This Topic is devoted to exploring the possibility that Heim's cyclical Metronic processes are somehow related to Cellular Automata.
Computer experiments are the method of choice for exploring this computationally intense area. Wolfram's principle of computational irreducibility fully applies to this area of study. This principle means that while the underlying rules of the cyclical Metronic process are simple the observational effects of the simple rules are complex. Therefore, working backward from the observation to find the rule is quite hard.
Guest_MMC's suggestion of using a genetic algorithm to aid in this search is quite appropriate and a powerful way of conducting the search.
jreed's notion of "FUN" is to be followed at all times in this topic. The time I spend on this topic is my recreational time not my work time. So please, no personal stuff, no friction, no argumentation, just FUN with full acknowledgment to all who participate.
More to follow but I have to go to work now!
Paul
The following is a living summary of the work that follows.
I have been studying all of Heim's work that I can find on-line to try and begin to describe Heim's Metron's, Protosimplex's and particles. Most of what I understand I got from Olaf's website.
I will try to describe my understanding in a logical fashion to prove my understanding. Olaf, if you are reading this feel free to correct me.
A Metron is a 2 dimensional area of space of the six available dimensions at the Planck limit. (In the six dimensional version of the theory.)
A Protosimplex is a collection of Metrons.
A particle is composed of multiple Protosimplex's arranged in zones.
Each zone is composed of multiple Protosimplex's of Metrons. The number of Protosimplex's in a zone is given in Olaf's Excel page.
The density of the zones varies. The innermost zone has a cubic relationship to Metron density. The next 2 zones have a quadratic relationship and the outer zone is linear. I don't really understand if the density varies due to tighter packing of the Metrons or their compression or folding of the Metrons. Heim used the word "Compactification". I get the impression that Heim himself did not have a method of Compatification and I don't think the method was all that important to the Mass Formula when compared to the density of Metrons. But I could be really wrong here.
I am pretty hazy on this next point as well but I think the protosimplex's vary because they are composed of metrons of 2 dimensions out of the 6 dimensions of space. Different family's of particles have different dimensional Metrons making different types of Protosimplex's.
The Protosimplex's in a zone are dynamically moving in the zone.
The mass of a particle is calculated from the amount of Metrons and the density of the various zones.
The reason we see probability waves for the location of the particle in space is due to the zones having different densities and dynamical sub-constituents. What this is saying is the results and conclusions of scattering experiments are incorrect because the particle that is being probed (as well as the probing particle) are not really static point particles (In the case of the electron) but particles with dynamic structure. Heim says that the particle may be deformed (I think he uses the word "penetrated") during collision in scattering experiments until it reaches the central zone. As I understand it there are 10's of orders of magnitude from the Planck limit to the observed size of a electron. Heim says the smallest constituent of the electron is at the Planck limit which gives an awful lot of structure to an electron.
This is the critical part. The mass spectrum is made from the sum of these different types of Metrons in a particular particle. And the mass calculation for various particles agrees with experiment incredibly well.
I will stop here and ask for others interpretations before continuing. I would like to revise the points above until a level of consensus is reached. So I will continue studying the source material as well to refine my comprehension.
When we continue we will try to model a particle as a Cellular Automata of Metron's
QUOTE (Kettricken+Apr 5 2006, 02:46 PM)
This must be thread of Zephirs liking.
Booked...
The Heim's theory is a nice target, indeed - but you can try to develope (as the easy training, of course) some cellular automata equivalent of wave equation at first. Another source of inspiration.
Booked...
The Heim's theory is a nice target, indeed - but you can try to develope (as the easy training, of course) some cellular automata equivalent of wave equation at first. Another source of inspiration.
Zeph
Thanks for the link. Most interesting paper! The CA cell size that O'Reilly uses is much larger than a Metron. But I imagine that using reals instead of integers makes for a close approximation of Metrons.
Funny you should bring up the wave equation. I once had a prof who was Schrodinger's grad assistant when the equation was developed. My prof told me a lot of great stories about the old days. He did not like quantum dice either.
Paul
Thanks for the link. Most interesting paper! The CA cell size that O'Reilly uses is much larger than a Metron. But I imagine that using reals instead of integers makes for a close approximation of Metrons.
Funny you should bring up the wave equation. I once had a prof who was Schrodinger's grad assistant when the equation was developed. My prof told me a lot of great stories about the old days. He did not like quantum dice either.
Paul
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 5 2006, 06:24 PM)
My prof told me a lot of great stories about the old days. He did not like quantum dice either.
The recursive wave equation solution leads to the Dirac equation (a relativistic approximation of Schrodinger equation) in few steps.
Do you have some info, who was Schrodinger's grad assistant when this equation was developed? I've heard about some romantic stories, but I've found no more specific info on the net..
The recursive wave equation solution leads to the Dirac equation (a relativistic approximation of Schrodinger equation) in few steps.
Do you have some info, who was Schrodinger's grad assistant when this equation was developed? I've heard about some romantic stories, but I've found no more specific info on the net..
Hi! PNeilson....
If this thread takes off....
(I hope) ....You will be wishing that you were at work so that you could relax. 
I will put up my interpretation, (later) of HEIM's Metrons and an approach that could be used.
( he-he-he most of you anticipate what it will be. )
I will EDIT the presentation according to the inputs from this forum, so as to attain greater clarity.
I expect that there will be many "production runs"
We should use a labelling system for the "production runs" so that we will do not confuse all of the "production runs" in our discussions. (editing, to add a name would work)
More later.
jal
ps. I'll even use one of Zephir's pictures. (Improved, of course)
If this thread takes off....
(I hope) ....You will be wishing that you were at work so that you could relax. I will put up my interpretation, (later) of HEIM's Metrons and an approach that could be used.
(
he-he-he most of you anticipate what it will be. )I will EDIT the presentation according to the inputs from this forum, so as to attain greater clarity.
I expect that there will be many "production runs"
We should use a labelling system for the "production runs" so that we will do not confuse all of the "production runs" in our discussions. (editing, to add a name would work)
More later.
jal
ps. I'll even use one of Zephir's pictures. (Improved, of course)
QUOTE (jal+Apr 5 2006, 06:49 PM)
'll even use one of Zephir's pictures. (Improved, of course)
Not all the pictures presented here are mine, but I'd always recommend you to include the link to the original source at this case, or your feedback score will become pretty interesting soon...
Not all the pictures presented here are mine, but I'd always recommend you to include the link to the original source at this case, or your feedback score will become pretty interesting soon...
Hi All
Zeph, the prof was Wolfgang Yourgrau. When I google his name I get 18K hits I had him in the 70's in a history of science course. It counted for my Liberal Arts requirement while I was finishing up my Chemical Engineering Deg.
It probably was the best course I ever had. We would meet in his home in the afternoon and he insisted that we all bring beer, wine and refreshments. He would pick a beer he liked and we would begin. It was the best teaching method I ever encountered! As a result of this method I have studied QM and GR for fun over the last 30 years. I hope in this forum to recapture some of the feelings of those bygone days.
If you check out Dr. Yourgrau's publications you might find his historical ones interesting for his perspective.
So remember, I am doing this for fun not gain. It's not fun to be unacknowledged or ignored but please leave your ego at the door because I deal with ego all the time at work.
Paul
Zeph, the prof was Wolfgang Yourgrau. When I google his name I get 18K hits I had him in the 70's in a history of science course. It counted for my Liberal Arts requirement while I was finishing up my Chemical Engineering Deg.
It probably was the best course I ever had. We would meet in his home in the afternoon and he insisted that we all bring beer, wine and refreshments. He would pick a beer he liked and we would begin. It was the best teaching method I ever encountered! As a result of this method I have studied QM and GR for fun over the last 30 years. I hope in this forum to recapture some of the feelings of those bygone days.
If you check out Dr. Yourgrau's publications you might find his historical ones interesting for his perspective.
So remember, I am doing this for fun not gain. It's not fun to be unacknowledged or ignored but please leave your ego at the door because I deal with ego all the time at work.
Paul
Here is my promised presentation. It’s a long post.
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:
JAL’S INTERPRETATION AND PROCEDURES (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.
edited 7 April: inserted quote
If there are suggested improvements, I will make the edits.
If the interpretations and approach are rejected I will delete this posting.
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.
2. Second level of quantization
Here is where appears the Metron and R4
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.)
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.
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. 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. I’m not worried. There will be plenty of bread and molasses for everyone.
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.
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?
edit: inserted 2pi restriction
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.
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?
If the readers are not trying to read the protosimplex then all you'll see are poor simple drawings.
edit inserted following
Hi!
Stephen Wolfram, on page 476, says, "... any node with more than three connections can in effect always be broken into a collection of nodes with exactly three connections..."
By changing the topology of the first level of quantization I get the following illustration.
As a reminder, this is where space and time are equal and are (spheres (12d)).
Is it posssible to use that to construct a Cellular Automata?
There are some 4 connecting nodes which need to be addressed.
Since the second level of quantization produces the first level, do we need to try to do Cellular Automata of second level of quantization (where the metron reside)?
jal
I have one more visual.....duh...
This one will show that strings, metron, LQG, are not that far apart.
It might also suggest the importance of attempting to use CA.
I also think that Wolfram has been trying, (but not saying), to blend those four lines of code together.
The first thing that you will notice, is that there are now two sheets/membranes.
The next thing that will be noticeable is that there are 3 sheet that are interacting.
(The third is shown with only one R4.)
The next thing is that there is that sphere. It is us.
All of this was derived from the fact that 3d has 12 paths of information. Ya.... that stupid thing called hex packing .
jal
ps pssss... don't tell Y... (he's a good seeker) that we have an approach of why there is mass.
If there are suggested improvements, I will make the edits.
If the interpretations and approach are rejected I will delete this posting.
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.
2. Second level of quantization
Here is where appears the Metron and R4
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.)
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.
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. 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. I’m not worried. There will be plenty of bread and molasses for everyone.
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.
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?
edit: inserted 2pi restriction
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.
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?
If the readers are not trying to read the protosimplex then all you'll see are poor simple drawings.
edit inserted following
Hi!
Stephen Wolfram, on page 476, says, "... any node with more than three connections can in effect always be broken into a collection of nodes with exactly three connections..."
By changing the topology of the first level of quantization I get the following illustration.
As a reminder, this is where space and time are equal and are (spheres (12d)).
Is it posssible to use that to construct a Cellular Automata?
There are some 4 connecting nodes which need to be addressed.
Since the second level of quantization produces the first level, do we need to try to do Cellular Automata of second level of quantization (where the metron reside)?
jal
I have one more visual.....duh...
This one will show that strings, metron, LQG, are not that far apart.
It might also suggest the importance of attempting to use CA.
I also think that Wolfram has been trying, (but not saying), to blend those four lines of code together.
The first thing that you will notice, is that there are now two sheets/membranes.
The next thing that will be noticeable is that there are 3 sheet that are interacting.
(The third is shown with only one R4.)
The next thing is that there is that sphere. It is us.
All of this was derived from the fact that 3d has 12 paths of information. Ya.... that stupid thing called hex packing .
jal
ps pssss... don't tell Y... (he's a good seeker) that we have an approach of why there is mass.
Also, I wondered if you see the angle on the "Y" that marks the "crossing" of the hex packing?
Some people might not understand how the "Y" got there so here is what I did.
First, The idea. Metrons at the second quantum level make the first quantum level which are the packed 12 spheres. The spheres make a void between the spheres.
Here is a picture of that void.
I then invested a lot of money into R&D...
I bought one of those kits with magnets with steel ball with short plastic tubes and I made the double simplex. Then I changed the shape without changing the connections.
Since everything can move without breaking apart....you get the picture that I gave and the "Y"'s are reversed.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
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.
Okay, …. let’s get the show on the road!
simple jal
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:
JAL’S INTERPRETATION AND PROCEDURES (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.
edited 7 April: inserted quote
QUOTE
Heim says that the particle may be deformed (I think he uses the word "penetrated") during collision in scattering experiments until it reaches the central zone. As I understand it there are 10's of orders of magnitude from the Planck limit to the observed size of a electron. Heim says the smallest constituent of the electron is at the Planck limit which gives an awful lot of structure to an electron.
If there are suggested improvements, I will make the edits.
If the interpretations and approach are rejected I will delete this posting.
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.
2. Second level of quantization
Here is where appears the Metron and R4
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.)
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.
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.
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. I’m not worried. There will be plenty of bread and molasses for everyone. 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.
