?
huh.gif
Jal
jal
I had a PM from someone too shy to post here. wink.gif
“How do the 12 “kissing” points of 3d connect to the 6 “kissing” points of 2d?”
Here goes a very simple explanation.
1) Follow the energy flow. Potential energy at 100% to the succeeding levels. There is more energy locked up in 2d then in 3d.
2) Follow the complexity. Entropy which is no movement in no dimension to more movements in more dimensions.
3) Make the smallest package possible. A circle.( a spacetime quanta)
4) Fill that package with as much energy as possible.
5) Put all those packages together. First, like packing pennies. (2d) Second, like filling a container with balls. (3d)
6) See... the touching points are the only ways that energy can go from one place to another place . Pennies, 2d, has 6 ”kissing numbers”. Balls, 3d, have 12 “kissing numbers.
7) Our universe is filled with these quantas of energy. We cannot notice the majority of them.
This has been studied for the last 50 years and there are still no answer.
Therefore, imagine that you have a ball on the table. Look under it. It is touching the table at only one point.
Roll the ball on the table. Still one point. Now image that the ball has 12 little dimples on it and that the table is a grid of dimples. In this situation if you roll the ball the dimples on the ball and the tables must line up. If they don’t line up then everything is going to go BUMP PETY BUMP BUMP PETY BUMP. ( GEE!!... SHAKING EVERYTHING UP AND MAKING WAVES).
How the 12 dimples in 3d line up/cycle with the 6 dimples of 2d is where the math is needed to describe OUR universe.
If there are no dimples on the ball then the ball would fall through (fall off the edge of the table). The ball would be in free fall. The ball would be empty. That was the easiest to figure out ( 50 years ago). It’s called a deSitter universe.
If you want more than one kissing point, at the same time, with the table and the ball then things get hard.
Solution
Slide a piece of paper between the ball and the table. The piece of paper will represent the 2d. Yes,… you got it…. Fold the paper so that two dimples will line up. Three dimples….
Notice that 3d ball has not changed. The change is occurring in the paper which is the 2d level.
The next possibility
Could the shape of the ball be changed to get more than one dimple touching?
Einstein said, yes. In that case the ball would be like a blob of jelly where there is an accumulation of matter . An accumulation of matter is an accumulation of energy. When you accumulate as much energy in the same place it could be equal or more than the energy locked up in the 2d. So,… We would see that the energy could go back to the 2d surface. (horizon). These are improperly called “Black Holes”. The opposite is also happening. Energy is coming back from the 2d and into our 3d universe. We first notice the energy coming into our universe and we mistakenly called it “The Big Bang”. We mistakenly described the coming of that energy as “Expansion” and “inflation”. Now, if there is more energy coming into our universe than what is leaving then it is growing bigger. Supernovae explosions, gamma ray bursts, positron emission etc. could also be adding more energy from the 2d and into our 3d universe. However, the math would be able to tell.
Is this REALLY the way it is? My answer is … The math can figure out all of the possibilities but we must select the one that represents OUR universe.
It’s hard to do because everything is moving so fast it is very hard to actually see or to measure what is happening.
That is why there are so many ideas. They are trying to describe what is “reality”.
The best ideas come from, “Mrs. SUSY, MR. SLINKY, MR SLIM AND NOW FROM METRON SPOTS ”.
It would be nice if THEY could understand each other. THEY don’t have to believe, just understand.
I think this PRESENTATION should be understandable for the ordinary people, even for a 12 year old. smile.gif
Yours truly,
Simple Jal smile.gif
Guest_guest
Hi!
The protosimplex/summary suggest that the piece of paper is being deformed.

"....While the are always bounded by geodesics, their area remains constant in a deformed lattice. The metronized state function then describes the projection of a deformed R6-lattice into any Euclidian reference space, where the metrons now appear in distorted or "condensed" form, in analogy to the projection of a curved lattice onto a plane sheet, or to lines of constant altitude on a map providing information on the level structure of a mountain range. In this respect there seems to exist a certain analogy to Regge poles. ..."
smile.gif

jal
Guest_guest...
Thank you for highlight that point. smile.gif
It will be interesting to see how the Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory will be handling the energy tranfer from one dimension to another.
jal
jal
Hi!
my post was
Hello everyone!
QUOTE
Because a projection only is possible toward a smaller number of dimensions , this latest projection  from S2  must take place on a single coordinate, i.e. on time T1 (x4 ). That means in practice that quantum-mechanical events will be shifted minimally in time, whereby probabilities of physical interaction shift in each point in time.
from last lines at protosimplex
My model (spots) should be considered as a starting visual. Not the final version.

Therefore, here is my arguement.
I’m not egoistic enough to think that since Einstein said that spacetime was something that out of the thousands of universities, that out of the thousands more of professors, that out of the thousands more of students, that I, me, thought of the following facts:
1) That the simple math of probability clearly shows that we can communicate with 2d (6 paths) and that it can communicate with our 3d. However, 10d (336 paths) cannot communicate with our 3d (12 paths). The energy is too diffused to come back to the 3rd dimension. You cannot put Humpty Dumpy back together again.
2) If you stand in front of the ocean (more dimensions) and give a shout, the energy will have too many ways to go and you will not get an echo. No conservation of energy.
3) Going to more dimensions is a losing proposition. You’ll never get anything back. It’s a one way street. It’s like water going over a cliff.
4) On the other hand, going to fewer dimensions has interesting possibilities.
If you face into a wall (2d) the energy will echo. You will have conservation of energy.
The only requirements are that a lot of kinetic energy needs to be built up to reach it.
5) You got to build a mountain of energy (not dig a hole ie. Black hole). Once you got your mountain built, putting more energy into your mountain becomes a losing proposition. It disappears into the structure of 2d (the horizon).
6) If you want energy from the 2d structure then you got to dig a hole (remove some "spots" from the 3d structure). A big explosion could do that digging for you.
I don’t think that I’m that smart that I could be the first.
jal smile.gif
jal
Hi!
I have a few things to say and did not want to litter the thread
from Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
QUOTE
1. As far as I know this is unique to the dynamics of the 6-D metron lattice and distortions and interactions therein. I suppose you can find analogous cyclic processes in nature - trees `withering in winter and flowering each spring anew, the circadian rhythm in human body cells, old Faithful etc.
2. I believe the zone sizes to be of the order of a nucleon across (10**-15 m?). More later…
3. As the lifetime of a particle is a multiple of this cycle time, it will vary from particle to particle. More later…
4. I believe that the metron interactions within a particle have something of the character of the strong force and so are hard to overcome. Again - More later...

Where I say (more later… ) I will expand in a later mail - after consulting the books / experts
hdeasy


There are a few underlying assumption that need to be brought to everyones attention... UNDERSTOOD and discussed prior to answering the aboved questions.
FIRST
Fine-structure_constant (I'm not going to reproduce the formula/symbols. Go to the link)
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
1. As far as I know this is unique to the dynamics of the 6-D metron lattice and distortions and interactions therein. I suppose you can find analogous cyclic processes in nature - trees `withering in winter and flowering each spring anew, the circadian rhythm in human body cells, old Faithful etc.
2. I believe the zone sizes to be of the order of a nucleon across (10**-15 m?). More later…
3. As the lifetime of a particle is a multiple of this cycle time, it will vary from particle to particle. More later…
4. I believe that the metron interactions within a particle have something of the character of the strong force and so are hard to overcome. Again - More later...

Where I say (more later… ) I will expand in a later mail - after consulting the books / experts
hdeasy


There are a few underlying assumption that need to be brought to everyones attention... UNDERSTOOD and discussed prior to answering the aboved questions.
FIRST
Fine-structure_constant (I'm not going to reproduce the formula/symbols. Go to the link)
For any arbitrary length *S*  , the fine-structure constant is the ratio of two energies: (i) the energy needed to bring two electrons from infinity to a distance of *S* against their electrostatic repulsion, and (ii) the energy of a single photon of wavelength 2piS.
In the theory of quantum electrodynamics, the fine structure constant plays the role of a coupling constant, representing the strength of the interaction between electrons and photons. Its value cannot be predicted by the theory, and has to be inserted based on experimental results. In fact, it is one of the twenty-odd "external parameters" in the Standard Model of particle physics.
According to the theory of renormalization group, the value of the fine-structure constant (the strength of the electromagnetic interaction) depends on the energy scale. In fact, it grows logarithmically as the energy is increased. The observed value of ** is associated with the energy scale of the electron mass; the energy scale does not run below this because the electron (and the positron) is the lightest charged object whose quantum loops can contribute to the running. Therefore, we can say that 1/137.036 is the value of the fine-structure constant at zero energy. Moreover, as the energy scale increases, the electromagnetic interaction approaches the strength of the other two interactions, which is important for the theories of grand unification. If quantum electrodynamics were an exact theory, the fine-structure constant would actually diverge at an energy known as the Landau pole. This fact makes quantum electrodynamics inconsistent beyond the perturbative expansions.
so far no one has come up with real physics to create a pure mathematical expression for α.
so far no one has come up with real physics to create a pure mathematical expression for α. (That is an important observation to remember).
Another point from
Coupling_constant
QUOTE
Fine structure constant
The coupling constant comes into its own in a quantum field theory. A special role is played in relativistic quantum theories by coupling constants which are dimensionless, ie, are pure numbers. For example, the fine-structure constant,
        (formula)  

(where e is the charge of an electron, ε0 is the permittivity of free space, ℏ is Dirac's constant and c is the speed of light) is such a dimensionless coupling constant that determines the strength of the electromagnetic force on an electron. However, in dimensions other than 3+1, e is no longer dimensionless.

However, in dimensions other than 3+1, e is no longer dimensionless.
Everyone should understand.... otherwise....we may be trying to compare apples and oranges. smile.gif
Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Fine structure constant
The coupling constant comes into its own in a quantum field theory. A special role is played in relativistic quantum theories by coupling constants which are dimensionless, ie, are pure numbers. For example, the fine-structure constant,
        (formula)  

(where e is the charge of an electron, ε0 is the permittivity of free space, ℏ is Dirac's constant and c is the speed of light) is such a dimensionless coupling constant that determines the strength of the electromagnetic force on an electron. However, in dimensions other than 3+1, e is no longer dimensionless.

However, in dimensions other than 3+1, e is no longer dimensionless.
Everyone should understand.... otherwise....we may be trying to compare apples and oranges. smile.gif
Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.
smile.gif
jal
Zarabtul
There must be the right events in place in order for certain things to happen seems to make sense to me. That seems like your basic theory that you started with.




"< 1 milli-arcsec, which is too small to be resolved even withthe highest resolution achieved so far."