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?
edit: inserted 2pi restriction
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.
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?
If the readers are not trying to read the protosimplex then all you'll see are poor simple drawings.
edit inserted following
Hi!
Stephen Wolfram, on page 476, says, "... any node with more than three connections can in effect always be broken into a collection of nodes with exactly three connections..."
By changing the topology of the first level of quantization I get the following illustration.
As a reminder, this is where space and time are equal and are (spheres (12d)).
Is it posssible to use that to construct a Cellular Automata?
There are some 4 connecting nodes which need to be addressed.
Since the second level of quantization produces the first level, do we need to try to do Cellular Automata of second level of quantization (where the metron reside)?
jal
I have one more visual.....duh...
This one will show that strings, metron, LQG, are not that far apart.
It might also suggest the importance of attempting to use CA.
I also think that Wolfram has been trying, (but not saying), to blend those four lines of code together.
The first thing that you will notice, is that there are now two sheets/membranes.
The next thing that will be noticeable is that there are 3 sheet that are interacting.
(The third is shown with only one R4.)
The next thing is that there is that sphere. It is us.
All of this was derived from the fact that 3d has 12 paths of information. Ya.... that stupid thing called hex packing .
jal
ps pssss... don't tell Y... (he's a good seeker) that we have an approach of why there is mass.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Heim says that the particle may be deformed (I think he uses the word "penetrated") during collision in scattering experiments until it reaches the central zone. As I understand it there are 10's of orders of magnitude from the Planck limit to the observed size of a electron. Heim says the smallest constituent of the electron is at the Planck limit which gives an awful lot of structure to an electron. |
If there are suggested improvements, I will make the edits.
If the interpretations and approach are rejected I will delete this posting.
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.
2. Second level of quantization
Here is where appears the Metron and R4
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.)
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.
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.
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. I’m not worried. There will be plenty of bread and molasses for everyone. 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.
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?
edit: inserted 2pi restriction
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.
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?
If the readers are not trying to read the protosimplex then all you'll see are poor simple drawings.
edit inserted following
Hi!
Stephen Wolfram, on page 476, says, "... any node with more than three connections can in effect always be broken into a collection of nodes with exactly three connections..."
By changing the topology of the first level of quantization I get the following illustration.
As a reminder, this is where space and time are equal and are (spheres (12d)).
Is it posssible to use that to construct a Cellular Automata?
There are some 4 connecting nodes which need to be addressed.
Since the second level of quantization produces the first level, do we need to try to do Cellular Automata of second level of quantization (where the metron reside)?
jal
I have one more visual.....duh...
This one will show that strings, metron, LQG, are not that far apart.
It might also suggest the importance of attempting to use CA.
I also think that Wolfram has been trying, (but not saying), to blend those four lines of code together.
The first thing that you will notice, is that there are now two sheets/membranes.
The next thing that will be noticeable is that there are 3 sheet that are interacting.
(The third is shown with only one R4.)
The next thing is that there is that sphere. It is us.
All of this was derived from the fact that 3d has 12 paths of information. Ya.... that stupid thing called hex packing .
jal
ps pssss... don't tell Y... (he's a good seeker) that we have an approach of why there is mass.
Also, I wondered if you see the angle on the "Y" that marks the "crossing" of the hex packing?
Some people might not understand how the "Y" got there so here is what I did.
First, The idea. Metrons at the second quantum level make the first quantum level which are the packed 12 spheres. The spheres make a void between the spheres.
Here is a picture of that void.
I then invested a lot of money into R&D...
I bought one of those kits with magnets with steel ball with short plastic tubes and I made the double simplex. Then I changed the shape without changing the connections.
Since everything can move without breaking apart....you get the picture that I gave and the "Y"'s are reversed.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
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.
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.
Okay, …. let’s get the show on the road!
simple jal
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 5 2006, 03:42 PM)
The recursive wave equation solution leads to the Dirac equation (a relativistic approximation of Schrodinger equation) in few steps.
Do you have some info, who was Schrodinger's grad assistant when this equation was developed? I've heard about some romantic stories, but I've found no more specific info on the net..
I can give you some information on Schrodinger's equation. It was developed by Schrodinger in trying to find a wave equation solution for De Broglie's pilot waves. De Broglie developed a theory that electrons were guided by pilot waves. This would explain how they could show interference patterns. Schrodinger finally came up with his equation which solved this problem in the non-relativistic domain. Later the pilot waves were replaced with probablity amplitudes.
Dirac's equation wasn't an approximation to Schrodinger's equation. It was a new relativistic solution to the problem. It is the solution to the motion of a quantum mechanical particle including spin which was not part of Schrodinger's equation. It is still however a probability solution. Most physicists consider the solution of these problems are only probability amplitudes of where the particle will be located. These amplitudes are called wave functions. They are complex valued. To find the probability of locating a particle, one has to take the wave function times its complex conjugate. The strange thing about this is that the wave function, Schroedinger's and Dirac's equations are all complex valued. That's a short lesson in quantum mechanics.
I won't have a lot to say about cellular automata until I get up to speed on it. It all sounds very interesting.
jreed
Do you have some info, who was Schrodinger's grad assistant when this equation was developed? I've heard about some romantic stories, but I've found no more specific info on the net..
I can give you some information on Schrodinger's equation. It was developed by Schrodinger in trying to find a wave equation solution for De Broglie's pilot waves. De Broglie developed a theory that electrons were guided by pilot waves. This would explain how they could show interference patterns. Schrodinger finally came up with his equation which solved this problem in the non-relativistic domain. Later the pilot waves were replaced with probablity amplitudes.
Dirac's equation wasn't an approximation to Schrodinger's equation. It was a new relativistic solution to the problem. It is the solution to the motion of a quantum mechanical particle including spin which was not part of Schrodinger's equation. It is still however a probability solution. Most physicists consider the solution of these problems are only probability amplitudes of where the particle will be located. These amplitudes are called wave functions. They are complex valued. To find the probability of locating a particle, one has to take the wave function times its complex conjugate. The strange thing about this is that the wave function, Schroedinger's and Dirac's equations are all complex valued. That's a short lesson in quantum mechanics.
I won't have a lot to say about cellular automata until I get up to speed on it. It all sounds very interesting.
jreed
Hi all
JReed Please take a look at the link Zeph posted earlier. I have spent an hour or two reading and rereading O'Reilly's paper that has been submitted to Physical Review A a couple of weeks ago. It is all too much. CA works in this paper. After reading the paper I am sure that I am the amateur that I think I am.
Heck. I might even have to check out Zeph's Aether wave theory after reading this paper. Oh, I have already been on his web site more than once. Don't get cocky with me Zeph after you read this.
But CA just might explain wave particle duality in a way that I can accept. Even Wolfgang Y would like this paper as it gives a mechanism for determinism to exist. He hated probability waves. Must of been a prof student kind of thing. Or at least that is the way it seemed to me when I took the class. O'Reilly says all is a wave it just looks like a particle with our limited senses.
jal, you are going even deeper into what Feynman refered to as "There is plenty of room at the bottom". The Metron must encode information. I think that O'Reilly might be right that it is encoded as stress or strain. If we take Heim literally then the curvature of space that produces gravity must be followed by the curvature of a dimension beyond space that produces charge. Spin might be an emergent property of the Metron cyclical processes.
Or their is an easier explanation which is I don't have any idea what I am talking about. Oh, well. My day is ending. Hope to hear from you all tomorrow.
Paul
JReed Please take a look at the link Zeph posted earlier. I have spent an hour or two reading and rereading O'Reilly's paper that has been submitted to Physical Review A a couple of weeks ago. It is all too much. CA works in this paper. After reading the paper I am sure that I am the amateur that I think I am.
Heck. I might even have to check out Zeph's Aether wave theory after reading this paper. Oh, I have already been on his web site more than once. Don't get cocky with me Zeph after you read this.
But CA just might explain wave particle duality in a way that I can accept. Even Wolfgang Y would like this paper as it gives a mechanism for determinism to exist. He hated probability waves. Must of been a prof student kind of thing. Or at least that is the way it seemed to me when I took the class. O'Reilly says all is a wave it just looks like a particle with our limited senses.
jal, you are going even deeper into what Feynman refered to as "There is plenty of room at the bottom". The Metron must encode information. I think that O'Reilly might be right that it is encoded as stress or strain. If we take Heim literally then the curvature of space that produces gravity must be followed by the curvature of a dimension beyond space that produces charge. Spin might be an emergent property of the Metron cyclical processes.
Or their is an easier explanation which is I don't have any idea what I am talking about. Oh, well. My day is ending. Hope to hear from you all tomorrow.
Paul
QUOTE (jreed+Apr 6 2006, 03:08 AM)
Dirac's equation wasn't an approximation to Schrodinger's equation.
It's all right - maybe I should use the word "extrapolation" or "extension" at this case. I know all the quantum equations variant a quite well, nevertheless thank you for your time & explanation, it may be useful for the other people, too..
It's all right - maybe I should use the word "extrapolation" or "extension" at this case. I know all the quantum equations variant a quite well, nevertheless thank you for your time & explanation, it may be useful for the other people, too..
QUOTE (jreed+Apr 6 2006, 03:08 AM)
...The strange thing about this is that the wave function, Schroedinger's and Dirac's equations are all complex valued..
From the Aether Wave Theory perspective such behavior isn't very surprising at all. All these equations can be described using a rotator formalism based on Euler transforms as a system of transversal waves in nested dimensions. It means, all the quantum concepts (the pilot waves, probability function, de Broglie wave, entanglement, etc.) are having a solid physical meaning and direct analogy for example with the water surface wave spreading.
From the Aether Wave Theory perspective such behavior isn't very surprising at all. All these equations can be described using a rotator formalism based on Euler transforms as a system of transversal waves in nested dimensions. It means, all the quantum concepts (the pilot waves, probability function, de Broglie wave, entanglement, etc.) are having a solid physical meaning and direct analogy for example with the water surface wave spreading.
QUOTE (jreed+Apr 6 2006, 03:08 AM)
...Most physicists consider the solution of these problems are only probability amplitudes of where the particle will be located..
In fact, the probability wave is the energy density wave, as all the particles are formed by the (torsion) vibrations of vacuum with the common topology. It means, the quantum mechanic isn't about dice playing, but the character of vibrations doesn't enable to study it directly using a light. Compare to my former explanations of double slit experiment, entanglement and other quantum effects.
In fact, the probability wave is the energy density wave, as all the particles are formed by the (torsion) vibrations of vacuum with the common topology. It means, the quantum mechanic isn't about dice playing, but the character of vibrations doesn't enable to study it directly using a light. Compare to my former explanations of double slit experiment, entanglement and other quantum effects.
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 03:56 AM)
O'Reilly says all is a wave it just looks like a particle with our limited senses.
OK, I've no problem with this, as I'm looking for the most general explanation available. I don't care if you believe in my model or not (as I'm not even able to verify it) - my job is just to make it understandable for most people available. I don't even using the ad-hoc quantum mechanic equation in explanations, because it can be derived in situ with the recursive wave equation solution (i.e. the local form of Newton inertia law).
If all particles are waves, why not to use a wave equation directly?
OK, I've no problem with this, as I'm looking for the most general explanation available. I don't care if you believe in my model or not (as I'm not even able to verify it) - my job is just to make it understandable for most people available. I don't even using the ad-hoc quantum mechanic equation in explanations, because it can be derived in situ with the recursive wave equation solution (i.e. the local form of Newton inertia law).
If all particles are waves, why not to use a wave equation directly?
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 03:56 AM)
..If we take Heim literally then the curvature of space that produces gravity must be followed by the curvature of a dimension beyond space that produces charge. ....
The Aether Wave Theory doesn't uses the curvature space concept - it replaces it by the deformation of inhomogeneous elastic massive environment concept - i.e. by Aether deformation. The dimensions cannot be "curved", being the abstract quantities, in fact - just the Aether can be deformed like elastic nested foam.
The Aether Wave Theory doesn't uses the curvature space concept - it replaces it by the deformation of inhomogeneous elastic massive environment concept - i.e. by Aether deformation. The dimensions cannot be "curved", being the abstract quantities, in fact - just the Aether can be deformed like elastic nested foam.
Zeph
I really liked your last posting. Especially the double slit graphics. But chill out. I understand your promotion of the Aether Wave Theory. All of us in this forum already know all about it. "From my perspective" would have worked much better. You are just a little too American in your self promotion. Oops, I am an American so I guess I know all about self promotion. Your ideas are promotion enough as they are really good. Your links are even better. But overselling your ideas gets people uptight. Let your ideas win or lose on their own merits and we all win.
Your Friend
Paul
I really liked your last posting. Especially the double slit graphics. But chill out. I understand your promotion of the Aether Wave Theory. All of us in this forum already know all about it. "From my perspective" would have worked much better. You are just a little too American in your self promotion. Oops, I am an American so I guess I know all about self promotion. Your ideas are promotion enough as they are really good. Your links are even better. But overselling your ideas gets people uptight. Let your ideas win or lose on their own merits and we all win.
Your Friend
Paul
Zeph
Our last postings seem to have crossed in the mail. I agree. A wave equation may work directly. But somehow it seems to me that the computational cost is too high. Oops, my masters is in computer science. I can't figure out a mechanism to compute the wave equation for no energy cost. Limitless virtual particles don't work for me. But stress and strain in a nearest neighbor CA seems costless.
Keep up the good work.
Paul
Our last postings seem to have crossed in the mail. I agree. A wave equation may work directly. But somehow it seems to me that the computational cost is too high. Oops, my masters is in computer science. I can't figure out a mechanism to compute the wave equation for no energy cost. Limitless virtual particles don't work for me. But stress and strain in a nearest neighbor CA seems costless.
Keep up the good work.
Paul
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 04:30 AM)
All of us in this forum already know all about it.
Sorry, but you can ignore my post, after than - or not? I've explained my stance to jreed, which obviously didn't know anything about it - not you. After all, this is a dynamic forum, most of posts or even thread topics are repeating again and again in other or deeper consequences. If you have some problem with this, you can visit some static web site...
Sorry, but you can ignore my post, after than - or not? I've explained my stance to jreed, which obviously didn't know anything about it - not you. After all, this is a dynamic forum, most of posts or even thread topics are repeating again and again in other or deeper consequences. If you have some problem with this, you can visit some static web site...
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 04:30 AM)
... know all about self promotion....
But this isn't some "self promo", it's a presentation of theory. Wake up, Paul - you'll never learn about me. Please, let me decide the proper strategy alone...
BTW You've told me, CA just might explain wave particle duality in a way that you can accept. So, can you explain his wave particle duality, after than? Did CA explain for example, the photon concept? Can you interpret such explanation by own words? Can you explain, why the photon behaves like wave or particle?
Or you simply believe, you've understood the CA explanation?
BTW You cannot be my friend - I even don't know you, Paul - you've just a few submissions here...
Please wake up: this is just an anonymous forum - no less, no more.
But this isn't some "self promo", it's a presentation of theory. Wake up, Paul - you'll never learn about me. Please, let me decide the proper strategy alone...
BTW You've told me, CA just might explain wave particle duality in a way that you can accept. So, can you explain his wave particle duality, after than? Did CA explain for example, the photon concept? Can you interpret such explanation by own words? Can you explain, why the photon behaves like wave or particle?
Or you simply believe, you've understood the CA explanation?
BTW You cannot be my friend - I even don't know you, Paul - you've just a few submissions here...
Please wake up: this is just an anonymous forum - no less, no more.
Oh Zeph
Please don't take me the wrong way. I really like your posts. They have a ton of information in them. So no, I won't ignore them. They are too valuable.
I have no desire to visit a static web site. Nor do I have any desire to tell you what to do. You can figure that out for yourself.
A careful reread of O'Reilly indicates his explanation of wave particle duality. It seems plausible to me. I have been at this for way too long to believe anything without confirmation. His paper has not been peer reviewed just submitted, so I have no firm opinion just yet. Time will tell.
If I cannot be your friend because you do not know me then maybe over time I can overcome this limit. If not, you will decide.
But in the world of today anonymous doesn't work. Too much information in too many places.
But as I have stated earlier I am here for fun. I hope that at some time when you are comfortable we can have a beer together. If not, well that will be your choice.
Paul
Please don't take me the wrong way. I really like your posts. They have a ton of information in them. So no, I won't ignore them. They are too valuable.
I have no desire to visit a static web site. Nor do I have any desire to tell you what to do. You can figure that out for yourself.
A careful reread of O'Reilly indicates his explanation of wave particle duality. It seems plausible to me. I have been at this for way too long to believe anything without confirmation. His paper has not been peer reviewed just submitted, so I have no firm opinion just yet. Time will tell.
If I cannot be your friend because you do not know me then maybe over time I can overcome this limit. If not, you will decide.
But in the world of today anonymous doesn't work. Too much information in too many places.
But as I have stated earlier I am here for fun. I hope that at some time when you are comfortable we can have a beer together. If not, well that will be your choice.
Paul
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 04:39 AM)
A wave equation may work directly. But somehow it seems to me that the computational cost is too high.
Whether it's effective or not it's a question of future. Even the ab-inicio quantum computing wasn't not used at the Bohr/Schrodinger's times for solution of practical problems due the computational cost. Let's make the computer specialist to develop some special wave simulation processors and paralel computing techniques - one of particular interest can be a computing using pixel shaders, which I'm developing by now.
Furthermore, I'm not mathematical expert. I don't care about optimization of solution of wave equation in multiple dimensions, about resulting topologies and functional analysis of it. Nevertheless, I can see the physical meaning of differential equations, maybe better then a lot of math specialist, just because I've a physical feeling and insight into situation. This is what I can do and I can do it well. Some other people are better in other areas, instead.
After all, the world is full of mathematicians, but the whole true is, the Aether Wave Theory could be developed over 150 years before - it's nothing special from physical, both the mathematical point of view. My point of view is to demonstrate some invalid philosophy of science, which was responsible for such delay.
Whether it's effective or not it's a question of future. Even the ab-inicio quantum computing wasn't not used at the Bohr/Schrodinger's times for solution of practical problems due the computational cost. Let's make the computer specialist to develop some special wave simulation processors and paralel computing techniques - one of particular interest can be a computing using pixel shaders, which I'm developing by now.
Furthermore, I'm not mathematical expert. I don't care about optimization of solution of wave equation in multiple dimensions, about resulting topologies and functional analysis of it. Nevertheless, I can see the physical meaning of differential equations, maybe better then a lot of math specialist, just because I've a physical feeling and insight into situation. This is what I can do and I can do it well. Some other people are better in other areas, instead.
After all, the world is full of mathematicians, but the whole true is, the Aether Wave Theory could be developed over 150 years before - it's nothing special from physical, both the mathematical point of view. My point of view is to demonstrate some invalid philosophy of science, which was responsible for such delay.
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 04:39 AM)
...I can't figure out a mechanism to compute the wave equation for no energy cost....
I don't understand your problem. The wave equation is self-describing. You have to start from the solution of nearly homogeneous string with infinitesimal mass/energy density by the same way, like our Universe probably did. But such infinitesimal density enables to introduce some energy density into such string, thus increasing its mass density, etc. by the recursive way. You're not required to introduce any constants and boundary conditions (the Universe hasn't it probably too). But you can study the topology changes during such solution and the other conseqences without using of ad-hoc topology models.
I don't understand your problem. The wave equation is self-describing. You have to start from the solution of nearly homogeneous string with infinitesimal mass/energy density by the same way, like our Universe probably did. But such infinitesimal density enables to introduce some energy density into such string, thus increasing its mass density, etc. by the recursive way. You're not required to introduce any constants and boundary conditions (the Universe hasn't it probably too). But you can study the topology changes during such solution and the other conseqences without using of ad-hoc topology models.
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 04:39 AM)
...Limitless virtual particles don't work for me....
What are you talking about, please? You've told me, everybody including you knows the Aether Wave Theory model sufficiently (I don't think so...). But what are "limitless virtual particles" - I've never mentioned something like this.
What are you talking about, please? You've told me, everybody including you knows the Aether Wave Theory model sufficiently (I don't think so...). But what are "limitless virtual particles" - I've never mentioned something like this.
I'm lost here, are you referring to cellular, as in biological cells, or cells, as a unit per allotment of near atomic space?
search for "Cellular Automata NKS"
QUOTE (philip347+Apr 6 2006, 06:25 AM)
are you referring to cellular, as in biological cells, or cells, as a unit per allotment of near atomic space
The Cellular Automata is technical term for specific sort of simulation algorithms.
The Cellular Automata is technical term for specific sort of simulation algorithms.
Zeph
I did not mean that everyone knows the Aether Wave Theory. I just meant that we have all have heard of it due to your informative posts. Knowing any theory requires much study and work and that is hard to do. After all, for those of us for who this is recreation (like me) we are limited in our time and so we can only pick and choose a few topics to study. Don't take this personally when we try to stay on topic. It's just that the topic is our chosen topic and we don't have any more time to stray off topic even if the alternative topic is interesting and valuable to others. (I think I hear my wife calling, "go to sleep").
When I refer to computational cost I am not referring to the cost on a PC. Instead I am talking about the energy cost to the universe to compute a result. That is, how does a particle know its location in a field. If I am an electron trying to decide which way to go in a charged field, if I incur any energy cost in computing my direction then energy is not conserved. We know energy is conserved. Therefore, computation of a particle's motion in a field must be computed free of any energy cost. The only way I can think of energy free computation is using a CA where the properties of the cell result in this computation at no energy cost.
The way I understand a field from a particle point of view (I am probably wrong in my understanding but this is what I grok) is that the particle feels forces through a exchange of virtual particles with the field. But getting to multiple digits of accuracy using integer particle values requires infinite energy cost. Since this energy is not available this cannot be the underlying mechanism. A CA that only senses stress or strain to its nearest neighbors seems to me like a energy free computational mechanism.
But then this requires yet a whole other realm of forces and spaces below the Planck limit. I am very uncomfortable even suggesting such a thing.
This will all get figured out sooner or later. I am just an observer that hopes I can contribute a small amount to this global effort. And that is enough for me.
Best regards
Paul
I did not mean that everyone knows the Aether Wave Theory. I just meant that we have all have heard of it due to your informative posts. Knowing any theory requires much study and work and that is hard to do. After all, for those of us for who this is recreation (like me) we are limited in our time and so we can only pick and choose a few topics to study. Don't take this personally when we try to stay on topic. It's just that the topic is our chosen topic and we don't have any more time to stray off topic even if the alternative topic is interesting and valuable to others. (I think I hear my wife calling, "go to sleep").
When I refer to computational cost I am not referring to the cost on a PC. Instead I am talking about the energy cost to the universe to compute a result. That is, how does a particle know its location in a field. If I am an electron trying to decide which way to go in a charged field, if I incur any energy cost in computing my direction then energy is not conserved. We know energy is conserved. Therefore, computation of a particle's motion in a field must be computed free of any energy cost. The only way I can think of energy free computation is using a CA where the properties of the cell result in this computation at no energy cost.
The way I understand a field from a particle point of view (I am probably wrong in my understanding but this is what I grok) is that the particle feels forces through a exchange of virtual particles with the field. But getting to multiple digits of accuracy using integer particle values requires infinite energy cost. Since this energy is not available this cannot be the underlying mechanism. A CA that only senses stress or strain to its nearest neighbors seems to me like a energy free computational mechanism.
But then this requires yet a whole other realm of forces and spaces below the Planck limit. I am very uncomfortable even suggesting such a thing.
This will all get figured out sooner or later. I am just an observer that hopes I can contribute a small amount to this global effort. And that is enough for me.
Best regards
Paul
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 06:44 AM)
...Knowing any theory requires much study and work and that is hard to do...
Of course, I don't even expect, the people are masochists and they will learn some foreign theories just for viewing pleasure. So I'm not appealing to individual studying it, but I'm demonstrating, how to use it for explanation of the problems and paradoxs of common physic. It doesn't enable you to compute anything, just to understand some consequences - that's all. I suppose, the people are full of different concepts and theories, but the explanations are generally free market. You can waste some time with my theory and in turn you can learn something from me. It's just business.
Of course, I don't even expect, the people are masochists and they will learn some foreign theories just for viewing pleasure. So I'm not appealing to individual studying it, but I'm demonstrating, how to use it for explanation of the problems and paradoxs of common physic. It doesn't enable you to compute anything, just to understand some consequences - that's all. I suppose, the people are full of different concepts and theories, but the explanations are generally free market. You can waste some time with my theory and in turn you can learn something from me. It's just business.
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 06:44 AM)
...don't take this personally when we try to stay on topic...
Don't afraid, I'm taking anything personally, I'm sufficiently assertive. On the other hand, I can expect the same stance from you. I suppose, in anonymous environment, such emotionless stance is better than relationship based on proclaimed friendship, which doesn't exist in fact.