Google Scholar edition has a lot on it...


scholar.google.com
jal
HI Zarabtul!
It was good of you to bring that paper forward. (For those who do not understand lensing.) smile.gif
Since Einstein said that spacetime was something I have been trying to speculate on what it could be doing that affects our observations. Lensing is one of them. The paper also indicates that if it wasn't for lensing then those far off galaxies would be invisible to us. smile.gif
The paper did not go into the studying of the possibility that a galaxy could be lensing itself. ohmy.gif
As a result, we are seeing light, that if it did not lens itself, we would not be seeing any of that galaxie. The way that the lensing of spacetime is done would leave us concluding that 95% of the galaxie is dark matter.
Of course, there is the possibility that the internal structure of spacetime is causing the Inverse Square Law.
The metron/spot (a structured spacetime) opens a whole lot of possibilities that must be considered. smile.gif
jal huh.gif
Zarabtul
In order to figure this out you would need to find the resistance of time. Tis possible...
jal
hdeasy.... Posted: Mar 27 2006, 04:21 AM
QUOTE
4. The 4 structure zones have only a very small extent and differently high densities. The three zones differ in their densities by the powers 4, 3 and 2. The zone, in which the number of Metrons with the 4th Power is densely occupied, is impenetrable by electrons. In addition, the other two zones are so small that electrons are only scattered by them.

You have made a mistake or there is a conflict of interpretation. smile.gif The difference of the sizes, electrons and metron. To the electron, the metron would be too small, too smooth.
At protosimplex it says
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
4. The 4 structure zones have only a very small extent and differently high densities. The three zones differ in their densities by the powers 4, 3 and 2. The zone, in which the number of Metrons with the 4th Power is densely occupied, is impenetrable by electrons. In addition, the other two zones are so small that electrons are only scattered by them.

You have made a mistake or there is a conflict of interpretation. smile.gif The difference of the sizes, electrons and metron. To the electron, the metron would be too small, too smooth.
At protosimplex it says ...It's size is approximately the square of Planck's length... The exact value of this "metrons" (6.15 * 10,-70 m2) describes the final geometrical unit of empty space,

That would be smaller than what is proposed by "strings". Something is not right.
Membranes, can be up to the size of a hair and we could not see them. If the math can make the branes of up to that size then the math could probably allow the METRON to be larger.
jal smile.gif
ps How is the fine structure constant used?
jal
Hi!
I see nothing in protosimplex that would elliminate the possibility that the 2d metron structure could be of a size that would permit the electrons to be interacting as shown in the following image. The 2d metrons could be larger than an electron. It would still be smaller than a hair. smile.gif
jal smile.gif
user posted image
news
smile.gif right on! smile.gif
Zarabtul
QUOTE (jal+Mar 22 2006, 10:01 PM)
I don’t think that I’m that smart that I could be the first.

The one misconception. You are only as smart as you allow yourself to be. I like what you had to say though if you focus toward something then you're able to achieve your goals. No matter what that goal may be.
jal
Hi!
smile.gif unsure.gif smile.gif Yes.... I'm pleased to get positive feed back. smile.gif
My simple presentations are not without a little bit of science. smile.gif Here is a some for the interested. From PACKING (They got all kinds of other interesting visuals and explanations. If you want to learn, take your time, look around their site.) smile.gif
CAN YOU SEE THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN MY APPROACH, (SPOTS) , AND THE METRON APPROACH?
I DON'T REFER TO THE "KISSING NUMBERS" AS DIMENSIONS. It's just a 2d membrane with 6 kissing numbers not 6 dimensions. Of course, I do not refer to 3d as 12d just because it has 12 kissing numbers.
Jal smile.gif

user posted image
On the plane (2-dimensional space) 2-spheres
(circles) can be most efficiently packed in
the hexagonal arrangement shown above.
This naturally leads to a tiling of the
plane by hexagons whose sides are tangent
to the 2-spheres.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 3-space (where we live) we can stack 3-spheres (oranges) most efficiently using hexagonal closest packing.
This consists of layers of spheres packed in a hexagonal arrangement, each layer fitting as snuggly as
possible into the layers below and above (a kind of "laminating" process).
In the 2-dimensional case we created tangent hexagons from the packing (tiling) of 2-spheres (circles) on the
plane. In 3-space we can in a similar way generate tangent shapes to our 3-spheres. In the animation
above a portion of one such 3-sphere packing is shown with the tangent shapes indicated (use the
buttons to rotate the thing). This shape is called a regular rhombic dodecahedron, and as the hexagon
packs the plane with no gaps, this shape - the 3-d version of the hexagon - packs 3-space leaving no gaps.
(By the way, the shape at left is also a weight diagram for the adjoint representation of the Lie group SU(4)
(no explanation provided here for this statement - SU(3) weight diagrams can be made in 2-space from hexagons).)

These two examples of packings give rise to lattices of points in 2- and 3-dimensional spaces (the centers
of the 2- and 3-spheres). These specific lattices are called laminated. The laminated lattice in
n-dimensional space is constructed from that in (n-1)-dimensional space by a layering operation similar to that we just outlined.
Olaf
Jal,

I like your attempts of visualization very much! I am not so deep in Heim theory that I can say anything about how much theses images meet the phenomena described by Heim. So please keep on doing your visualizations!
Zephir
QUOTE (jal+Mar 30 2006, 08:01 PM)
...my simple presentations are not without a little bit of science...

I don't care about ad-hoc spacetime topology models too much, just because I hope, it can be derived ab inicio from recursive wave equation model of energy spreading in massive environment using a sufficient computing power. Nevertheless they can be useful from approximative math models point of view, which are enabling the real calculations, like the Heim's mass formula. It seems, we have a two basic paradigms of spacetime topology here, both are having a certain sense from classical physic point of view:

The quantum foam model, which is compatible with the idea of the space-time formation similar to the supercritical vapor condensation. During this the intimate mixture of two phases appears with similar topology. It leads naturally to the 2D (mem)brane topology, which is supposed by the M-theory. The observed large distance structure of the dark matter and the microwave background implies some rudimentary close packed bubble structure too - although I believe, they've nothing to do with the original vacuum structure, but the mechanism of the phase transformation, instead...

user posted image user posted image

The another one is spin network model, which is based on idea, the phase interface is created by the energy gradient, which can have a nested toroidal duality topology. Briefly speaking, it's a model of torsion deformations of the multidimensional EM-lattice The LQG and twistor models are examples of such topology, where the spin, charge and other particles properties can be derived a quite intuitively from such topology (see me older posts here, for example). Furthermore, the right angled based model explains the 3D topology and number of dimensions of our space-time quite naturally.

user posted image user posted image

Maybe Dr. Smolin has some hybrid idea, because the spin network lattice paradigm differs from the membrane paradigm significantly, having strictly right-angle shaped topology. Both these topologies can be interconnected at the case, we'll use some pyramidal lattice topology, i.e. the Jal's "kissing spheres" or closely packed dodecahedrons in foam are rather simple tetrahedrons, thus being able to create some rectangular lattice.

user posted image

By my opinion, all these models can even coexist together in quantum foam, where low distance quantized interactions inside of particles are mediated by the pyramidal model (i.e. by the tiny right-angle shaped bubbles), whereas the weak subtle deformations can have a higher degree of symmetry and they can be mediated by the membranes between nearly spherical bubbles in quantum foam and everybody will remain happy.
jal
Zephir... Thank you.... yes you heard it smile.gif
You have done a good, short, accurate, presentation of what else is in the competing field.
Maybe.... I repeat.... maybe.... there will be a convergence/gelling/combining of what is really there. It will take years.... (We are still arguing about the hydrogen atom.)
We are trying to do (in this thread) in a short time what has been done by the "established theories" by 100's of people.
Don't post more pictures... those are adequate. Your point has been well made. smile.gif
If there are readers out there who feel that I'm not doing a good job of portaying the METRON/SPOT. Jump in with your idea.
( biggrin.gif You could also tell me if I'm doing a good job rolleyes.gif )


If you present an unacceptable idea or accidentally post in the wrong thread:
you can edit your own submission ... delete it .... or even repost it somewhere else.
jal smile.gif
EDIT: ADDED BOLD TYPE
fivedoughnut
Jal,....I like your style (ego-less)..wish there was more truly enlightened people!

Zeph',

That picture of the universe....ultra cool...possibly cryogenic laugh.gif ....suggests to me, the very fractal, holographic nature of things.
Zephir
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Mar 31 2006, 07:39 PM)
...ultra cool...possibly cryogenic...

Frankly speaking, it's just a result of computer simulation (btw. amazing HR videos are there), but it reflects the data observed rather closely. By my opinion it's a result of clash of approximately spherical shock waves during phase transition of vacuum of the supercritical density, it means some analogy of condensation of dense matter from the many center at the same time. At the place of clash the metastable dense Aether phase was formed - the observable mass. I suppose, the original Aether structure was destroyed during such phase transition. I've no animation of such process prepared yet, but the tiny video/animation below illustrates such process by the crystallization of aqueous super-saturated sodium acetate NaAc2 solution in a beaker.

user posted image

Concerning the different ad-hoc math models of space topology, they're nice, but we should never forget, we are describing the result of quite real physical processes, which can be probably described like quite common matter condensation. Therefore, we should always ask not just how closely the math model describes the reality, but how such structure can be created spontaneously? It can help us to restrict the number of topologies, which are theoretically available.
jal
Zephir...
QUOTE
It can help us to restrict the number of topologies, which are theoretically available.

We are not at that stage. Keep your ideas, until we have a topology. Only then can we get into the "dynamic".
None of the "established" theories have overcome that hurdle to date.
I'm not saying that you are wrong but rather you are "jumping the gun." smile.gif
Your inputs are too soon, they are impeding the discussion and the development of a topology for the METRON/SPOT.
You could edit your post... ohmy.gif DELETE to the bottom of the picture. IT IS NOT advancing the discussion on the METRON/SPOT.
fivedoughnut gave you a compliment. It was not a chance to promote something other than METRON/SPOT. smile.gif

fivedoughnut... wub.gif smile.gif are you going to go on record and repeat that in my rating? biggrin.gif
jal
Zephir
QUOTE (jal+Mar 31 2006, 09:03 PM)
...We are not at that stage. Keep your ideas, until we have a topology...

This is a chart-map of superstring theories. Surprisingly enough, each of these is based on different ad-hoc topology... wink.gif

user posted image

QUOTE (jal+Mar 31 2006, 09:03 PM)
...You could edit your post....DELETE to the bottom of the picture. IT IS NOT advancing the discussion on the METRON/SPOT....

Yep, I can do everything wink.gif This topic isn't about "metrons-spots", it's named a quite differently, if you don't know about it. After all, you're just repeating your old ideas here, which you've started a long time before the discussion about Heim's theory and metrons on this forum. It's all the time your explanation of ISL using a "kissing spheres" model - not about metrons or something else. BTW What's the "metrons-spots" concept - you've told, we are trying to do (in this thread) in a short time what has been done by the "established theories" by 100's of people?

Wake up, man - nobody on the world knows about your "metrons-spots" ideas... smile.gif

And please Jal, I've told you many times, I'm not very interested about kind advices of yours, what I should have to do or not, whether I can post some pictures here or not, or even to delete something etc.. biggrin.gif Such advices are very specific to you, because of nobody else is so stupid/impertinent like you. But this is a public forum on public server, sorry. You can dispute your ideas on some private web site, where you can control the posts in some topic by your opinion without problems. It's solely your decision to dispute it here.

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Mar 31 2006, 07:39 PM)
Jal,....I like your style (ego-less)..wish there was more truly enlightened people!

LOL... smile.gif
jal
ohmy.gif blink.gif
jal
Zephir
QUOTE (jal+Mar 31 2006, 11:06 PM)
ohmy.gif  blink.gif

Well, you're looking surprised, as usually.... tongue.gif Please Jal, how old really you are?
jal
sad.gif rolleyes.gif
jal
NOTICE TO EVERYONE!
Am I alone????
Tired of the abuse by zyphir....
speak up now!...
here...
give HIM your rating.
JAL

Good Elf
Hi Jal and Zephir et al,

While Zephir can say anything he likes... and often does. This is Jal's thread. The protocol is respect the thread originator. Zephir does not have to do anything but it would be "good form" to be courteous to the originator.

Everyone would be able to get on better... everyones ideas can be respected even though we do not personally have to believe them. The whole idea of threads rather than a blog is that others will contribute. Those contributions are viewed in the context of the overall discussion. It is important not to try and browbeat anyone. A lot more people read these things than are responding. At the same time there is no need to keep repeating oneself ad nausium. You should all show relevance to the discussion and to be creative.

Any idea that has promise is a worthy idea. I do not like "rating" science. Your theory could be right and nobody will believe it. It is not up to rating it... is up to the Universe to decide not a show of hands. When I see all the nonsense that gets plastered over this Forum it is sometimes very discouraging. So much anti-science and juvenile notions about the Universe. The religious cranks visit their own kind of dark age nonsense here from time to time as if they didn't have their own sites to "inhabit". There are few enough reading this stuff on Physics Forums in general that we can afford to alienate them with individual bitterness.

There is a strong onus on all of us to not waste peoples time and to lift our game. If your ideas are not developing then you are missing the point here. Jal is trying very hard to make something here with all your help... questions about his age are not relevant and are attempts to be "offensive". Nobody needs to write anything offensive here.

Cheers
jal
Heim's approach is way ahead of the competition.
Stay simple....you will see the answers and understand them. smile.gif
You will see that I have been addressing exactly this situation. "dynamics".
We need to find a geometrically, dynamic model of the METRON/SPOT.
Are there any suggested approach from the readers?
To put it in a very simple language.... we are looking for the gear box that makes the universe run... biggrin.gif
We must be able to translate that to the Him's approach... not LQG... not STRINGS
jal
smile.gif
Good Elf
Hi Jal,

It might be that Heim has done things very differently and arrived at a result that is equivalent to other approaches. It is very hard for me to understand Heim. I feel that Heim knows all about General Relativity and somehow has worked out something using an "absolute frame of reference"... which is the whole Universe... and maybe this is able to work... I don't know. His calculations "renormalizes" his interpretation of the Universe in a way that is close to Einstein but is definitely not the same. It is a cosmology and I do not think it matches our real Universe. This may not matter for the purpose of the exercise. I am staying pretty "quiet" on this one, I really do not know the answer.

As to string theories ... I also do not know with Heim since he never indicated this was the case. I am still listening.

Cheers
jal
Hi Good Elf.... smile.gif
Your inputs, insights are always appreciated.
We will not be able to determine if his approach is "equivalent" until we progress in our "exercise". The equivalence will, in the end, have to be done by the Ed Witten of this world.
Have we got a "math kid" waiting to do this work? smile.gif
jal
jal
(continuing from Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory)
I am repeating a post here which applies to everyone who has a theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be happy if some of what you have been describing was pretty close? Some right stuff? Some wrong Stuff?
Even if you have no math... feels good to you...
As you get new facts.... you get more specific?

Well.... smile.gif that is the same for everyone. smile.gif
I think that you have some stuff right smile.gif .... I think that my SPOTS has some stuff right smile.gif .... I think that METRON has more stuff right (it has math too!!) smile.gif smile.gif
I think that if you read protosimplex and try to see the similarities with your stuff, you will be able to help to develop possible "dynamic models" and reject those that cannot work.
METRON is ahead of everyone. We can begin doing "dynamic modeling".
I think that it will take years of work.
Don't forget, there are still arguments on the hydrogen atom after 75 years.

Of course if you think that you have all of the right answers then you'll enjoy sitting back and laughing at us working our arse off to just getting to your answer. smile.gif
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Furthermore, for the material world, Rp with p = 6, there exists a hyperspace with n = 12, containing R6 as subspace, which in turn contains the subspace R4 (<--that is us).

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Furthermore, for the material world, Rp with p = 6, there exists a hyperspace with n = 12, containing R6 as subspace, which in turn contains the subspace R4 (<--that is us).

While the ** are always bounded by geodesics, their area remains constant in a deformed lattice. The metronized state function then describes the projection of a deformed R6-lattice into any Euclidian reference space (<-- that is us) ,

The challenge will to make a visual of the dynamic of a 2d surface from the metrons. The ultimate challenge will be to to have a visual dynamic 3d structure which can produce the results obtained from the formulas.
How do we go about doing a visual of a METRON to create a 2d surface then a 3d environment that reproduces the mathematical results?
If you don't want to post....send me a PM smile.gif

jal smile.gif
will314159
Zephyr should start a thread on the Elastic Aether. He has great Graphics and is very enthusiastic on the subject. It would a very interesting discussion.

Meanwhile I like what JAL is doing here. Let's cut out the childishness.

QUOTE
Don't forget, there are still arguments on the hydrogen atom after 75 years.

see www.blacklightpower.com what's new or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrino_theory

Take Care!
jal
Hi! will314159... smile.gif
I had a fast read of the article. The Hydrino theory has some of the similarities of the METRON/SPOT. When the dust settles.... smile.gif we could end up with a name that is longer than ?????. biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

jal
will314159
Jal, Hydrino Theory or Classical Quantum "CQM" Theory also has a Mass formula like HEIM Theory See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_formula

Here is a condensed explanation of Hydrino theory I had written

" Randy Mills is an American Inventor that has turned Physics on its head. After graduating from Harvard Medical School he took some electrical engineering courses at MIT, He got intrigued by a Mr. Haus's treatment of electron behavior in the Free Electron Laser.

Ever since the turn of the century, Pyhsicists have treated the electron as a mysterious probability wave function that was all over the place. In a hydrogen atom, which is made of a central proton of plus charge and an orbiting(?) electron of minus charge, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle keeps the electron at a certain minimum distance and from spiraling into the hydrogen nucleus or proton. That minimus radius is called the Bohr radius. There is a certain energy associated with that radius.

Well, Mills upended all that and says that a free electron is a spinning disk but when it is captured by the Hydrogen proton it becomes a thin hollow surrounding shpere, similar to microwave resonator cavity. Mills says that in the presence of a catalyst, this electron in its "orbitsphere" can drop below this orbit into a HYDRINO state releasing much energy, greater than the ordinary burning of hydrogen with oxygen, but less than atomic fission! About a 1000 times more than ordinary combustion. "

Take Care!
jal
Hi! will314159
I also caught another similarity.... There is money being spent to "probe" for the effect proposed by the METRON and the hydrino. smile.gif
Of course, the people not receiving the money are doing what they can to trow doubt on the results of the experiment. smile.gif It must be because that there is not enough money to go around for everyone.
I like what I see with METRON/SPOT. I want to see what happens when we succeed in making a "dynamic" model.
It will be so far ahead of everyone else that I can just hear the crowd saying, "IT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING WITH MY THEORY". biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
JAL
Zephir
QUOTE (will314159+Apr 2 2006, 06:31 PM)
Zephyr should start a thread on the Elastic Aether. ... It would a very interesting discussion.

I'm linking such thread in every post concerning Aether Wave Theory. The people aren't interested about theories, but about Nature understanding. The theory is just the mean of explanation, not the target.

The Hydrino theory has nothing to do with Metrons, even with Heim's theory. It's a pseudoscience.
jal
unsure.gif JAL blink.gif
jal
Hi!
Did you BYOB? smile.gif
Let's hear what you have for suggestions on putting everything into motion.
jal
Here is a picture to get started.
User posted image
RAF
QUOTE (jal+Apr 4 2006, 12:22 AM)
Hi!
Did you BYOB? smile.gif
Let's hear what you have for suggestions on putting everything into motion.
jal
Here is a picture to get started.
"2D spherical packing, etc."

Jal,
Yes, I've skimmed over your thread.

It appears there are 2 + 2 rotations of symmetry in the 2D case. in the 3D sphere case, there are various planes of symmetry.

It seems 3D packing for maximum density has only recently been proved to be what everyone know, but couldn't before prove.
Zephir
QUOTE (RAF+Apr 4 2006, 06:43 AM)
It seems 3D packing for maximum density has only recently been proved to be what everyone know, but couldn't before prove.

By my knowledge, the 7D space-time is the most dense with respect of the homogeneous energy spreading (i.e. the Lagrangian minimization based on minimization of action density) - compare to the surface area/volume ratio at the case on N-dimensional hypersphere:

user posted image

But what about the hypersphere packing density model? It would be interesting point, if the math analysis would show, the 3D sphere packing is the most dense subspace for hypersphere packing. Till now, I've explained the number dimension forming our subspace by the minimal number of dimensions, required for the formation of 3D vortexes (i.e twistor deformations of space) with the same (i.e. repulsive) charge, where charge is the helicity of the twistor motion. It means, 3D is some magical number with respect of Lagrangian dependence on the space-time convolution level.

user posted image

It would be interesting to confirm such hypothesis just by the hypersphere packing geometry conjecture. The true is, from theoretical point of view, the rigorous proof of 3D sphere packing (Kepler's conjecture) doesn't exist yet, just some computer aided proof. The same will be true for N-dimensional sphere packing conjecture, indeed.

user posted image
jal
A theoretical model of a structured spacetime, (for which we have no means of detecting at the moment), which consisted of undetectable energy
Let's called it a METRON/SPOT/SOLITON.user posted image

Information/energy/photons can only flow/communicate from one point to another point by following the available paths, (there are 6) which are the in the dark areas. Both illustrations are equal in area and in a 3d configuration would occupy the same volume. In 3d there are 12 communication paths. (Everyone has been calling them 12 dimensions). Okay, then extend the logic. smile.gif
In our 3 dimensional environment We perceive only 3 dimensions but there are 12 dimensions
(from Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory) smile.gif
jal smile.gif
jal
QUOTE
Solitons show up in uranium
4 April 2006

Scientists have observed highly localized solitary vibrations, or solitons, in a three-dimensional solid for the first time. The solitons exist in crystals of uranium heated to temperatures of 450K. Although they were predicted to exist in 3D solids some 20 years ago, conclusive evidence for them has never been obtained until now (Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 125501).

Physic web
jal
Here is my promised presentation. It’s a long post. smile.gif

I will post a link from Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
And from ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY to this thread.
Also, I will repeat this post in my thread.
This will be called:
rolleyes.gif JAL’S INTERPRETATION AND PROCEDURES rolleyes.gif
(Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure to be used for HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata ).
This does not need to be the only interpretation or procedure. I’m sure that there will be others.
If there are suggested improvements, I will make the edits.
If the interpretations and approach are rejected I will delete this posting. sad.gif
Some links and references will be imbedded in the text.