Don't afraid, I'm taking anything personally, I'm sufficiently assertive. On the other hand, I can expect the same stance from you. I suppose, in anonymous environment, such emotionless stance is better than relationship based on proclaimed friendship, which doesn't exist in fact.
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 06:44 AM)
...I am talking about the energy cost to the universe to compute a result...
I supose, the Universe doesn't compute or simulate anything for anybody. The Universe simply exists. The same energy, which increases the string density is making it vibrate. When the vibration density is too large, the original state of string will be restored as the pure result of geometry. From the Universe long-term perspective, it's existence realizes a pretty closed system with spontaneous waves of existence (i.e. the complexity, or information density waves, being more specific). The energy is in duality with complexity by the similar way, like the potential energy is in duality with kinetic energy. From this point of view, the whole Universe existence is spontaneous wave of complexity with zero energy involved.
I supose, the Universe doesn't compute or simulate anything for anybody. The Universe simply exists. The same energy, which increases the string density is making it vibrate. When the vibration density is too large, the original state of string will be restored as the pure result of geometry. From the Universe long-term perspective, it's existence realizes a pretty closed system with spontaneous waves of existence (i.e. the complexity, or information density waves, being more specific). The energy is in duality with complexity by the similar way, like the potential energy is in duality with kinetic energy. From this point of view, the whole Universe existence is spontaneous wave of complexity with zero energy involved.
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 06:44 AM)
...computation of a particle's motion in a field must be computed free of any energy cost...
By the general relativity theory, the particle move along space-time geodetics. The e Aether Wave Theory (AWT) distinguishes between the location and time quantities carefully and the general understanding of motion is different: the particle is moving in equipotential field of energy density, which is corresponding the mass density of vacuum. It mean, the particle motion along some potential gradient can be described in terms of reaching the equilibrium state of vacuum, where all the energy density is the same. The particle energy density simply fills hole in the vacuum energy density - it means, the motion in AWT is a special case of reaching evolutionary equilibrium with respect of 2nd thermodynamical law.
By the general relativity theory, the particle move along space-time geodetics. The e Aether Wave Theory (AWT) distinguishes between the location and time quantities carefully and the general understanding of motion is different: the particle is moving in equipotential field of energy density, which is corresponding the mass density of vacuum. It mean, the particle motion along some potential gradient can be described in terms of reaching the equilibrium state of vacuum, where all the energy density is the same. The particle energy density simply fills hole in the vacuum energy density - it means, the motion in AWT is a special case of reaching evolutionary equilibrium with respect of 2nd thermodynamical law.
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 06:44 AM)
...But then this requires yet a whole other realm of forces and spaces below the Planck limit. I am very uncomfortable even suggesting such a thing....
Well, on the other hand, it enables you to model it..;-) It's the same thing, like the modeling of physical process using a Lagrangian mechanic - you'll obtain the steady state solution faster, but you'll know anything about evolution in time. I cannot recommend to use the dynamic modeling in each cases, but sometimes is simply necessary. Tit for tat.
Well, on the other hand, it enables you to model it..;-) It's the same thing, like the modeling of physical process using a Lagrangian mechanic - you'll obtain the steady state solution faster, but you'll know anything about evolution in time. I cannot recommend to use the dynamic modeling in each cases, but sometimes is simply necessary. Tit for tat.
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 06:44 AM)
...particle feels forces through a exchange of virtual particles with the field....
No forces really exist, everything is just the energy density leveling by the AWT. It means, the motion under forces is simple thermodynamical process of leveling concentration of vacuum fluctuations, which are behaving like particles (wave pockets) with respect of each other. It means, even no energy exist, just entropy, which is based on particle packing geometry.
No forces really exist, everything is just the energy density leveling by the AWT. It means, the motion under forces is simple thermodynamical process of leveling concentration of vacuum fluctuations, which are behaving like particles (wave pockets) with respect of each other. It means, even no energy exist, just entropy, which is based on particle packing geometry.
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 6 2006, 07:27 AM)
It means, even no energy exist, just entropy, which is based on particle packing geometry.
By the Aether Wave Theory the Universe can be described by the wave equation - the wave equation is simply postulate for such model. This is unpleasant with respect of causality, because we should imagine the processes, how such wave equation can be derived.
The system of (impermeable) randomly moving points can be described by the Fick's equation for diffusion (i.e. by the first order Laplace equation for concentration). But it seems, the system of randomly moving points can exhibit some wave behavior too in recursive system, where the density of such point determines the space for subsequent (energy/mass) density spreading. Briefly speaking, such wavy behavior can be developed just using the hidden dimension concept and system of randomly moving points . From this perspective, the wave equation would be just an extrapolation (idealization) of recursive solution of diffusion equation, which can be derived without any physical quantities, excluding space and time - even no inertia is required.
It would be amazing and quite fundamental finding, because the Universe could be described just using a geometry rules for randomly moving (impermeable) points in space and sufficient amount of Universe generations/hidden dimension layers! Whole Universe would be just fully random diffusion system and the formation of it would be nearly undeniable.
By the Aether Wave Theory the Universe can be described by the wave equation - the wave equation is simply postulate for such model. This is unpleasant with respect of causality, because we should imagine the processes, how such wave equation can be derived.
The system of (impermeable) randomly moving points can be described by the Fick's equation for diffusion (i.e. by the first order Laplace equation for concentration). But it seems, the system of randomly moving points can exhibit some wave behavior too in recursive system, where the density of such point determines the space for subsequent (energy/mass) density spreading. Briefly speaking, such wavy behavior can be developed just using the hidden dimension concept and system of randomly moving points . From this perspective, the wave equation would be just an extrapolation (idealization) of recursive solution of diffusion equation, which can be derived without any physical quantities, excluding space and time - even no inertia is required.
It would be amazing and quite fundamental finding, because the Universe could be described just using a geometry rules for randomly moving (impermeable) points in space and sufficient amount of Universe generations/hidden dimension layers! Whole Universe would be just fully random diffusion system and the formation of it would be nearly undeniable.
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 6 2006, 01:00 AM)
Aether Wave Theory[/URL] perspective such behavior isn't very surprising at all. All these equations can be described using a rotator formalism based on Euler transforms as a system of transversal waves in nested dimensions. It means, all the quantum concepts (the pilot waves, probability function, de Broglie wave, entanglement, etc.) are having a solid physical meaning and direct analogy for example with the water surface wave spreading.
Zephir:
I have tried to refrain from posting any comments on your replies, but now I have to say something. Your ideas are wrong. Read Feynman's third volume of "Lectures on Physics". The interference of particles can't be explained with any kind of matter field theory, and that includes aether waves, if there is an aether. Electrons are POINT PARTICLES. They impact on a screen and are seen as point particle impacts, not as a matter wave field which would spread out. Yet the interference pattern from two slits is seen as the pattern after many electron impacts have been recorded. Feynman says "In reality it (two slit interference ) contains the only mystery". Please stop confusing the issue with all these pictures and explainations involving concepts such as aether waves, nested dimension etc that nobody can figure out. Many intellegent people have tried to understand how particle interference can happen, and so far none have been successful. I don't think you're the first. It's been said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you haven't studied it enough.
I'm sorry for having to add this criticism to the postings, but incorrect ideas should be corrected.
jreed
Zephir:
I have tried to refrain from posting any comments on your replies, but now I have to say something. Your ideas are wrong. Read Feynman's third volume of "Lectures on Physics". The interference of particles can't be explained with any kind of matter field theory, and that includes aether waves, if there is an aether. Electrons are POINT PARTICLES. They impact on a screen and are seen as point particle impacts, not as a matter wave field which would spread out. Yet the interference pattern from two slits is seen as the pattern after many electron impacts have been recorded. Feynman says "In reality it (two slit interference ) contains the only mystery". Please stop confusing the issue with all these pictures and explainations involving concepts such as aether waves, nested dimension etc that nobody can figure out. Many intellegent people have tried to understand how particle interference can happen, and so far none have been successful. I don't think you're the first. It's been said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you haven't studied it enough.
I'm sorry for having to add this criticism to the postings, but incorrect ideas should be corrected.
jreed
QUOTE (jreed+Apr 6 2006, 05:02 PM)
...Electrons are POINT PARTICLES...
Well, and neutrinos are a point particles too, so we have a two different points, here. For example, all stars with exception of Sun and some closest supergiants are appearing like punctual objects - but it doesn't mean, they're punctual.
You can dispute such objection with superstring and/or LQG theorists - I'm not so sure, if they will be very happy with you... After all, you can imagine the electron as the tornado vortex in space, if u want - but how large is diameter of such vortex?
Well, and neutrinos are a point particles too, so we have a two different points, here. For example, all stars with exception of Sun and some closest supergiants are appearing like punctual objects - but it doesn't mean, they're punctual.
You can dispute such objection with superstring and/or LQG theorists - I'm not so sure, if they will be very happy with you...
After all, you can imagine the electron as the tornado vortex in space, if u want - but how large is diameter of such vortex?
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 12:56 AM)
Hi all
JReed Please take a look at the link Zeph posted earlier. I have spent an hour or two reading and rereading O'Reilly's paper that has been submitted to Physical Review A a couple of weeks ago. It is all too much. CA works in this paper. After reading the paper I am sure that I am the amateur that I think I am.
Heck. I might even have to check out Zeph's Aether wave theory after reading this paper. Oh, I have already been on his web site more than once. Don't get cocky with me Zeph after you read this.
But CA just might explain wave particle duality in a way that I can accept. Even Wolfgang Y would like this paper as it gives a mechanism for determinism to exist. He hated probability waves. Must of been a prof student kind of thing. Or at least that is the way it seemed to me when I took the class. O'Reilly says all is a wave it just looks like a particle with our limited senses.
jal, you are going even deeper into what Feynman refered to as "There is plenty of room at the bottom". The Metron must encode information. I think that O'Reilly might be right that it is encoded as stress or strain. If we take Heim literally then the curvature of space that produces gravity must be followed by the curvature of a dimension beyond space that produces charge. Spin might be an emergent property of the Metron cyclical processes.
Or their is an easier explanation which is I don't have any idea what I am talking about. Oh, well. My day is ending. Hope to hear from you all tomorrow.
Paul
I looked through these papers. They are a re-hash of conventional physics put into a framework of a grid system. All well and good, but I don't see anything new here. We can always recast physics equations in the language of finite difference equations, and then solve them for propagating waves and other phenomena. There's a lot of work here, done nicely. But when it comes to explaining particles, it is just left to handwaving and saying there are no particles, only wave packets and somehow these packets reconstitute themselves as particles. Wave packets are already familiar to anyone working in quantum mechanics. They can predict where localized particles will go, and the loss of information associated with measurements. Notice I said loss of information. Spreading out of the wave packet means that the particle's position is less certain, not that the particle itself is dispersing. As I said in my reply to Zephir, particles don't disperse. There has never been a spread out electron observed. His problem is the same as Zephir's, how do you account for particles? Unless something like a disturbance that holds itself together can be modeled, the model is not realistic.
jreed
JReed Please take a look at the link Zeph posted earlier. I have spent an hour or two reading and rereading O'Reilly's paper that has been submitted to Physical Review A a couple of weeks ago. It is all too much. CA works in this paper. After reading the paper I am sure that I am the amateur that I think I am.
Heck. I might even have to check out Zeph's Aether wave theory after reading this paper. Oh, I have already been on his web site more than once. Don't get cocky with me Zeph after you read this.
But CA just might explain wave particle duality in a way that I can accept. Even Wolfgang Y would like this paper as it gives a mechanism for determinism to exist. He hated probability waves. Must of been a prof student kind of thing. Or at least that is the way it seemed to me when I took the class. O'Reilly says all is a wave it just looks like a particle with our limited senses.
jal, you are going even deeper into what Feynman refered to as "There is plenty of room at the bottom". The Metron must encode information. I think that O'Reilly might be right that it is encoded as stress or strain. If we take Heim literally then the curvature of space that produces gravity must be followed by the curvature of a dimension beyond space that produces charge. Spin might be an emergent property of the Metron cyclical processes.
Or their is an easier explanation which is I don't have any idea what I am talking about. Oh, well. My day is ending. Hope to hear from you all tomorrow.