JAL’S INTERPRETATION OF PROTOSIMPLEX
As some of you expected, I will use circle packing to illustrate the 2 dimension of R6.
When we have obtained a 2 dimensional structure, I will post/edit my interpretation and procedure for our 3 dimensions or R12, which will be sphere packing.
The Metron, is the combined smallest possible unit that can be used.
It is a 2 dimensional surface. This unit is also projected into our 3 dimension.
The way that the Metron is structured/assembled at the 2 dimensional level to make R6 will affect what happens at our dimensional level.

In order to reach down to the level of the metron it is necessary to quantize space time.
1. First level of quantizing spacetime.
I use the densest compaction known to obtain a smooth uniform structure of a 2 dimensional sheet. The results are that we get the 6 directions/dimensions/kissing numbers/R6. That then becomes a unit of 2d spacetime which can communicate with other units.
What we want to do is put a lot of these units together and see what happens.
If we look at a unit of 2 dimensional spacetime and lay a grid over it (see first illustration, modified from Zephir) then all we would get when trying to build a Cellular Automata would be rows of dark/off cells.
This is agreement with observation. Spacetime appears smooth and uniform everywhere at this level.
We would not get anywhere by building a Cellular Automata.
However, If we were building a peer review paper, I would do a “run” for the record.
user posted image

2. Second level of quantization
Here is where appears the Metron and R4 smile.gif
It should also tell you something about what we can do later, concerning the size of an quanta of space versus the size of a quanta of time. Compare what I said about a unit above with what you see now.
This second illustration is based on a soliton. Just remember that a soliton of energy is not a rigid structure.
The following illustration is wrong because the Metron would not be occupying all four positions at the same time. It is cyclying from #1 #2 #3 #4.
As long as it does not cycle farther than 2 pi then the structure is stable.
It is at this level that we can make a Cellular Automata. It is at this level that we can see how information can flow from one place to the other place in 2d. (This is the motherboard.) smile.gif
user posted image
What are the rules that must be incorporated into the program so that we get meaningful results?
1. There should be only one metron in each circle (R4).
2. With one metron in each circle (R4) it is possible to evaluate how they will combine and create a stable structure that will produce a sheet/membrane of R6.
Will someone please tie down Ed Witten until we actually make his membrane. biggrin.gif
I can just picture him dying to get to his pen to describe how a string can vibrate to make a Metron and to make the resulting membrane. biggrin.gif We haven’t even look at (R12) 3 dimensions yet. That’s when we will have the LQG and Knot people scrambling for their pencils. biggrin.gif I’m not worried. There will be plenty of bread and molasses for everyone. wink.gif

This section is reserved to enter the edited rules needed to make the Cellular Automata.


I would expect that the R6 2 dimensional structure would stabilize with the following illustration imbedded in it. This might help in setting up the rules.
user posted image

Does the above illustration make you want to take out your pencil to calculate the relationship between a quanta of space, a quanta of time and a Metron? Wouldn’t you like to know what it could look like as a R6 sheet? smile.gif smile.gif
edited:inserted the 2pi visual
I'd like to add another visual to try to help with what you said.

If we look at the metron making a 4R and that it is stable within a linear distance of 2pi then we would have the following.
I have taken a 2d section/slice from 3 R6 sheets.
user posted image
IN A DYNAMIC SITUATION, If contributions to the inner metro is limited to a linear distance of 2pi then only the metrons from the adjacent hex. packing could contribute to filling the inner R4 metro max. density. One metro from the center, one metron from the middle ring, and one metron from the Top and Bottom. Those are the only communicating pathways to the center metron.
Which ones? Heim used a "world selector" mechanism.
Maybe, those are the 12 dimensions that is being talked about? dry.gif
User posted image
If the readers are not trying to read the protosimplex then all you'll see are poor simple drawings.

PROCEDURES
1. We need at least 3 people willing to make a “production run”. You got to let us know who you are. A PM or posting will do the trick.
2. These 3 people should be able to describe the rules that they will use and be able to explain to us dummies smile.gif how they relate to what the metron is doing.
3. I would recommend that the “production run” start at the simplest and work their way up to more complexity.
4. The simplest would be to limit the movement of the metron to a distance of pi. This is equivalent to saying “round and round they go”.
5. The next step would be to make a “run” where the Metron goes no more than 2pi. Why 2 pi? This allows the Metron to travel linearly and still be within a R4 structure.
6. Travelling farther than 2pi is where we get broken symmetry and “particles?”
7. After everyone is satisfied with a 2d sheet then we can start on 3d.
8. After we are satisfied with the 3d structure we can try to input the variables from Heim's Particle Structure that affect the production of particles such as the constants. I expect that Mrs. SUSY will be keeping an eye on us. cool.gif

This is only one possible approaches that could be used.
At the end of the day, there should result some publishable results. Maybe I’ll get mentioned in the acknowledgements for inspirational contribution. smile.gif
Okay, …. let’s get the show on the road! smile.gif
simple jal smile.gif

Hi!
It's also available at: HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata
JAL’S INTERPRETATION AND PROCEDURES
(Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure to be used for HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata ).
jal
jal
Hi!
Using a packing approach has been thought of by Steve Waterman.
See his presentations at universalconcepts
I'm sure that you will find his approach more comprehensive than my presentation.
jal smile.gif
jal
Hi!
QUOTE
So I think the sphere packing is maybe to simple at the 12 d limit. Something in 12 d that projects to a spherical object in 3d plus time if that makes any sense. Not that I can think in 12 d.

Seeing 12 dimensions

I have no trouble seeing 12 dimensions. I can teach you. It’s easy.
When we speak of 3 dimensions we are in actuality saying that there are 3 directions for information to get to us.
Imagine that you are a metron at the center of 12 spheres. That is called a hex. packing. Information can only reach you by squeezing between the spheres.

If our universe is quantized then it must have a regularized structure. If it is to be the same in all directions and the same everywhere then a quantum of spacetime must pack in a hex. pattern.
Therefore, reject what you have been told and what your brain has been reinforcing for your whole life. You are not living in an environment with only 3 pathways of information (3d). You are living in an environment with 12 pathways of information (12 d). You don’t have to believe this.
You only have to understand it.
You do not sense the 12 pathways of information. You only sense 3 pathways plus one pathway called time. Why?
Imagine that you are moving in that central position. Imagine that information cannot reach you from the rear of your direction of movement. Therefore, that eliminates 6 of the 12 paths of information that can get to you. The six remaining paths to your front are the 3 that you already identify plus the 3 other that some people wrongly called time.
You don’t have to believe it. However, if you understand it you will be able to understand protosimplex. At the quantum level there are few differences. Energy could come into the central region by the 12 pathways. The pathways are not at fixed locations because the spheres are made of metrons that are going through a cyclic pattern.

I cannot bring you up to speed concerning sphere packing as a good approach. You need to do your own search and learning. (You are seekers) smile.gif .
However, here are some search results to help.
Applying Coding Theory to Sphere Packing
Getting Serious About Series
sphere packing and highr dimensions
SPHERE PACKING STUDIES
Sphere Packing with Rhombic Dodecahedra
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So I think the sphere packing is maybe to simple at the 12 d limit. Something in 12 d that projects to a spherical object in 3d plus time if that makes any sense. Not that I can think in 12 d.

Seeing 12 dimensions

I have no trouble seeing 12 dimensions. I can teach you. It’s easy.
When we speak of 3 dimensions we are in actuality saying that there are 3 directions for information to get to us.
Imagine that you are a metron at the center of 12 spheres. That is called a hex. packing. Information can only reach you by squeezing between the spheres.

If our universe is quantized then it must have a regularized structure. If it is to be the same in all directions and the same everywhere then a quantum of spacetime must pack in a hex. pattern.
Therefore, reject what you have been told and what your brain has been reinforcing for your whole life. You are not living in an environment with only 3 pathways of information (3d). You are living in an environment with 12 pathways of information (12 d). You don’t have to believe this.
You only have to understand it.
You do not sense the 12 pathways of information. You only sense 3 pathways plus one pathway called time. Why?
Imagine that you are moving in that central position. Imagine that information cannot reach you from the rear of your direction of movement. Therefore, that eliminates 6 of the 12 paths of information that can get to you. The six remaining paths to your front are the 3 that you already identify plus the 3 other that some people wrongly called time.
You don’t have to believe it. However, if you understand it you will be able to understand protosimplex. At the quantum level there are few differences. Energy could come into the central region by the 12 pathways. The pathways are not at fixed locations because the spheres are made of metrons that are going through a cyclic pattern.

I cannot bring you up to speed concerning sphere packing as a good approach. You need to do your own search and learning. (You are seekers) smile.gif .
However, here are some search results to help.
Applying Coding Theory to Sphere Packing
Getting Serious About Series
sphere packing and highr dimensions
SPHERE PACKING STUDIES
Sphere Packing with Rhombic Dodecahedra
An infinite lattice of spheres can be modeled as a single sphere inscribed in a unit cell with reflecting boundaries (i.e., a polyhedral box of mirrors). For a 2D close-packing, each sphere is in contact with six neighbors, so it is easy to see that the unit cell consists of a sphere contained in a mirrored right hexagonal prism. In a 3D close-packed lattice, each sphere has an additional three neighbors on top and three on bottom, giving a total of twelve neighbors. There are two kinds of 3D close-packings to consider: 1) the face-centered-cubic (fcc) lattice, and 2) the hexagonal-close-packed (hcp) lattice. In the fcc lattice, the top three and bottom three spheres are offset by 180 degrees (or 30 degrees), while they are directly opposite each other in the hcp lattice. For both cases, the unit cells can be described as a right hexagonal prism cut by three slanting planes on the top and three slanting planes on the bottom.


jal smile.gif


czeslaw
QUOTE (jal+Jan 10 2006, 07:25 PM)

The result would be a cascading of "instantons/spots" into a 3d configuration - spheres. Therefore, what appear to be the beginning from one instantons is really a whole lot of instantons/spots coming from the same area out of 2d space and into 3d configuration. The size of the door only needs to be the size of a "instanton/spot". The term "Big Bang" has been misleading everyone. What we had was the opening of a door from the second dimension. This created what we refer to as inflation.

What happened to ENTROPY?
It went from zero to 25.95%.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY?
It went from 100% to 74.05%.
What happened to SYMMETRY?

Spheres have a packing density of 74.05%. Spheres have 12 kissing points. Therefore, the information that was contained in a 2d configuration will now be diffused through 12 contact points.
Therefore, it is possible to use a "spin quantum gravity" and twistor mathematic.

The more dimensions that are available the worst and more improbable it will become to have "our universe."
The 3d structure of these "instantons/spots" of spacetime has been in equilibrium for 14 B.L.Y. A very stable configuration.

Anomalies are the result of having some "instantons/spots" failing to take a 3d sphere configurations. There were at 10^80 failures which we call particles. Theses "instantons/spots" that failed to get into the structure of spacetime are causing stress to the 3d spacetime and the spacetime is collapsing back into its 2d configuration which we call....

BLACK HOLES

Black holes are the result of the collapsing of the 3d configuration of space back to its previous 2d configuration. Since Black Holes are recycling 3d space back into the 2d space and since the universe is suppose to be expanding then the conclusion is that there is more 2d space being made into 3d space then what is being recycled to 2d space by the black holes. Not all information is lost.

Your theories can be accommodated into the structure of spacetime. Your theories deal with particles that did not get incorporated into the structure of spacetime.

I have not invented anything new. I have only restated things more clearly from a different prospective.
"IT'S SO-O-O SIMPLE. IT CANNOT BE RIGHT."
huh.gif HAVE FUN ohmy.gif
JAL

According to mainstream the information in a Black Hole is proportional to its surface, to to its volume. It might suggests that ona dimension is missed.

The mass (energy) is supplied into a Black Hole from outside proportional to Density x Volume (RxRxR). The Black Hole increases its Radius ® proportional to its Mass. That way supplied mass causes an acceleration of the expansion of the Black Hole. Does it mean there is an accelerating increase of the entropy ?
jal
Hi!
Contrary to the popular explanation of "black hole" which you seem to have trouble with, because you would not be looking for other possible explanations, which I supplied for your evaluation, I do not think that "black holes" are an increase of entropy. The degree of freedom of movement has been reduced to 2d. There are less paths for information to dissimulate. ( from 12 to 6 ).
Our own bodies are proof that entropy can decrease, (become more organized) in our universe.
Of course, I am still seeking for greater understanding, since I wrote that, the metron, with the math which calculates the mass of particles, has caught my attention. I'm searching there to see if I also can find answers there. smile.gif
If you cannot see this explanation as a possibility, then I guess you will continue searching for an answer that you can accept. smile.gif
jal smile.gif
jal
HI ALL...
note for SEEKERS: Do not rely on the web to give you access or preserve the information that you like. Make a hard copy. ( I have binders full of info that has disappeared)
I have made a summary at my postings/threads
If your stuck in a rut.... I've left you a pile of sh*t or a pile of diamonds to help you get out.
You evaluate and you decide... you are seekers
I've got stories to tell so I'm going out for a beer. smile.gif
salut....
jal
Montec
Hi jal

I came across this info at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypocycloid.html

This works for the spaces in between your 2D spots. I am wondering if there is 3D equations out there for a sphere inside a sphere.

My calculus book gives the equation x^(2/3) + y^(2/3) = 1 for a four-cusped hypocycloid.

I suspect a 3D equation is x^(2/3) + y^(2/3) + z^(2/3) = 1^(2/3).

smile.gif

jal
Hi everyone!
I had a beer and told a few stories.
I got a request to come back here. smile.gif
The subject of virtual particles..... need some explanations.... Here is what I found.
Quantum_mechanics
QUOTE
Most physicists believe that quantum mechanics provides a correct description for the physical world under almost all circumstances

Quantum_foam
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Most physicists believe that quantum mechanics provides a correct description for the physical world under almost all circumstances

Quantum_foam
Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in quantum mechanics.
Quantum foam is theorized to create masses of virtual particles. They are particle-antiparticle pairs, and prior to their annihilation, exist for a short period of time, on the order of the Planck time. They are created randomly from photons; the higher the energy of the photon from which they are created, the longer the time they will exist prior to annihilation.


qfoam New Scientist 19 June 1999 reports Michael Brooks
QUOTE
American physicist John Wheeler realised in the 1950s that if you look at things on a scale of about 10-35 metres, quantum fluctuations become powerful enough to play tricks with the geometry of the Universe. Space and time break down into "fuzziness" or "foaminess". It's not just space that is beaten to a froth: time is also stretched and squashed, fluctuating by around 10 -44 seconds as the bubbles appear and disappear.
Eventually we should narrow in on one true description of the fabric of the Universe. The apple, one might say, has fallen from the tree


virtual.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
American physicist John Wheeler realised in the 1950s that if you look at things on a scale of about 10-35 metres, quantum fluctuations become powerful enough to play tricks with the geometry of the Universe. Space and time break down into "fuzziness" or "foaminess". It's not just space that is beaten to a froth: time is also stretched and squashed, fluctuating by around 10 -44 seconds as the bubbles appear and disappear.
Eventually we should narrow in on one true description of the fabric of the Universe. The apple, one might say, has fallen from the tree


virtual.
However, these virtual pairs can become real particles . It is found that when there are very high energy photons, that the energy of the photons can be channeled into the virtual pairs and the virtual particles can become real. This process is known as pair production. The collision and subsequent disappearance of a particle/anti-particle pair is known as annihilation. What this means is that if there is a large supply of high energy photons then particles can be created.
• How energetic do the photons have to be?
o Consider proton/anti-proton pairs. Recall that the energy of such a virtual pair is 3 x 10**(-3) ergs
o To make the discussion more concrete, let's talk in terms of temperatures. Since the temperature of a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles, we have that 1.5 k T ~ energy or
 T ~(2m(proton)c**2) / (1.5 k) ~ 10**13 Kelvin
So, the gas needs to be hotter than 10 trillion Kelvin in order to make proton/anti-proton pairs.

Particle            Rest Energy (MeV)              Threshold (Kelvin)

neutrinos                  ?                              ?
electrons                0.511                        6 x 10**9
muons                    105.7                      1.2 x 10**12
protons                  938.3                      1.1 x 10**13
neutrons                  939.6                      1.1 x 10**13

There are a few other things which have not been mentioned for particles to become real:
1. The photon at the scale of about 10-35 metres have got to expand to reach the size of one of the above particles. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
2. The photon has to do this in less than 10 -44 seconds. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
3. The expanding photon has to come to a screeching halt every time and at precisely the right moment
4. The energy of the photon has to be converted to a particle
5. That particle will then travel at less than the speed of light.
That is an awful lot of unexplained mechanisms and energy.
Maybe there are simpler and more believable explanations.
jal unsure.gif


jal
Hi! RAF!
I read your explanation of virtual particles. I understand that. Is there an explanation for the following:
QUOTE
There are a few other things which have not been mentioned for particles to become real:
1. The photon at the scale of about 10-35 metres have got to expand to reach the size of one of the above particles. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
2. The photon has to do this in less than 10 -44 seconds. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
3. The expanding photon has to come to a screeching halt every time and at precisely the right moment
4. The energy of the photon has to be converted to a particle
5. That particle will then travel at less than the speed of light.
That is an awful lot of unexplained mechanisms and energy.

jal
RAF
QUOTE (jal+Apr 28 2006, 04:45 AM)
Hi! RAF!
I read your explanation of virtual particles. I understand that. Is there an explanation for the following:
QUOTE
There are a few other things which have not been mentioned for particles to become real:
1. The photon at the scale of about 10-35 metres have got to expand to reach the size of one of the above particles. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
2. The photon has to do this in less than 10 -44 seconds. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
3. The expanding photon has to come to a screeching halt every time and at precisely the right moment
4. The energy of the photon has to be converted to a particle
5. That particle will then travel at less than the speed of light.
That is an awful lot of unexplained mechanisms and energy.

jal

Hmm, I don't know about the things quoted.
<http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/unc_vir.html> has a bit on virtual particles, including "delta E delta t => h_bar/2". Just how close to h the product relates to varies, but it is on the order of h or h/2Pi.

In fact, I suspect that "h_bar/2" is a typo, it should probably be h/2Pi which equals h_bar.

Note delta E * delta t ~ h is just another form of delta p * delta x ~ h in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Virtual particles may need to come in pairs. Say a particle and its anti-particle. According to Wikipedia, "fermion number has to be conserved". I guess that would conserve charge and/or other quantum numbers even in the short delta t involved.

Hawking explained how Black Holes evaporate when a pair of virtual particles at the event horizon form. And, one is sucked into the hole, while the other escapes. Resulting is a net loss of mass-energy. This is an example of a particle and anti-particle don't annihilate one another, rather they become 'real' particles.

I think the lifetime of particles produced in particle accelerators can also be inferred from the energy width the particles appear over. A larger width suggests lower delta t, thus the lifetime of at least some particles involved in the collision is short. Much shorter than what might be directly measured. While a narrow energy range of production suggests longer particle lifetimes. Which would reach infinity for particles that live forever.

Google can point you to more about this stuff than I. wink.gif

RAF
jal
Hi!
Good Elf gave me more than I gave him in our exchange in an other thread. smile.gif
I got Einstein-Cartan_theory
QUOTE
Einstein-Cartan theory in theoretical physics extends general relativity, to handle spin angular momentum correctly.

From my first post, I've been saying that the math has probably been worked out that could be applied to "the spot". The Wikipedia explanation seems to support my thinking.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Einstein-Cartan theory in theoretical physics extends general relativity, to handle spin angular momentum correctly.

From my first post, I've been saying that the math has probably been worked out that could be applied to "the spot". The Wikipedia explanation seems to support my thinking.
In order to accommodate spinor fields, all of the constructions of Riemannian and Riemann-Cartan geometry can be generalized from orthogonal groups, principal orthogonal frame bundles and associated tangent bundles to spin groups, principal spin bundles and associated spinor bundles. A spacetime manifold admits a spin bundle over its principal frame bundle only if the second Stiefel-Whitney class of M is zero. The Riemann tensor is the curvature form for (generalized to include boosts) rotations (i.e. the spin(p,q) part) while torsion is the curvature form for translations (R4.)

A geometric interpretation of affine torsion comes from continuum mechanics of solid materials. Affine torsion is the continuum approximation to the density of dislocations that are studied in metallurgy and crystallography. The simplest kinds of dislocations in real crystals are

edge dislocations (formed by adding an extra half-plane of atoms to a perfect crystal, so you get a defect in the regular crystal structure along the line where the extra half-plane ends), and
screw dislocations (formed by inserting a "parking garage ramp" that extends to the edges of the garage into an otherwise perfectly layered structure).
We can think of a Riemann-Cartan geometry as uniquely determined by the lengths and angles of vectors and the density of dislocations in the affine structure of the space.


Can anyone tell me if this approach could be used on a 2d surface? The resulting spin would create a 3d. smile.gif
jal
ps. gadfly.... slow down.... I cannot keep up with all the links that you are supplying. smile.gif
jal
I guess I'll answer my own question from what I'm getting from other statements in other threads. cool.gif
yquantum's thread
QUOTE
It is an excellent concept that can be extended to as many dimensions as needed.
Special Relativity and torsion in nearly flat spacetime (Minkowski Manifold plus extra dimensions) is obviously easier to deal with and is the best approximation without too much "grief".
Wikipedia: Cartan connection applications - Vierbeins
The underlying Restricted Lorentz symmetry for SU(2). Torsion in "spacetime" seems to be almost a non-issue.

Lorentz_group
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It is an excellent concept that can be extended to as many dimensions as needed.
Special Relativity and torsion in nearly flat spacetime (Minkowski Manifold plus extra dimensions) is obviously easier to deal with and is the best approximation without too much "grief".
Wikipedia: Cartan connection applications - Vierbeins
The underlying Restricted Lorentz symmetry for SU(2). Torsion in "spacetime" seems to be almost a non-issue.