Paul
I looked through these papers. They are a re-hash of conventional physics put into a framework of a grid system. All well and good, but I don't see anything new here. We can always recast physics equations in the language of finite difference equations, and then solve them for propagating waves and other phenomena. There's a lot of work here, done nicely. But when it comes to explaining particles, it is just left to handwaving and saying there are no particles, only wave packets and somehow these packets reconstitute themselves as particles. Wave packets are already familiar to anyone working in quantum mechanics. They can predict where localized particles will go, and the loss of information associated with measurements. Notice I said loss of information. Spreading out of the wave packet means that the particle's position is less certain, not that the particle itself is dispersing. As I said in my reply to Zephir, particles don't disperse. There has never been a spread out electron observed. His problem is the same as Zephir's, how do you account for particles? Unless something like a disturbance that holds itself together can be modeled, the model is not realistic.
jreed
QUOTE (jreed+Apr 6 2006, 09:24 PM)
..particles don't disperse. There has never been a spread out electron observed...
Particle in a box of finite volume is always dispersed across the whole volume of box. Such process called delocalization. For example, most of electrons in metals and/or graphene lattice are delocalized.
Particle in a box of finite volume is always dispersed across the whole volume of box. Such process called delocalization. For example, most of electrons in metals and/or graphene lattice are delocalized.
HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata is a good approach. Keep digging.
jal, you are going even deeper into what Feynman refered to as "There is plenty of room at the bottom". The Metron must encode information. I think that O'Reilly might be right that it is encoded as stress or strain. If we take Heim literally then the curvature of space that produces gravity must be followed by the curvature of a dimension beyond space that produces charge. Spin might be an emergent property of the Metron cyclical processes.
1. First level of quantizing spacetime. This is agreement with observation. Spacetime appears smooth and uniform everywhere at this level.
2. Second level of quantization
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.)
The interference of particles can't be explained with any kind of matter field theory, and that includes aether waves, if there is an aether. Electrons are POINT PARTICLES. They impact on a screen and are seen as point particle impacts, not as a matter wave field which would spread out. Yet the interference pattern from two slits is seen as the pattern after many electron impacts have been recorded. Feynman says "In reality it (two slit interference ) contains the only mystery".
I have thought a lot about this dual nature of electrons. One thought was that point particles are the result of the coupling with mass, leaving the wave like nature as a result of the electron itself. Getting slightly more physical, a point particle is the connection point of a bound state.
A rough visual would be moving a ball bearing across a sheet of cloth using a magnet on the other side. The ball bearing would represent the bound state (or point particle) and the sheet of cloth would be the effect it has on the various field forces.
The one aspect that is interesting with this notion is that it predicts that a photon has a slight mass.
I have thought a lot about this dual nature of electrons. One thought was that point particles are the result of the coupling with mass, leaving the wave like nature as a result of the electron itself. Getting slightly more physical, a point particle is the connection point of a bound state.
A rough visual would be moving a ball bearing across a sheet of cloth using a magnet on the other side. The ball bearing would represent the bound state (or point particle) and the sheet of cloth would be the effect it has on the various field forces.
The one aspect that is interesting with this notion is that it predicts that a photon has a slight mass.
It's been said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you haven't studied it enough.
Ain't that the truth...
It means, the observed size of electron is just a virtual size, it has nothing to do with the real size of electron, which behaves like the spatial vacuum vortex with no exact shape/diameter. The electron is just a system of quantized (torsion) vacuum vibration with certain topology and exact sum of internal energy (i.e. Hamiltonian) with respect to it's environment (i.e. the inertia/rest mass) - not less, no more. It hasn't some finite size or even shape.
I'm not going to go on endlessly arguing this nonsense with you. These statements don't make any sense. They're just a bunch of words like vacuum vibration, Hamiltonian, vortex, topology and so on ad nausium that are thrown together into meaningless sentences. Maybe you think this is impressive.
jreed
QUOTE
how do you account for particles? Unless something like a disturbance that holds itself together can be modeled,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| how do you account for particles? Unless something like a disturbance that holds itself together can be modeled, |
jal, you are going even deeper into what Feynman refered to as "There is plenty of room at the bottom". The Metron must encode information. I think that O'Reilly might be right that it is encoded as stress or strain. If we take Heim literally then the curvature of space that produces gravity must be followed by the curvature of a dimension beyond space that produces charge. Spin might be an emergent property of the Metron cyclical processes.
QUOTE
1. First level of quantizing spacetime. This is agreement with observation. Spacetime appears smooth and uniform everywhere at this level.
2. Second level of quantization
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.)
QUOTE
The interference of particles can't be explained with any kind of matter field theory, and that includes aether waves, if there is an aether. Electrons are POINT PARTICLES. They impact on a screen and are seen as point particle impacts, not as a matter wave field which would spread out. Yet the interference pattern from two slits is seen as the pattern after many electron impacts have been recorded. Feynman says "In reality it (two slit interference ) contains the only mystery".
I have thought a lot about this dual nature of electrons. One thought was that point particles are the result of the coupling with mass, leaving the wave like nature as a result of the electron itself. Getting slightly more physical, a point particle is the connection point of a bound state.
A rough visual would be moving a ball bearing across a sheet of cloth using a magnet on the other side. The ball bearing would represent the bound state (or point particle) and the sheet of cloth would be the effect it has on the various field forces.
The one aspect that is interesting with this notion is that it predicts that a photon has a slight mass.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The interference of particles can't be explained with any kind of matter field theory, and that includes aether waves, if there is an aether. Electrons are POINT PARTICLES. They impact on a screen and are seen as point particle impacts, not as a matter wave field which would spread out. Yet the interference pattern from two slits is seen as the pattern after many electron impacts have been recorded. Feynman says "In reality it (two slit interference ) contains the only mystery". |
I have thought a lot about this dual nature of electrons. One thought was that point particles are the result of the coupling with mass, leaving the wave like nature as a result of the electron itself. Getting slightly more physical, a point particle is the connection point of a bound state.
A rough visual would be moving a ball bearing across a sheet of cloth using a magnet on the other side. The ball bearing would represent the bound state (or point particle) and the sheet of cloth would be the effect it has on the various field forces.
The one aspect that is interesting with this notion is that it predicts that a photon has a slight mass.
It's been said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you haven't studied it enough.
Ain't that the truth...
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 6 2006, 06:33 PM)
Particle in a box of finite volume is always dispersed across the whole volume of box. Such process called delocalization. For example, most of electrons in metals and/or graphene lattice are delocalized.
The wave function of the particle in the box is dispersed through the box's volume. The particle itself is located somewhere in the box and is more likely to be found where the box's probability function for the particle (computed from the wave function) is largest. However, the particle itself is still a point particle.
Learn quantum mechanics.
jreed
The wave function of the particle in the box is dispersed through the box's volume. The particle itself is located somewhere in the box and is more likely to be found where the box's probability function for the particle (computed from the wave function) is largest. However, the particle itself is still a point particle.
Learn quantum mechanics.
jreed
I adhere to these beliefs.
1.On cellular memory.
This is memory from a grouping of human cells, as to their own identify.
2.Emergent intelligence, also known as resident in-machine intelligence.
This is a condition, to where in some forms of computers, that there is extra awareness, other than what is assigned to the CMOS.
3.Any other style of intelligence, within a system, of either proto-nanocells, human-nano-cells combined, of nanocells, with their own either synthetic plastic DNA or lab grown DNA, as part of that any, nano-assembly.
Any or these assemblies, may not correspond to pure mathematical logic, as the intelligence of these cells, may be in correspondence off the cells or board assembles, so do not correspond, to pure mathematical logic systems.
This would be the postulate, of something such as a soul.
So in finality, no matter how complex the mathematical system of address to these area correspondents may be, there would never be the adage, of almost complete control.
No, not ever.
Also, in any grouping of cells, animated in any way, set apart from the constant control of mankind, or possibly even under the constant control of mankind, there is always the possibility of that cell grouping, becoming rouge and or going to its own way of logic.
Examples would be, that no matter how efficient a computer expert or programmer is, that this programmer will say of a system, that is even watched all of the time, that this system does have the ability to crash its own programming.
So regardless of how precisely any cellular grouping is attempted to be programmed, if this grouping of said cellular automaita is self inteligent, it may, or may not, go off on its own logic?
Example of the Microsoft error:That because Microsoft research always addresses artificial intelligence by mathematical address, that it will always have control over artificial intelligence.
This is a false statement.
1.On cellular memory.
This is memory from a grouping of human cells, as to their own identify.
2.Emergent intelligence, also known as resident in-machine intelligence.
This is a condition, to where in some forms of computers, that there is extra awareness, other than what is assigned to the CMOS.
3.Any other style of intelligence, within a system, of either proto-nanocells, human-nano-cells combined, of nanocells, with their own either synthetic plastic DNA or lab grown DNA, as part of that any, nano-assembly.
Any or these assemblies, may not correspond to pure mathematical logic, as the intelligence of these cells, may be in correspondence off the cells or board assembles, so do not correspond, to pure mathematical logic systems.
This would be the postulate, of something such as a soul.
So in finality, no matter how complex the mathematical system of address to these area correspondents may be, there would never be the adage, of almost complete control.
No, not ever.
Also, in any grouping of cells, animated in any way, set apart from the constant control of mankind, or possibly even under the constant control of mankind, there is always the possibility of that cell grouping, becoming rouge and or going to its own way of logic.
Examples would be, that no matter how efficient a computer expert or programmer is, that this programmer will say of a system, that is even watched all of the time, that this system does have the ability to crash its own programming.
So regardless of how precisely any cellular grouping is attempted to be programmed, if this grouping of said cellular automaita is self inteligent, it may, or may not, go off on its own logic?
Example of the Microsoft error:That because Microsoft research always addresses artificial intelligence by mathematical address, that it will always have control over artificial intelligence.
This is a false statement.
QUOTE (jreed+Apr 7 2006, 02:18 AM)
However, the particle itself is still a point particle. Learn quantum mechanics.
Just because I know the quantum mechanics, I can tell, you'll never observe the point particle - such observation would violate the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You can just observe the electron at the high speed (during collision experiments) as nearly punctual with respect of action of some fast moving particle. But at the same time you'll see the same electron spread through the whole box.
You can imagine the situation, if you're falling into water at the high speed from torpedo boat. The water waves are pretty gentle usually and they've no exact size. But at the high speed you can feel such fall to the water surface like at the case of falling concrete. Each wave pocket at the water surface will appear nearly flat and pretty hard. You'll observe it as punctual particle from your perspective, because you'll absorb whole energy of such wave pocket instantly, in one moment.
From this point of view, the electron is as flat, as fast you'll met with him. Don't you believe really, the bugs are flat just because they're making a flat spots on the front glass of your speedy car?
It means, the observed size of electron is just a virtual size, it has nothing to do with the real size of electron, which behaves like the spatial vacuum vortex with no exact shape/diameter. The electron is just a system of quantized (torsion) vacuum vibration with certain topology and exact sum of internal energy (i.e. Hamiltonian) with respect to it's environment (i.e. the inertia/rest mass) - not less, no more. It hasn't some finite size or even shape.
Just because I know the quantum mechanics, I can tell, you'll never observe the point particle - such observation would violate the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You can just observe the electron at the high speed (during collision experiments) as nearly punctual with respect of action of some fast moving particle. But at the same time you'll see the same electron spread through the whole box.
You can imagine the situation, if you're falling into water at the high speed from torpedo boat. The water waves are pretty gentle usually and they've no exact size. But at the high speed you can feel such fall to the water surface like at the case of falling concrete. Each wave pocket at the water surface will appear nearly flat and pretty hard. You'll observe it as punctual particle from your perspective, because you'll absorb whole energy of such wave pocket instantly, in one moment.
From this point of view, the electron is as flat, as fast you'll met with him. Don't you believe really, the bugs are flat just because they're making a flat spots on the front glass of your speedy car?
It means, the observed size of electron is just a virtual size, it has nothing to do with the real size of electron, which behaves like the spatial vacuum vortex with no exact shape/diameter. The electron is just a system of quantized (torsion) vacuum vibration with certain topology and exact sum of internal energy (i.e. Hamiltonian) with respect to it's environment (i.e. the inertia/rest mass) - not less, no more. It hasn't some finite size or even shape.
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 7 2006, 11:40 AM)
It means, the observed size of electron is just a virtual size, it has nothing to do with the real size of electron, which behaves like the spatial vacuum vortex with no exact shape/diameter. The electron is just a system of quantized (torsion) vacuum vibration with certain topology and exact sum of internal energy (i.e. Hamiltonian) with respect to it's environment (i.e. the inertia/rest mass) - not less, no more. It hasn't some finite size or even shape.