Lorentz_group
As stated above, the restricted Lorentz group is the identity component of the Lorentz group. This means that it consists of all Lorentz transformations which can be connected to the identity by a continuous curve lying in the group. The restricted Lorentz group is a connected normal subgroup of the full Lorentz group with the same dimension (in this case, 6 dimensions).

The restricted Lorentz group is generated by ordinary spatial rotations and Lorentz boosts (which can be thought of as hyperbolic rotations in a plane that includes a time-like direction). The set of all rotations forms a Lie subgroup isomorphic to the ordinary rotation group SO(3). The set of all boosts, however, does not form a subgroup, since composing two boosts does not, in general, result in another boost.

A boost in some direction, or a rotation about some axis, each generate a one-parameter subgroup. An arbitrary rotation is specified by 3 real parameters, as is an arbitrary boost. Since every proper, orthochronous Lorentz transformation can be written as a product of a rotation and a boost, it takes 6 real numbers (parameters) to specify an arbitrary proper orthochronous Lorentz transformation. This is one way to understand why the restricted Lorentz group is six dimensional. (We'll study this in more detail in a later section on the Lie algebra of the Lorentz group.) To specify an arbitrary Lorentz transformation requires a further two bits of information, which pick out one of the four connected components. This pattern is typical of finite dimensional Lie groups.

In order to arrive at a 3d structured spacetime from a 2d structured dimension it takes more than one soliton spinning at right angle to the 2d dimension. It is necessary to have a minimum of 12 solitons. It is necessary to find the way all of the solitons are structured/put together.
I have been saying that a 3d structure can only be arrived at by "PACKING".
UNTIL YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU CAN GET A 3D STRUCTURE FOR SPACETIME....you will never get the right answers.
In science fiction....
You can talk about higher dimensions and how energy can get from A to B.... You can imagine faster than light travel through those imaginary dimensions.... you can avoid dealing with a structure of our own 3d spacetime.....you can avoid specifying a structure for those higher dimensions....
In reality....
You got to face the facts..... it takes a minimum of 12 solitons to create a 3d structure for spacetime.
OOHHH!!!.... you disagree? How many solitons do you want to use? ohmy.gif
jal
jal
Well! what do you know....
Wolfram and Kurzweil Roundtable Discussion
QUOTE
The most dramatic possibility is the universe started from a simple initial condition that had some simple geometrical symmetry.

smile.gif hehehe smile.gif like my spot smile.gif hehehe smile.gif
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The most dramatic possibility is the universe started from a simple initial condition that had some simple geometrical symmetry.

smile.gif hehehe smile.gif like my spot smile.gif hehehe smile.gif The traditional idea that's existed in most of physics that space just is and then there's matter and all the particles and so on that do things on top of space. Part of what I think is going on and it's more abstract more difficult to understand and to explain is something where space is all there is and it's features of space itself that correspond to things like particles and so on. The analogy is something like some fluid like water, seems to be continuous, just like space seems to be to us continuous in the sense that you can move from anywhere to anywhere in arbitrarily small increments and so on. But in fact we know that water isn't at an underlying level a continuous fluid, it has a bunch of discrete molecules bouncing around.
RK: There has to be some kind of network and our conception of space is an abstraction where the fundamental reality is the cellular network, and it I'm not saying it can't be done but its not clear how you get a network that would give you the results that we've seen.
Actually one person who did think seriously about idea that there might be nothing in the universe except space was Einstein. In the later years of his life when he tried to develop what he called the unified field theory which has little to do with modern unified grand unified theories and so on he had the idea that the only thing that might exist in the universe is gravity and gravitational fields and that somehow the particles we see might be some sort of knots or singularities in the gravitational fields.
The reason that I think that the underlying stuff of the universe is based on these networks is sort of the network has as little as possible built into it; it doesn't have a notion of space. It doesn't have a notion of colors of cells and it doesn't have a notion of, it has sort of the minimal set of possible notions built into it. It doesn't know how many dimensions it's in. It's just a bunch of connectivity information and from that there then can what's interesting is there can emerge from that notions like space, like time, and to my surprise, special relativity and to my even greater surprise, general relativity and features of gravity.

smile.gif hehehe smile.gif Maybe 12 is a lucky number
jal


Zephir
QUOTE (jal+May 3 2006, 07:27 AM)
Maybe 12 is a lucky number

I suppose, the vacuum is 6D with respect of Lagrangian of energy density spreading in multidimensional hypersphere and the 3D hiearchy is result of tightest 3D sphere packing geometry probably (although some others explanations are possible, too). The 12 D is therefore just practical limit, higher number of dimensions is theoretically possible (15 or 24 maybe) - but they're influencing our space time a quite weekly, as Lagrangian of energy density spreading decreases a rather quickly.

User posted image
jal
Thank you for the short, lucid, precise post
jal
jal
The WEB is great for getting information!
LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE FOUND!!!

Theories that had been published and ignored. Those are the theories that lost the political battle with the Standard Theory. Their science was accepted by their peers.
The math to make a working theory of a quantum spacetime has been around a long time.
As a matter of fact, it would be very naïve of me to think that the work had not started PRIOR 1982. I’m not egoistic enough to think that the PACKING approach was the missing key ingredient to finally getting a working theory of a quantum spacetime! (There won’t be anybody to beat down my door to offer me Degrees)

1)My presentation Is my “SPOT” approach that examines the implications of having a structured spacetime. My approach does not require that the metron/spot be a “hidden” and unreachable at the Plank Scale. Rather, the “SPOT” size must be bigger than EMF. Also, there is no requirement to have “point like particles” which would be “unreachable”.
2) There is Heim’s approach with protosimplex metron formula that actually gets the particles. protosimplex(1982)
3) Then there is the the metron model by K. Hasselmann Journal-ref: Phys.Essays 9 (1996) 311-325 in which The principal properties of the Standard Model are reproduced assuming a four-or five-dimensional harmonic-space background metric. The Standard Model gauge symmetries are explained as a special case of the diffeomorphic gauge symmetries of the Einstein equations.

4) Then there is Geometric Calculus which is a mathematical language for expressing and elaborating geometric concepts. Spacetime algebra is an application of this language to model physical space and time. The most comprehensive treatment of the mathematical theory is given in the book Clifford Algebra to Geometric Calculus [1984].

As an alternate theory, it appears that 20 years ago, LQG and Strings were not even in the race, and I would now say that they are still out of the race.Those old “math kids”are being replaced by a new generation of “math kids”. They will be able to take those theories, dust them off, and add all kinds of bell and whistles. They may not even need to go to more peer review.
The old way of doing things are gone. The old generation that produced those theories did not have the WEB.
The Hydrino Theory is a good example of what will be happening in the future. Discussion groups, Published Books, Interactive 3D figures, Patents, and Financing for a company are just some of the new indications of things to come.
There are a lot of people who pursued careers that did not involve trying to figure out the universe. Now, with the new tools, they will be exposed to visual representations of those lines of numbers. No more scary stories to make nightmares.
It would not surprise me to see some kind of Metron/Spot as an interactive 3D java being used in every classrooms of the world to learn about the universe.
The results of the experiments being done by the colliders will not change. What will change will be the story that will accompany those results. The “New Physics” does not have to equal SUSY as some would have us believe. After 2007, the “New Physics” will need to incorporate other explanations.
jal smile.gif

jal
Hi!
Here is a recent approach (1 nov 1995) to quantizising spacetime by EDUARD PRUGOVECKI
Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1

QUANTUM GEOMETRY AND GRAVITY
QUOTE
The geometro-stochastic method of quantization provides a framework for quantum general relativity, in which the principal frame bundles of local Lorentz frames that underlie the fibre-theoretical approach to classical general relativity are replaced by Poincaré-covariant quantum frame bundles.

The "math kids" looking over Heim's work should also read this approach. They may see the similarities that I cannot.
jal
jal
Hi!
String theories are now also using the quantizisation approach to spacetime.
A good place to start is Quantum mechanics in loop space
QUOTE
The Eguchi quantization program is essentially a sort of quantum mechanics formulated in a space of string loops, i.e., a space in which each point represents a possible geometrical configuration of a closed string. To establish a connection with the Nambu-Goto, or Polyakov path-integral, it is advantageous to start from the quantum kernel

jal
edit:
Home Webpage of articles
jal
Hi!
I found something interesting concerning circle packing.
MinimalCircle
Especially (new expressions for me.) The dual of an S-isothermic surface is S-isothermic.
There are great pictures. smile.gif
edit: Here is the math approach to my circle packing (citation?) smile.gif Asymptotic behavior of discrete holomorphic

jal smile.gif
jal
Hi!
Stochastic Loewner Evolution SLE
Webpage
QUOTE
Abstract. Stochastic Loewner evolution (SLEκ) has been introduced as a description of the continuum limit of cluster boundaries in two-dimensional critical systems. We show that the problem of N radial SLEs in the unit disc is equivalent to Dyson's Brownian motion on the boundary of the disc, with parameter β =  4/κ. As a result, various equilibrium critical models give realizations of circular ensembles with β different from the classical values of 1, 2 and 4 which correspond to symmetry classes of random U(N) matrices. Some of the bulk critical exponents are related to the spectrum of the associated Calogero-Sutherland Hamiltonian. The main result is also checked against the predictions of conformal field theory.

As I have been continuously saying, "Someone has done this before me."
I expect that the "new physic" will include SPOTS". It's nice to have figured out the structure of a membrane. smile.gif
Something new to learn.
holodynamics courses
JAL smile.gif
jal
biggrin.gif
I gues the next step is to find the link with Thurston's_geometrization_conjecture
and see if 3D packing has already been done.
jal
jal
Hi!
Experimental Differential Geometry-Uniformization and Quantum field theory
QUOTE
The method of flowing uses ideas borrow from Ashtekar's new variable (connection representation) formulation of general relativity, and Yang-Mills quantum field theory. We start by representing the metric on a manifold in terms of a connection representation, which is simple a connection that contains a metric, represented by a dyad in two dimensions, and a spin-connection. The spin-connection does not have to be compatible with the metric. The connection is then evolved using a flow that has fixed points at the homogeneous metrics. The conjecture is that the flow always converges to those fixed points for arbitrary initial conditions. If true, then this gives a proof of the uniformization theorem much akin to the Ricci flow proof of Hamilton and Chow (see J. Diff Geom. 35, 723 (1992) or Mathematics and General Relativity, ed J. Isenberg, Contemp. Math 71, AMS (1988)). if this program can be extended to three dimensions, then it may be possible to prove the elusive Thurston Geometrization Conjecture, and produce a classification of all 3-manifolds. This is important both in math, and in physics, where we are interested in summing over all three-geometries in modern formulations of quantum gravity.

User posted image
Steve Braham has some interesting stuff but I don't think that his approach will yield the structure of space time in 3 dimension. He would need to start from 2d packing. (See links in previous post. You'll also get better images.)