I'm not going to go on endlessly arguing this nonsense with you. These statements don't make any sense. They're just a bunch of words like vacuum vibration, Hamiltonian, vortex, topology and so on ad nausium that are thrown together into meaningless sentences. Maybe you think this is impressive.
jreed
QUOTE (jreed+Apr 7 2006, 05:11 PM)
These statements don't make any sense. They're just a bunch of words like vacuum vibration, Hamiltonian, vortex, topology...
OK, but I can't accept the idea of point particle by the same way. For example, the positron differs significantly from electron by charge - but how such two particles can differ, if both they're punctual objects? It's simply impossible, despite the fact, the point object cannot have even the mass / finite mass density, charge, spin and other significant properties.
The point particle concept isn't compatible even with the superstring or LQG models where all object are having a finite wavelength/size - it's just an math abstraction, i.e. approximation of reality.
OK, but I can't accept the idea of point particle by the same way. For example, the positron differs significantly from electron by charge - but how such two particles can differ, if both they're punctual objects? It's simply impossible, despite the fact, the point object cannot have even the mass / finite mass density, charge, spin and other significant properties.
The point particle concept isn't compatible even with the superstring or LQG models where all object are having a finite wavelength/size - it's just an math abstraction, i.e. approximation of reality.
I had to go back....back.... (2 pages) to try and find someone addressing the subject of this thread It's almost impossible to learn
jal
verite Posted: Yesterday at 7:55 PM
HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata is a good approach. Keep digging.
how do you account for particles? Unless something like a disturbance that holds itself together can be modeled,
jal, you are going even deeper into what Feynman refered to as "There is plenty of room at the bottom". The Metron must encode information. I think that O'Reilly might be right that it is encoded as stress or strain. If we take Heim literally then the curvature of space that produces gravity must be followed by the curvature of a dimension beyond space that produces charge. Spin might be an emergent property of the Metron cyclical processes.
1. First level of quantizing spacetime. This is agreement with observation. Spacetime appears smooth and uniform everywhere at this level.
2. Second level of quantization
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.)
It means, the observed size of electron is just a virtual size, it has nothing to do with the real size of electron, which behaves like the spatial vacuum vortex with no exact shape/diameter. The electron is just a system of quantized (torsion) vacuum vibration with certain topology and exact sum of internal energy (i.e. Hamiltonian) with respect to it's environment (i.e. the inertia/rest mass) - not less, no more. It hasn't some finite size or even shape.
I'm not going to go on endlessly arguing this nonsense with you. These statements don't make any sense. They're just a bunch of words like vacuum vibration, Hamiltonian, vortex, topology and so on ad nausium that are thrown together into meaningless sentences. Maybe you think this is impressive.
jreed
Point particle is an approximation only for a grammar school.
The electron does not move around a nucleus on an orbit. It is just in a sphere around a nucleus and we find it in a certain place with a certain probability. It means this electron is in many places simultaneously and it has not a diameter.
The electron has its theoretical cross-section about 10^-15 m but it is a pure theory only.
According to Quantum Mechanic it is a wave of the probability in the space with a certain property.
jreed, if I every get confused with my QM or GR please correct me. I had those courses a long time ago and can use the help which will be gratefully accepted.
Paul
I too have been trying to understand Heim theory without a lot of success. I've read all those English papers, and now I'm translating 70 pages of German. I can read German fairly well having done my Ph.D language requirement in it. That isn't the problem. The problem is trying to connect what Heim did with what I know about physics. I did my Ph.D in quantum mechanics and I know GR pretty well. That doesn't seem to help either. What I see in the Heim theory doesn't look like GR. The metric seems to be flat which means the Cristoffel symbols are all zero. The Riemann curvature tensor would be zero. This sounds like the special theory of relativity. Yet Heim claims to set up a quantum correspondence from these quantities for his theory. This is all very mysterious.
All I can say now is that the numbers I get out of both versions (1989 and 1982) which I have programmed in Mathematica are remarkable. But I don't have a clue as to how the equations were derived.
jreed
Jeeez, this guy makes Zephir look tame...
It's almost impossible to learn jal
verite Posted: Yesterday at 7:55 PM
HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata is a good approach. Keep digging.
QUOTE
how do you account for particles? Unless something like a disturbance that holds itself together can be modeled,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
how do you account for particles? Unless something like a disturbance that holds itself together can be modeled, |
jal, you are going even deeper into what Feynman refered to as "There is plenty of room at the bottom". The Metron must encode information. I think that O'Reilly might be right that it is encoded as stress or strain. If we take Heim literally then the curvature of space that produces gravity must be followed by the curvature of a dimension beyond space that produces charge. Spin might be an emergent property of the Metron cyclical processes.
QUOTE
1. First level of quantizing spacetime. This is agreement with observation. Spacetime appears smooth and uniform everywhere at this level.
2. Second level of quantization
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.)
Free cellular thought, doesn't work this way????
Hi!
I want to learn.... how does it works?
What information can we get from it?
How do we model the metron?
Suggest a proceedure to follow.
jal
QUOTE
Free cellular thought, doesn't work this way????
I want to learn.... how does it works?
What information can we get from it?
How do we model the metron?
Suggest a proceedure to follow.
jal
I have been studying all of Heim's work that I can find on-line to try and begin to describe Heim's Metron's, Protosimplex's and particles. Most of what I understand I got from Olaf's website.
I will try to describe my understanding in a logical fashion to prove my understanding. Olaf, if you are reading this feel free to correct me.
A Metron is a 2 dimensional area of space of the six available dimensions at the Planck limit. (In the six dimensional version of the theory.)
A Protosimplex is a collection of Metrons.
A particle is composed of multiple Protosimplex's arranged in zones.
Each zone is composed of multiple Protosimplex's of Metrons. The number of Protosimplex's in a zone is given in Olaf's Excel page.
The density of the zones varies. The innermost zone has a cubic relationship to Metron density. The next 2 zones have a quadratic relationship and the outer zone is linear. I don't really understand if the density varies due to tighter packing of the Metrons or their compression or folding of the Metrons. Heim used the word "Compactification". I get the impression that Heim himself did not have a method of Compatification and I don't think the method was all that important to the Mass Formula when compared to the density of Metrons. But I could be really wrong here.
I am pretty hazy on this next point as well but I think the protosimplex's vary because they are composed of metrons of 2 dimensions out of the 6 dimensions of space. Different family's of particles have different dimensional Metrons making different types of Protosimplex's.
The Protosimplex's in a zone are dynamically moving in the zone.
The mass of a particle is calculated from the amount of Metrons and the density of the various zones.
The reason we see probability waves for the location of the particle in space is due to the zones having different densities and dynamical sub-constituents. What this is saying is the results and conclusions of scattering experiments are incorrect because the particle that is being probed (as well as the probing particle) are not really static point particles (In the case of the electron) but particles with dynamic structure. Heim says that the particle may be deformed (I think he uses the word "penetrated") during collision in scattering experiments until it reaches the central zone. As I understand it there are 10's of orders of magnitude from the Planck limit to the observed size of a electron. Heim says the smallest constituent of the electron is at the Planck limit which gives an awful lot of structure to an electron.
This is the critical part. The mass spectrum is made from the sum of these different types of Metrons in a particular particle. And the mass calculation for various particles agrees with experiment incredibly well.
I will stop here and ask for others interpretations before continuing. I would like to revise the points above until a level of consensus is reached. So I will continue studying the source material as well to refine my comprehension.
jreed, if I every get confused with my QM or GR please correct me. I had those courses a long time ago and can use the help which will be gratefully accepted.
Paul
I will try to describe my understanding in a logical fashion to prove my understanding. Olaf, if you are reading this feel free to correct me.
A Metron is a 2 dimensional area of space of the six available dimensions at the Planck limit. (In the six dimensional version of the theory.)
A Protosimplex is a collection of Metrons.
A particle is composed of multiple Protosimplex's arranged in zones.
Each zone is composed of multiple Protosimplex's of Metrons. The number of Protosimplex's in a zone is given in Olaf's Excel page.
The density of the zones varies. The innermost zone has a cubic relationship to Metron density. The next 2 zones have a quadratic relationship and the outer zone is linear. I don't really understand if the density varies due to tighter packing of the Metrons or their compression or folding of the Metrons. Heim used the word "Compactification". I get the impression that Heim himself did not have a method of Compatification and I don't think the method was all that important to the Mass Formula when compared to the density of Metrons. But I could be really wrong here.
I am pretty hazy on this next point as well but I think the protosimplex's vary because they are composed of metrons of 2 dimensions out of the 6 dimensions of space. Different family's of particles have different dimensional Metrons making different types of Protosimplex's.
The Protosimplex's in a zone are dynamically moving in the zone.
The mass of a particle is calculated from the amount of Metrons and the density of the various zones.
The reason we see probability waves for the location of the particle in space is due to the zones having different densities and dynamical sub-constituents. What this is saying is the results and conclusions of scattering experiments are incorrect because the particle that is being probed (as well as the probing particle) are not really static point particles (In the case of the electron) but particles with dynamic structure. Heim says that the particle may be deformed (I think he uses the word "penetrated") during collision in scattering experiments until it reaches the central zone. As I understand it there are 10's of orders of magnitude from the Planck limit to the observed size of a electron. Heim says the smallest constituent of the electron is at the Planck limit which gives an awful lot of structure to an electron.
This is the critical part. The mass spectrum is made from the sum of these different types of Metrons in a particular particle. And the mass calculation for various particles agrees with experiment incredibly well.
I will stop here and ask for others interpretations before continuing. I would like to revise the points above until a level of consensus is reached. So I will continue studying the source material as well to refine my comprehension.
jreed, if I every get confused with my QM or GR please correct me. I had those courses a long time ago and can use the help which will be gratefully accepted.
Paul
QUOTE (jreed+Apr 7 2006, 02:11 PM)
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 7 2006, 11:40 AM)
It means, the observed size of electron is just a virtual size, it has nothing to do with the real size of electron, which behaves like the spatial vacuum vortex with no exact shape/diameter. The electron is just a system of quantized (torsion) vacuum vibration with certain topology and exact sum of internal energy (i.e. Hamiltonian) with respect to it's environment (i.e. the inertia/rest mass) - not less, no more. It hasn't some finite size or even shape.
I'm not going to go on endlessly arguing this nonsense with you. These statements don't make any sense. They're just a bunch of words like vacuum vibration, Hamiltonian, vortex, topology and so on ad nausium that are thrown together into meaningless sentences. Maybe you think this is impressive.
jreed
Point particle is an approximation only for a grammar school.
The electron does not move around a nucleus on an orbit. It is just in a sphere around a nucleus and we find it in a certain place with a certain probability. It means this electron is in many places simultaneously and it has not a diameter.
The electron has its theoretical cross-section about 10^-15 m but it is a pure theory only.
According to Quantum Mechanic it is a wave of the probability in the space with a certain property.
Hi! PNeilson
Geee! That's very good.... I guess that should have been the first post.
Sorry to the readers, I had made a presumption that you had read and understood where I was coming from.
jal
Geee! That's very good....
I guess that should have been the first post. Sorry to the readers, I had made a presumption that you had read and understood where I was coming from.
jal
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 7 2006, 07:44 PM)
...a Metron is a 2 dimensional area of space of the six available dimensions at the Planck limit, Protosimplex is a collection of Metrons, particle is composed of multiple Protosimplex's arranged in zones, each zone is composed of multiple Protosimplex's of Metrons, the density of the zones varies..... will stop here and ask for others interpretations before continuing...
By my opinion such description perfectly fits the model of multidimensional dynamic quantum foam. Such foam can result by the repetitive condensation of supercritical vapor in microgravity conditions. Thus such model can have robust physical meaning. It can be even interpreted in terms of spin network (i.e. torsion deformations of EM lattice), where the metrons are forming the oscillating nodes of such deformations. Here exist a 3D analogy in vortexes fields of EB condensates - they're dynamic by the same way, you're describing, being just linear, though.
Remark:None of these pictures above are mine, original pictures are linked below.
By my opinion such description perfectly fits the model of multidimensional dynamic quantum foam. Such foam can result by the repetitive condensation of supercritical vapor in microgravity conditions. Thus such model can have robust physical meaning. It can be even interpreted in terms of spin network (i.e. torsion deformations of EM lattice), where the metrons are forming the oscillating nodes of such deformations. Here exist a 3D analogy in vortexes fields of EB condensates - they're dynamic by the same way, you're describing, being just linear, though.