User posted image

jal cool.gif
jal
Hi!
You might want to read some of John Baez"s stuff and see how he approaches quantum spacetime. You should find some similarity with what I have been saying.
Of course he does not do any "packing".
quantum_spacetime.
You should also follow the link by Urs Schreiber. There you will find the explanations of "spinning strings" that make surfaces.
Hum-m-m rolleyes.gif
They are getting close.
insert: check this out Electricity, magnetism and Hypercube by Derek Wise
jal
jal
Hi!
If you went to the links then you noticed the image of the two branes. Would any one care to do the meeting of braids for the SPOT?
User posted image
Now you can see why I'm saying that they are getting close to finding the answer. biggrin.gif
jal smile.gif
(for some reason theses images are degraded in quality?)
Zephir
QUOTE (jal+Jun 4 2006, 06:59 PM)
...for some reason theses images are degraded in quality...

You're such reason - u asked it the forum administrators... wink.gif
Zarabtul
QUOTE (jal+Apr 24 2006, 09:59 PM)
QUOTE
Most physicists believe that quantum mechanics provides a correct description for the physical world under almost all circumstances

Quantum_foam
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Most physicists believe that quantum mechanics provides a correct description for the physical world under almost all circumstances

Quantum_foam
Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in quantum mechanics.
Quantum foam is theorized to create masses of virtual particles. They are particle-antiparticle pairs, and prior to their annihilation, exist for a short period of time, on the order of the Planck time. They are created randomly from photons; the higher the energy of the photon from which they are created, the longer the time they will exist prior to annihilation.


qfoam New Scientist 19 June 1999 reports Michael Brooks
QUOTE
American physicist John Wheeler realised in the 1950s that if you look at things on a scale of about 10-35 metres, quantum fluctuations become powerful enough to play tricks with the geometry of the Universe. Space and time break down into "fuzziness" or "foaminess". It's not just space that is beaten to a froth: time is also stretched and squashed, fluctuating by around 10 -44 seconds as the bubbles appear and disappear.
Eventually we should narrow in on one true description of the fabric of the Universe. The apple, one might say, has fallen from the tree


virtual.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
American physicist John Wheeler realised in the 1950s that if you look at things on a scale of about 10-35 metres, quantum fluctuations become powerful enough to play tricks with the geometry of the Universe. Space and time break down into "fuzziness" or "foaminess". It's not just space that is beaten to a froth: time is also stretched and squashed, fluctuating by around 10 -44 seconds as the bubbles appear and disappear.
Eventually we should narrow in on one true description of the fabric of the Universe. The apple, one might say, has fallen from the tree


virtual.
However, these virtual pairs can become real particles . It is found that when there are very high energy photons, that the energy of the photons can be channeled into the virtual pairs and the virtual particles can become real. This process is known as pair production. The collision and subsequent disappearance of a particle/anti-particle pair is known as annihilation. What this means is that if there is a large supply of high energy photons then particles can be created.
• How energetic do the photons have to be?
o Consider proton/anti-proton pairs. Recall that the energy of such a virtual pair is 3 x 10**(-3) ergs
o To make the discussion more concrete, let's talk in terms of temperatures. Since the temperature of a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles, we have that 1.5 k T ~ energy or
 T ~(2m(proton)c**2) / (1.5 k) ~ 10**13 Kelvin
So, the gas needs to be hotter than 10 trillion Kelvin in order to make proton/anti-proton pairs.

Particle             Rest Energy (MeV)              Threshold (Kelvin)

neutrinos                   ?                               ?
electrons                 0.511                         6 x 10**9
muons                     105.7                       1.2 x 10**12
protons                   938.3                       1.1 x 10**13
neutrons                  939.6                       1.1 x 10**13

There are a few other things which have not been mentioned for particles to become real:
1. The photon at the scale of about 10-35 metres have got to expand to reach the size of one of the above particles. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
2. The photon has to do this in less than 10 -44 seconds. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
3. The expanding photon has to come to a screeching halt every time and at precisely the right moment
4. The energy of the photon has to be converted to a particle
5. That particle will then travel at less than the speed of light.
That is an awful lot of unexplained mechanisms and energy.
Maybe there are simpler and more believable explanations.
jal unsure.gif

Interesting indeed.
gshenkers
[QUOTE=jal,Apr 24 2006, 09:59 PM] [QUOTE]Most physicists believe that quantum mechanics provides a correct description for the physical world under almost all circumstances[/QUOTE]

I am not so sure about that. It cannot explain gravity or spacetime, and that is quite a large component of physics. I think it may be more accurate to say that quantum theory offers the best "hope" prospect as the structure from which to develop a unified field theory, or quantum gravity theory. Remember quantum theory itself leaves a lot unexplained about matter and has not even addressed gravity yet in any meaningful way.

[quote]

Quantum_foam
[QUOTE]Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in quantum mechanics.
Quantum foam is theorized to create masses of virtual particles. They are particle-antiparticle pairs, and prior to their annihilation, exist for a short period of time, on the order of the Planck time. They are created randomly from photons; the higher the energy of the photon from which they are created, the longer the time they will exist prior to annihilation.[/QUOTE]

Quantum foam itself isn't a thing. It is considered a rough description of what spacetime is like at Planck levels. The virtual particles, or zero point energy field, are detectable macroscopically, and can be illustrated through the Casmir effect. They are a function what is the cause of the uncertainty principle, that is the state of a system can never be completely measured,. Thus any arbitrary region of spacetime cannot have zero energy. This is a macroscopic effect and not a function simply of Planck scale levels.

[quote]
qfoam New Scientist 19 June 1999 reports Michael Brooks
[QUOTE] American physicist John Wheeler realized in the 1950s that if you look at things on a scale of about 10-35 metres, quantum fluctuations become powerful enough to play tricks with the geometry of the Universe. Space and time break down into "fuzziness" or "foaminess". It's not just space that is beaten to a froth: time is also stretched and squashed, fluctuating by around 10 -44 seconds as the bubbles appear and disappear.
Eventually we should narrow in on one true description of the fabric of the Universe. The apple, one might say, has fallen from the tree
[/QUOTE]

virtual.
[QUOTE] • However, these virtual pairs can become real particles . It is found that when there are very high energy photons, that the energy of the photons can be channeled into the virtual pairs and the virtual particles can become real. This process is known as pair production. The collision and subsequent disappearance of a particle/anti-particle pair is known as annihilation. What this means is that if there is a large supply of high energy photons then particles can be created.
• How energetic do the photons have to be?
o Consider proton/anti-proton pairs. Recall that the energy of such a virtual pair is 3 x 10**(-3) ergs
o To make the discussion more concrete, let's talk in terms of temperatures. Since the temperature of a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles, we have that 1.5 k T ~ energy or
 T ~(2m(proton)c**2) / (1.5 k) ~ 10**13 Kelvin
So, the gas needs to be hotter than 10 trillion Kelvin in order to make proton/anti-proton pairs.

Particle Rest Energy (MeV) Threshold (Kelvin)

neutrinos ? ?
electrons 0.511 6 x 10**9
muons 105.7 1.2 x 10**12
protons 938.3 1.1 x 10**13
neutrons 939.6 1.1 x 10**13[/QUOTE]
There are a few other things which have not been mentioned for particles to become real:
1. The photon at the scale of about 10-35 metres have got to expand to reach the size of one of the above particles. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
2. The photon has to do this in less than 10 -44 seconds. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
3. The expanding photon has to come to a screeching halt every time and at precisely the right moment
4. The energy of the photon has to be converted to a particle
5. That particle will then travel at less than the speed of light.
That is an awful lot of unexplained mechanisms and energy.
Maybe there are simpler and more believable explanations.
jal :unsure: [/QUOTE]
Interesting indeed.[/quote]

Remembers photons have no size, they need not expand. Their size is a function of their wavelength, since they are the quantum of electromagnetic waves. As I said before one can detect the virtual particle and annihilation phenomenon in their living rooms through the Casmir effect.

Although you are correct that the transition from energy or photon to matter occurs instantaneously in the photons rest frame. However, one must remember this is relative to the rest frame. As Einstein Joked, a photon traveling at c across the universe will experience not time or duration, it is instantaneous, according to its rest frame. So these process is not evidence of superluminal forces. Others in QM can be interpreted as indicating such but not this.

It is important to remember that in General Relativity there is no Time as we intuitively sense it. There is no Now as Einstein famously said. Indeed, anything which is not Lorentz invariant does not physically exist according to the metaphysical interpretation of GR, and time is not one of those variables. Indeed the "t' in the equations is the not the "time" in spacetime. That is a dimension where as the "t" is an interval measure that is relative to one's perspective. Thus since intuitive time as we know it is not Lorentz Invariant, in other words, there is no such thing as "Simultaneous", then the notion or definition of time must be restated. According to GR the spacetime is a "block universe", it simply exists with past and future events a relative notion based on one's location in the geometry. That is one observer's future can be another's past. As Kurt Godel stated, if there is no "time", then THERE is no time.

I mention this because the issue of time can cause all types of problems. And instead f trying to force it, we should behave like physicists and ignore it. Time simply doesn't exist in physics. Not entropy does as does the second law, which are not deduced from the theories, but simply observations or principles. Indeed the cause and origin of this entropy state of the universe and hence the second law is considered a key to a successful quantum gravity theory. According to Einstein and Godel, it is simply the behavior of matter in this universe which provides the human consciousness with a sense of time.
I wonder if even Entropy is Lorentz Invariant? I am going to investigate.
jal
Hi gshenkers!
I am aware of the "standard explanation". You did it well. However, don't you feel a little bit uneasy.... smile.gif like there has to be something better.... like you really don't have the answers....like there has to be something that makes more sense.
You really have not explained the points that I mentioned
QUOTE
1. The photon at the scale of about 10-35 metres have got to expand to reach the size of one of the above particles. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
2. The photon has to do this in less than 10 -44 seconds. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
3. The expanding photon has to come to a screeching halt every time and at precisely the right moment
4. The energy of the photon has to be converted to a particle
5. That particle will then travel at less than the speed of light.
That is an awful lot of unexplained mechanisms and energy.
Maybe there are simpler and more believable explanations.

You might as well address the next point while you're at it.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
1. The photon at the scale of about 10-35 metres have got to expand to reach the size of one of the above particles. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
2. The photon has to do this in less than 10 -44 seconds. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .
3. The expanding photon has to come to a screeching halt every time and at precisely the right moment
4. The energy of the photon has to be converted to a particle
5. That particle will then travel at less than the speed of light.
That is an awful lot of unexplained mechanisms and energy.
Maybe there are simpler and more believable explanations.

You might as well address the next point while you're at it.

6.  Posted: May 31 2006, 10:01 PM  from WAVE THREAD
Hi!
Okay....I assume that the quantum foaming foam would be as in math, physic, eng., applets the
Rectangular Membrane Waves Applet which would have to be done in 3d. Therefore, a box.
Look them over, and tell me which one would best represent a structure of branes or the structure of quantum foam?I can take the 2d image and expand it in my mind to what a 3d structure would look like. 
Zephir.... bentsutomuito....if you want your wave to propagate it has to fit inside the box. It has to be able to go to the next box. If you are not in the box then you are not in this universe. You cannot have your wave smaller than Planck scale. You cannot have your wave larger than what can fit inside the box.
How can that be our universe?
jal 

Everyone of the answers/points that you mentioned have been debated and argued for a long time.
Yet,.... they have not managed to convince the "seekers" looking for deeper answers.
Using GR as you did is not an explanation.
Creating a second "time frame" without giving more explanation ....???
If you are going to look for better explanations then read over all of my presentation.... I respectfully say that you might be able to find the answers in a symetrically structured spacetime.
jal smile.gif
gshenkers
Hi gshenkers!
I am aware of the "standard explanation". You did it well. However, don't you feel a little bit uneasy.... :) like there has to be something better.... like you really don't have the answers....like there has to be something that makes more sense.[/quote]


Yes that is my point. I indeed claimed that quantum theory is incomplete and mentioned that many physicists accerpt that to some degree.

QUOTE

You really have not explained the points that I mentioned
QUOTE (->
QUOTE

You really have not explained the points that I mentioned
1. The photon at the scale of about 10-35 metres have got to expand to reach the size of one of the above particles. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .

No. photons have no size. They don't grow or expand. They are simply idealiuzed concentrations of electromagnetic energy. A gamma ray photon is the same size as a radio photon. And the virtual particle scenario does not take place at the Planck scale. It takes place at all scales.

QUOTE

2. The photon has to do this in less than 10 -44 seconds. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .


The photon doesn't do anything. The transition from energy to mass and vice versa is instantaneous just like the orbital shift of an electron. Faster than light means signals can be transmitted faster than c.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

2. The photon has to do this in less than 10 -44 seconds. Which means that quantum mechanics supports faster than light .


The photon doesn't do anything. The transition from energy to mass and vice versa is instantaneous just like the orbital shift of an electron. Faster than light means signals can be transmitted faster than c.


3. The expanding photon has to come to a screeching halt every time and at precisely the right moment
4. The energy of the photon has to be converted to a particle
5. That particle will then travel at less than the speed of light.
That is an awful lot of unexplained mechanisms and energy.
Maybe there are simpler and more believable explanations.

You might as well address the next point while you're at it.


A photon is energy. And so is a so-called particle of matter which can also be thought of as a wave. When a photon of whatever energy is converted into matter, the conservation laws hold. It is simply a process by which the energy manifests itself in several different forms, as mass and as kinetic energy.



Zephir
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 6 2006, 09:30 AM)
...Quantum foam itself isn't a thing. It is considered a rough description of what spacetime is like at Planck levels...

It can be pretty exact and real description of what spacetime is like. Of course, its possible, the real foam evokes an Aether concept more closer, then mainstream physic allows... wink.gif

QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 6 2006, 09:30 AM)
...No. photons have no size. They don't grow or expand. They are simply idealized concentrations of electromagnetic energy. A gamma ray photon is the same size as a radio photon....

By Aether Wave theory the photon is wave pocket, resulting from interference of energy wave with the quantum foam density fluctuations with average wavelength/bubble diameter corresponding to Planck length. You can click to the pictures bellow to see it in original resolution. Furthermore, here u can see the Java applet, demonstrating the photon formation mechanism.

User posted image User posted image

For example, at the case of light of wavelength 10-9 meters (soft X-ray radiation) the corresponding photon size will be 10-9 x 10-9 / 10-35 = 10-17 meters (slightly above atom nuclei diameter range 10-18 m), so it can serve for X-ray structure analysis, for example. The 10-9 m is the diameter of electron orbitals formed by energy density at range of 10 eV. But the X-ray energy falls into 10 - 100 KeV range. It means, the size of photon is closely related to the size of structures, which are able to generate it (the X-ray photon cannot be generated by the electron orbital, but by atom nuclei)!
gshenkers
QUOTE (Zephir+Jun 6 2006, 09:52 PM)
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 6 2006, 09:30 AM)
...Quantum foam itself isn't a thing. It is considered a rough description of what spacetime is like at Planck levels...

It can be pretty exact and real description of what spacetime is like. Of course, its possible, the real foam evokes an Aether concept more closer, then mainstream physic allows... wink.gif

QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 6 2006, 09:30 AM)
...No. photons have no size. They don't grow or expand. They are simply idealized concentrations of electromagnetic energy. A gamma ray photon is the same size as a radio photon....

By Aether Wave theory the photon is wave pocket, resulting from interference of energy wave with the quantum foam density fluctuations with average wavelength/bubble diameter corresponding to Planck length. You can click to the pictures bellow to see it in original resolution. Furthermore, here u can see the Java applet, demonstrating the photon formation mechanism.

User posted image User posted image

For example, at the case of light of wavelength 10-9 meters (soft X-ray radiation) the corresponding photon size will be 10-9 x 10-9 / 10-35 = 10-17 meters (slightly above atom nuclei diameter range 10-18 m), so it can serve for X-ray structure analysis, for example. The 10-9 m is the diameter of electron orbitals formed by energy density at range of 10 eV. But the X-ray energy falls into 10 - 100 KeV range. It means, the size of photon is closely related to the size of structures, which are able to generate it (the X-ray photon cannot be generated by the electron orbital, but by atom nuclei)!

You have misinterpreted or misrepresented tthe so-called Aether Wave theory. I agree the photon is defined according to the wavelength and frequency of the corresponding level of electromagnetic energy.

You simply show that the photon is the wavelength squared divided by Planck Length. Sure, Planck length is the minimum dimension where the concept of "dimension" as any meaning. Anything under that limit cannot be expressed.

But this doesn't define whether the photon has volume or depth etc. AN interesting discovery related to entropy maximum entropy and black holes, was the realization that the maximum amount of information or mass content or entropy of a given region of spacetime is a FUNCTION OF THE AREA of that region, NOT THE VOLUME!

So all this discussion about the ize is mmeaningless due to that discovery and the fact that length is not even Lorentz invariant. Your equations only show the size or dimensions related to the Planck size.

The rest of the citation deals with spectroscopy and is simply treating the electromagnetic energy a series of waves of a particular wavelength. Thus, electron spectroscopy has better resolution than light spect. does since the wavelength of the electron is smaller than that of the photon. That doesn't mean the photon is bigger in any sense.

The so-called wave/particle duality isn't an ontological claim. Physics views all matter and energy has fields and waves for computational practice. Describing a photon or even a particle like an electron like a bseball is simply a category error. Same with an atom. Matter at the size cannot be truly localized.
Zephir
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 01:27 AM)
...You simply show that the photon is the wavelength squared divided by Planck Length...
???
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 01:27 AM)
...the maximum amount of information or mass content or entropy of a given region of spacetime is a FUNCTION OF THE AREA of that region, NOT THE VOLUME...

It does change anything, as I'm not discussing "maximum amount of information or mass content or entropy of a given region"...
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 01:27 AM)
...Your equations only show the size or dimensions (of photon) related to the Planck size....

It was exactly the purpose of my post. No less, no more...
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 01:27 AM)
...Describing a photon or even a particle like an electron like a baseball is simply a category error.....

The wave pocket isn't baseball. But it's not a fully delocalized, too. The X-ray photons appears like cloudy streaks in Wilson's chamber. And the high energy photons are having a well pronounced particle character. Lets see the gamma ray photon in spark chamber..

User posted image user posted image
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 01:27 AM)
...You have misinterpreted or misrepresented the so-called Aether Wave theory...

What's the exact interpretation of my theory, after than? I love interpretations - thank you in advance... wink.gif

BTW You're not required to include full comments in your posts, as it makes reading of such response quite problematic. At the first glance, I'm subtracting minus 10 IQ points for people doing such things.
gshenkers
QUOTE (Zephir+Jun 6 2006, 10:49 PM)
[QUOTE=gshenkers,Jun 7 2006, 01:27 AM]...You simply show that the photon is the wavelength squared divided by Planck Length...[/QUOTE]
???
[QUOTE=gshenkers,Jun 7 2006, 01:27 AM]...the maximum amount of information or mass content or entropy of a given region of spacetime is a FUNCTION OF THE AREA of that region, NOT THE VOLUME...[/QUOTE]

[
user posted image
[QUOTE=gshenkers,Jun 7 2006, 01:27 AM]...You have misinterpreted or misrepresented tthe so-called Aether Wave theory...[/QUOTE]
What's the exact interpretation of my theory, after than? I love intepretations - thank you in advance... wink.gif

[quote]
It does change anything, as I'm not discussing "maximum amount of information or mass content or entropy of a given region"...[/quote]

Sure it does. It shows that trying to describe matter and energy at scales where superpositions occur is a category error.

[quote]
QUOTE=gshenkers,Jun 7 2006, 01:27 AM]...Your equations only show the size or dimensions (of photon) related to the Planck size....[/QUOTE]
It was exactly the purpose of my post. No less, no more...
[QUOTE=gshenkers,Jun 7 2006, 01:27 AM]...Describing a photon or even a particle like an electron like a baseball is simply a category error.....[/QUOTE]
The wave pocket isn't baseball. But it's a fully delocalized too. The high energy photons are having a well pronounced particle character. Lets see the gamma ray photon in spark chamber..
[/quote]

In terms of the relative size, your equations don't give a sense of dimension or shape to a photon. They simply describe the region of space where it might be detectable. Remember all matter and energy is described by the quantuim wavefunction which is a superposition of an infinite amount of possible states that spreads throughout the universe instantaneously.

Now your example of the bubble chamber is good. What it shows is the reactions of the gas or whatever is in the chamber when the electromagnetic radiation pases through. It doesn't show that photons exist as particles. it just states that the effects of the radiations on matter are localized within a very large area, the size of the spark or bubble. The reveal nothing about the size or dimensions of matter or photons. Remember mass is simply a measure of energy so this chambers calculate the mass of particle by the implied energy of its apparent track. These make no metaphysical claims about the structure of matter or energy!
Zephir
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 02:01 AM)
...your equations don't give a sense of dimension or shape to a photon. They simply describe the region of space where it might be detectable....

Well, and this is exactly, what the dimension concept is about.... wink.gif I'm not discussing the shape here, of course.

QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 02:01 AM)
... It doesn't show that photons exist as particles. it just states that the effects of the radiations on matter are localized within a very large area, the size of the spark or bubble....

What it really shows, depends on interpretation again.... wink.gif What I can see by now in spark chamber is the particle spreading. The photon itself can be even much more subtle, than the spark or cloud diameter. In human sense, it's typical particle, despite of its delocalization, which is normal in quantum world.

QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 02:01 AM)
... The reveal nothing about the size or dimensions of matter or photons....

Well, it reveals upper limit of photon size - about 1 millimeter, or so... Does it necessarily mean, the photon has really 1 millimeter in size? I don't think so..

But it definitely means, the photon size doesn't exceed 1 mm in size and it doesn't spread as some spherical wave through space. Do you have some better explanation of this phenomena, then my interpretation supplies?

QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 02:01 AM)
... These make no metaphysical claims about the structure of matter or energy! ....

Of course not, my claims about structure of matter are explicitly based on real physic analogies... smile.gif
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.