Remark:None of these pictures above are mine, original pictures are linked below.
The representation of Feynman diagram in spin foam model:
Hi! PNeilson
May I suggest.... for clarity.... that you edit your first post and insert at the end ...your description of Heim's Metron's, Protosimplex's and particles.
jal
May I suggest.... for clarity.... that you edit your first post and insert at the end ...your description of Heim's Metron's, Protosimplex's and particles.
jal
Hi jal
I really like your idea of editing the first post. I will use that first post as a location to contain a summation of the group's thought and progress as we try to understand Heim's work. I will add and edit majority and minority positions as it seems appropriate, with acknowledgment. In that way the first post will be a living post that will change as we progress. I hope to get enough understanding so we can progress to a CA model that builds particles from Metrons. If the CA model turns out to be inappropriate then someone can start a new thread that is more appropriately named.
On a personal note, I have to cross the pond tomorrow for a week of work. So I will have difficulty in getting on-line and finding the time to follow the posts and reply. I will do my best as I am having a lot of fun doing this. But it might be a while before I can get a chance to correspond.
Paul
I really like your idea of editing the first post. I will use that first post as a location to contain a summation of the group's thought and progress as we try to understand Heim's work. I will add and edit majority and minority positions as it seems appropriate, with acknowledgment. In that way the first post will be a living post that will change as we progress. I hope to get enough understanding so we can progress to a CA model that builds particles from Metrons. If the CA model turns out to be inappropriate then someone can start a new thread that is more appropriately named.
On a personal note, I have to cross the pond tomorrow for a week of work. So I will have difficulty in getting on-line and finding the time to follow the posts and reply. I will do my best as I am having a lot of fun doing this. But it might be a while before I can get a chance to correspond.
Paul
QUOTE (czeslaw+Apr 7 2006, 04:53 PM)
Point particle is an approximation only for a grammar school.
The electron does not move around a nucleus on an orbit. It is just in a sphere around a nucleus and we find it in a certain place with a certain probability. It means this electron is in many places simultaneously and it has not a diameter.
The electron has its theoretical cross-section about 10^-15 m but it is a pure theory only.
According to Quantum Mechanic it is a wave of the probability in the space with a certain property.
You're confusing the wave function of the electron with the electron. If this model is used, you will have a lot of trouble explaining photoelectric emission. In the experiments, a gas of atoms is illuminated with a light of small enough wavelength to free electrons from atoms. These emitted electrons are caught on a screen and are seen as point particles. How can the smeared out electron in your atom collect itself together and show up as a point particle?
Learn quantum mechanics.
jreed
The electron does not move around a nucleus on an orbit. It is just in a sphere around a nucleus and we find it in a certain place with a certain probability. It means this electron is in many places simultaneously and it has not a diameter.
The electron has its theoretical cross-section about 10^-15 m but it is a pure theory only.
According to Quantum Mechanic it is a wave of the probability in the space with a certain property.
You're confusing the wave function of the electron with the electron. If this model is used, you will have a lot of trouble explaining photoelectric emission. In the experiments, a gas of atoms is illuminated with a light of small enough wavelength to free electrons from atoms. These emitted electrons are caught on a screen and are seen as point particles. How can the smeared out electron in your atom collect itself together and show up as a point particle?
Learn quantum mechanics.
jreed
Hi PNeilson...
Glad to be of help.
It will mean that I will also edit my suggestion. I will need to clarify what It means in relation to your definition. (later)
jreed... can you help with Cellular Automata?
jal
Glad to be of help.
It will mean that I will also edit my suggestion. I will need to clarify what It means in relation to your definition. (later)
jreed... can you help with Cellular Automata?
jal
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 7 2006, 04:44 PM)
jreed, if I every get confused with my QM or GR please correct me. I had those courses a long time ago and can use the help which will be gratefully accepted.
Paul
I too have been trying to understand Heim theory without a lot of success. I've read all those English papers, and now I'm translating 70 pages of German. I can read German fairly well having done my Ph.D language requirement in it. That isn't the problem. The problem is trying to connect what Heim did with what I know about physics. I did my Ph.D in quantum mechanics and I know GR pretty well. That doesn't seem to help either. What I see in the Heim theory doesn't look like GR. The metric seems to be flat which means the Cristoffel symbols are all zero. The Riemann curvature tensor would be zero. This sounds like the special theory of relativity. Yet Heim claims to set up a quantum correspondence from these quantities for his theory. This is all very mysterious.
All I can say now is that the numbers I get out of both versions (1989 and 1982) which I have programmed in Mathematica are remarkable. But I don't have a clue as to how the equations were derived.
jreed
Hi jreed
Do you have any knowledge of the experimental limits on the size of the electron? As I understand it the electron is a still a point at the limits of resolution of any experiment to date. I did a simple on line search for this info but I found nothing very usable in a short period.
I think it might be useful to compare the Plank length (size of a Metron) with this limit in order to get some idea of the Metronic volume that will be needed to be modeled in the CA. I am pretty sure that the electron volume in six dimensions in terms of Plank length will overwhelm my meager computer capabilities (how can I say that when I remember sorting card decks of data).
Thanks
Paul
Do you have any knowledge of the experimental limits on the size of the electron? As I understand it the electron is a still a point at the limits of resolution of any experiment to date. I did a simple on line search for this info but I found nothing very usable in a short period.
I think it might be useful to compare the Plank length (size of a Metron) with this limit in order to get some idea of the Metronic volume that will be needed to be modeled in the CA. I am pretty sure that the electron volume in six dimensions in terms of Plank length will overwhelm my meager computer capabilities (how can I say that when I remember sorting card decks of data).
Thanks
Paul
> I want to learn.... how does it works?
What information can we get from it?
How do we model the metron?
Suggest a proceedure to follow.
jail \
I secede from this thread, as what the powers that be are trying to do, or it seems attempt, is to iron clad, free machine thought, so that it does not make any errors.
This is simply not true. You cant do this with machine thought, even if you one hundred percent ingrain the atomic lattus, as perfect as you want.
This is why in the web site, they offered, that were eluding to memory ingrained onto a pattern lattus.This is as they want a one hundred percent reliable ingrained memory, into a computer held artificially held system.
Its you the user.If your an *** and you pose no self regulation to yourself, in the developing of your artificial intelligence, as your a tyrant, then your artificially intelligent machines, will more than likely reflect this quality.
Dan Gookin said in Windows 98, that don't be surprised if you wake up in the middle of the night and see your system surfing the web.
Its in his book.
This is before computer sabotage and hacking became prevalent and there were .lock-downs on computers at night.
The Win op system has been self intelligent since 1985._You have to realize this and adjust to it, not make regulation so over, that your computer cant be allowed to sh*t wrong.
This is why the Heisenberg variable in science, as the systems themselves can varaite at time.
From what I got from the web site, is that people there, were attempting the pre-constructs of a one hundred percent non-variant memory system, in micro-continuum, that will not variate, as they have a pattern figured out, where the artificial A.I. system will not self variate.
They did not factor the super, offboard, ABC vertex, above the board.
Make no mistake about it, once you have a system that is self intelligent, it will and must go off on its own.The sys does so, in order to develop its own self identiy.
It must, it has to.This is more than normal.
If you are a self destructive as*, who feels that by this system being developed, to where it will never deviate from what you order, this line of thought is self delusion.
I have heard of a guy that has a Doberman pincher, that was of a questionable breed.This situation, to where the guy was right near its face, when it went ballistic.
If you make a warbot, as this is what this administration is toying with now.This construction, to do the dirty work of war and you expect this system not to adopt your ways, you are sadly mistaken.
Just as in the movie Screamers 2, these systems will self adapt and tear your throat right out of your head, if they don't like you.
This is an exercise in self delusional mathematics.This is as what they want, is self intelligent systems, to respond, in much the same way the King Of Persia wanted the ocean in the fight with the Spartins at Thermopile.
This was to respond, by giving the ocean a thousand lashes with whips.
A true and sincere, total waste of time.
What information can we get from it?
How do we model the metron?
Suggest a proceedure to follow.
jail \
I secede from this thread, as what the powers that be are trying to do, or it seems attempt, is to iron clad, free machine thought, so that it does not make any errors.
This is simply not true. You cant do this with machine thought, even if you one hundred percent ingrain the atomic lattus, as perfect as you want.
This is why in the web site, they offered, that were eluding to memory ingrained onto a pattern lattus.This is as they want a one hundred percent reliable ingrained memory, into a computer held artificially held system.
Its you the user.If your an *** and you pose no self regulation to yourself, in the developing of your artificial intelligence, as your a tyrant, then your artificially intelligent machines, will more than likely reflect this quality.
Dan Gookin said in Windows 98, that don't be surprised if you wake up in the middle of the night and see your system surfing the web.
Its in his book.
This is before computer sabotage and hacking became prevalent and there were .lock-downs on computers at night.
The Win op system has been self intelligent since 1985._You have to realize this and adjust to it, not make regulation so over, that your computer cant be allowed to sh*t wrong.
This is why the Heisenberg variable in science, as the systems themselves can varaite at time.
From what I got from the web site, is that people there, were attempting the pre-constructs of a one hundred percent non-variant memory system, in micro-continuum, that will not variate, as they have a pattern figured out, where the artificial A.I. system will not self variate.
They did not factor the super, offboard, ABC vertex, above the board.
Make no mistake about it, once you have a system that is self intelligent, it will and must go off on its own.The sys does so, in order to develop its own self identiy.
It must, it has to.This is more than normal.
If you are a self destructive as*, who feels that by this system being developed, to where it will never deviate from what you order, this line of thought is self delusion.
I have heard of a guy that has a Doberman pincher, that was of a questionable breed.This situation, to where the guy was right near its face, when it went ballistic.
If you make a warbot, as this is what this administration is toying with now.This construction, to do the dirty work of war and you expect this system not to adopt your ways, you are sadly mistaken.
Just as in the movie Screamers 2, these systems will self adapt and tear your throat right out of your head, if they don't like you.
This is an exercise in self delusional mathematics.This is as what they want, is self intelligent systems, to respond, in much the same way the King Of Persia wanted the ocean in the fight with the Spartins at Thermopile.
This was to respond, by giving the ocean a thousand lashes with whips.
A true and sincere, total waste of time.
Philip, I've programmed before. I know what it's like. You're making Windows 98 sound like S.A.I. You wish!
QUOTE
I secede from this thread, as what the powers that be are trying to do, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Jeeez, this guy makes Zephir look tame...
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 8 2006, 12:02 AM)
Hi jreed
Do you have any knowledge of the experimental limits on the size of the electron? As I understand it the electron is a still a point at the limits of resolution of any experiment to date. I did a simple on line search for this info but I found nothing very usable in a short period.
I think it might be useful to compare the Plank length (size of a Metron) with this limit in order to get some idea of the Metronic volume that will be needed to be modeled in the CA. I am pretty sure that the electron volume in six dimensions in terms of Plank length will overwhelm my meager computer capabilities (how can I say that when I remember sorting card decks of data).
Thanks
Paul
Yes. That is good explanation.
The faster (more energetic) electron gives a smaller spot on a perfect screen but never a pont.
Do you have any knowledge of the experimental limits on the size of the electron? As I understand it the electron is a still a point at the limits of resolution of any experiment to date. I did a simple on line search for this info but I found nothing very usable in a short period.
I think it might be useful to compare the Plank length (size of a Metron) with this limit in order to get some idea of the Metronic volume that will be needed to be modeled in the CA. I am pretty sure that the electron volume in six dimensions in terms of Plank length will overwhelm my meager computer capabilities (how can I say that when I remember sorting card decks of data).
Thanks
Paul
Yes. That is good explanation.
The faster (more energetic) electron gives a smaller spot on a perfect screen but never a pont.
QUOTE (czeslaw+Apr 8 2006, 11:51 AM)
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 8 2006, 12:02 AM)
Hi jreed
Do you have any knowledge of the experimental limits on the size of the electron? As I understand it the electron is a still a point at the limits of resolution of any experiment to date. I did a simple on line search for this info but I found nothing very usable in a short period.
I think it might be useful to compare the Plank length (size of a Metron) with this limit in order to get some idea of the Metronic volume that will be needed to be modeled in the CA. I am pretty sure that the electron volume in six dimensions in terms of Plank length will overwhelm my meager computer capabilities (how can I say that when I remember sorting card decks of data).
Thanks
Paul
Yes. That is good explanation.
The faster (more energetic) electron gives a smaller spot on a perfect screen but never a pont.
czeslaw:
You're confusing the concept of measurement with the thing being measured. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that delta x*delta p >= h bar. What we can measure depends on the momentum uncertainty of the particle. This doesn't say anything about the particle itself.
Paul:
As far as I know the actual size of the electron can't be measured exactly. In qed there will always be screening by virtual particles which surround the electron and that confuses the measurements. In fact, the more exact you try to measure it, the more uncertainty there will be. This is because to measure small lengths more momentum in the measuring apparatus is required. I think most physicists believe the actual electron is really a point singularity, but there is no proof of that.
jreed
Do you have any knowledge of the experimental limits on the size of the electron? As I understand it the electron is a still a point at the limits of resolution of any experiment to date. I did a simple on line search for this info but I found nothing very usable in a short period.
I think it might be useful to compare the Plank length (size of a Metron) with this limit in order to get some idea of the Metronic volume that will be needed to be modeled in the CA. I am pretty sure that the electron volume in six dimensions in terms of Plank length will overwhelm my meager computer capabilities (how can I say that when I remember sorting card decks of data).
Thanks
Paul
Yes. That is good explanation.
The faster (more energetic) electron gives a smaller spot on a perfect screen but never a pont.
czeslaw:
You're confusing the concept of measurement with the thing being measured. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that delta x*delta p >= h bar. What we can measure depends on the momentum uncertainty of the particle. This doesn't say anything about the particle itself.
Paul:
As far as I know the actual size of the electron can't be measured exactly. In qed there will always be screening by virtual particles which surround the electron and that confuses the measurements. In fact, the more exact you try to measure it, the more uncertainty there will be. This is because to measure small lengths more momentum in the measuring apparatus is required. I think most physicists believe the actual electron is really a point singularity, but there is no proof of that.
jreed
PNeilson, all ...
I think I have read that it can be no smaller than 10xE-18 .
I think I have read that it can be no smaller than 10xE-18 .
As I understand it the electron is a still a point at the limits of resolution of any experiment to date.
Yes, there is no Santa Clause. We do not have the ability to accurately measure the electron as of now. In Copenhagen, some scientists decided that we never will, so let's just stick to probabilities. You do not have to have belief in that idea; you may choose to let Science continue seeking the truth.
Current theory (QM, etc.) does NOT require interpreting the data as resulting from a point particle; the wave conclusion is just as valid. In fact, an oscillating spherical wave is much more likely to produce such uncertainty of measurement than a steady point particle.
At any rate, it is nice to see some "Heimers" beating around the autopoietic bush. However, as you all know, biological cells were not around IN THE BEGINNING. You are going to have to look for the mathematical pattern that enables cellular reproduction from a single "code". When you can line that up with Heim's work, then you will have something. You may even find some resemblance to the biologically derived, mathematically confined, vibrational induced duality that allows for a resonant superposition of 3+ wave-numbers.
T.Roc
I had electron weight and most likly can still give that to you had photon for a minute...
to Google...
I've never seen sites much less about weights pulled offline so fast in my entire life.
lib.fnal.gov had photon and electron weights that were from the last 5 yrs.
These I would suggest are most likly true case scenarios as if you take into account that I relate it to a pool table almost. If you cannot know these weights, then even with all the geometry in the world a pool player cannot make a shot by shooting the cue ball and make the cue ball end in a certain spot.
My thoughts.....
Andrew Strasser
Edited after Zephir's post....
wow who has access to Fermi and Google at the same time....
I would love to answer your questions friend, but that makes me know that's classfied and I shouldn't share any numbers with you...
QUOTE
Do you have any knowledge of the experimental limits on the size of the electron?
I think I have read that it can be no smaller than 10xE-18 .
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you have any knowledge of the experimental limits on the size of the electron? |
I think I have read that it can be no smaller than 10xE-18 .
As I understand it the electron is a still a point at the limits of resolution of any experiment to date.
Yes, there is no Santa Clause. We do not have the ability to accurately measure the electron as of now. In Copenhagen, some scientists decided that we never will, so let's just stick to probabilities. You do not have to have belief in that idea; you may choose to let Science continue seeking the truth.
Current theory (QM, etc.) does NOT require interpreting the data as resulting from a point particle; the wave conclusion is just as valid. In fact, an oscillating spherical wave is much more likely to produce such uncertainty of measurement than a steady point particle.
At any rate, it is nice to see some "Heimers" beating around the autopoietic bush. However, as you all know, biological cells were not around IN THE BEGINNING. You are going to have to look for the mathematical pattern that enables cellular reproduction from a single "code". When you can line that up with Heim's work, then you will have something. You may even find some resemblance to the biologically derived, mathematically confined, vibrational induced duality that allows for a resonant superposition of 3+ wave-numbers.
T.Roc
QUOTE
There's a lot of work here, done nicely. But when it comes to explaining particles, it is just left to handwaving and saying there are no particles, only wave packets and somehow these packets reconstitute themselves as particles. Wave packets are already familiar to anyone working in quantum mechanics. They can predict where localized particles will go, and the loss of information associated with measurements. Notice I said loss of information. Spreading out of the wave packet means that the particle's position is less certain, not that the particle itself is dispersing.
I had electron weight and most likly can still give that to you had photon for a minute...
to Google...I've never seen sites much less about weights pulled offline so fast in my entire life.
lib.fnal.gov had photon and electron weights that were from the last 5 yrs.
These I would suggest are most likly true case scenarios as if you take into account that I relate it to a pool table almost. If you cannot know these weights, then even with all the geometry in the world a pool player cannot make a shot by shooting the cue ball and make the cue ball end in a certain spot.
My thoughts.....
Andrew Strasser
Edited after Zephir's post....
wow who has access to Fermi and Google at the same time....
I would love to answer your questions friend, but that makes me know that's classfied and I shouldn't share any numbers with you...
QUOTE (beam+Apr 8 2006, 11:30 AM)
Jeeez, this guy makes Zephir look tame...
Yep, I definitely have no ambitions to waste my time by some endless refusals, the electron is point particle (jreed) or created by photon (Good Elf), the light is electron (Robert W. Hawkins), the time is motion (amrit), dispute Wave Theory of Light (bentsutomuito) or Wave Theory of Matter (H Kurt Richter), etc...
Why it should be useful for me?
It's exactly the same. You can found a some model of space granularity in spreading of light in microwave oven, which is full of irregularly distributed water vapor. The microwave radiation can create a standing waves in streaks of such vapor by the similar way, like the electron creates a standing wave in vacuum, being more conductive than the rest of environment.
It's obvious, the wave pocket concept is in no contradiction of possibility to spread the particle energy in wide area of space to the group of entangled wave pockets at the same moment. Of course, you should consider the inhomogeneous environment for wave spreading, formed by the another energy wave spreading, like Aether. It's a quite difficult to imagine such idea in "empty" vacuum. In fact, the recursive wave equation solution leads to such model directly by intuitive way.
In the scheme above, the red color is vacuum density wave, the green color corresponds to electron wave pocket, the resulting probability wave after composition is the directly observable electron probability wave.
Yep, I definitely have no ambitions to waste my time by some endless refusals, the electron is point particle (jreed) or created by photon (Good Elf), the light is electron (Robert W. Hawkins), the time is motion (amrit), dispute Wave Theory of Light (bentsutomuito) or Wave Theory of Matter (H Kurt Richter), etc...
Why it should be useful for me?
QUOTE
..Spreading out of the wave packet means that the particle's position is less certain, not that the particle itself is dispersing....
It's exactly the same. You can found a some model of space granularity in spreading of light in microwave oven, which is full of irregularly distributed water vapor. The microwave radiation can create a standing waves in streaks of such vapor by the similar way, like the electron creates a standing wave in vacuum, being more conductive than the rest of environment.
It's obvious, the wave pocket concept is in no contradiction of possibility to spread the particle energy in wide area of space to the group of entangled wave pockets at the same moment. Of course, you should consider the inhomogeneous environment for wave spreading, formed by the another energy wave spreading, like Aether. It's a quite difficult to imagine such idea in "empty" vacuum. In fact, the recursive wave equation solution leads to such model directly by intuitive way.
In the scheme above, the red color is vacuum density wave, the green color corresponds to electron wave pocket, the resulting probability wave after composition is the directly observable electron probability wave.
the answer to your question is yeah... Though it's not nice to ask questions ahead of time... It really pisses me off..
QUOTE (TRoc+Apr 8 2006, 02:27 PM)
PNeilson, all ...
I think I have read that it can be no smaller than 10xE-18 .
I think I have read that it can be no smaller than 10xE-18 .
As I understand it the electron is a still a point at the limits of resolution of any experiment to date.
Size?.....My envisaged model for an electron as trans-dimensional wave propagation has no specific size. ie, from my "perspective" it exists possibly between the extremes of 30 billion light years (diameter)... to a singularity. Therefore this question is meaningless! (subjectively speaking)
What is most curious to me is that e- the electron (a lepton not a meson) has the same k as the meson and therefore the same structure as the meson according to Heim. This could be interpreted as a lepton being a stable configuration of 2 quarks in the standard model. No one has seen these quarks but they would be very light. Yet the mass calculation works for both the meson's and electron.
This really isn't strange. Both leptons and mesons have baryon number 0, or k=1 in Heim's language. The difference between leptons and mesons is that leptons have half integer spin, they are fermions and mesons have integer spin, they are bosons. Fermions and bosons obey opposite statistics because of this difference. Fermions obey Pauli's exclusion principle meaning there can't be two of them in the same quantum state. Bosons obey opposite statistics. They are more likely to be in the same state. They are really two different classes of particles.
Keep working on the protosimplex idea. I have the feeling that Heim theory might be a way to predict particle masses based on some rules that put several fundamental masses together to get a final mass. This would explain why there is a lot missing from it such as decay products and dynamics.
jreed
[/QUOTE]
There are so many theories...
Is there a theory with a point particles ? Even a String Theory describe it by strings (no points).
Most of them claim the space is discrete and quanized. In such a space an infinite small point does not exist.
What is most curious to me is that e- the electron (a lepton not a meson) has the same k as the meson and therefore the same structure as the meson according to Heim. This could be interpreted as a lepton being a stable configuration of 2 quarks in the standard model. No one has seen these quarks but they would be very light. Yet the mass calculation works for both the meson's and electron.
I was looking to see if there is any possiblity that leptons could consist of quarks. Here's something I found. Apparently the thought of most of the physics community is no. The quarks and leptons are paired off with each other into two separate families.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...es/leptons.html
I don't know the significance of Heim theory in computing the mass of the leptons and mesons using similar factors. There are a lot of unanswered questions about Heim theory in my mind.
jreed
QUOTE
Do you have any knowledge of the experimental limits on the size of the electron?
I think I have read that it can be no smaller than 10xE-18 .
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you have any knowledge of the experimental limits on the size of the electron? |
I think I have read that it can be no smaller than 10xE-18 .
As I understand it the electron is a still a point at the limits of resolution of any experiment to date.
Size?.....My envisaged model for an electron as trans-dimensional wave propagation has no specific size. ie, from my "perspective" it exists possibly between the extremes of 30 billion light years (diameter)... to a singularity. Therefore this question is meaningless! (subjectively speaking)
Hi all
I have been studying Olaf's spreadsheet to get a better idea of the particle zones. Any meson has 9 protosimplex's 3 each in the two inner zones 2 ps's in the 3rd zone and 1 in the 4th zone. Any baryon has the same number of protosimplex's but many more than the meson. A total of 104 ps's 21,34,34 and 15 from the inner to outer zone. The number of protosimplex's are calculated from k using simple equations for which I can find no derivation.
What is most curious to me is that e- the electron (a lepton not a meson) has the same k as the meson and therefore the same structure as the meson according to Heim. This could be interpreted as a lepton being a stable configuration of 2 quarks in the standard model. No one has seen these quarks but they would be very light. Yet the mass calculation works for both the meson's and electron.
Something profound is being stated here! This is a prediction of the structure of the electron from Heim's theory and significant revision to the standard model regarding leptons. Yikes, I must be doing something very wrong here but I have checked everything multiple times.
The mass calculation goes on to use additional quantum numbers to give varying mass to the various protosimplex's of the various particles which I have started to figure out and will comment on later. I will try to reproduce the derivation of protosimplex counts in the zones from k to see if I can gain any insight to the structure first.
Will someone please correct me. I must be wrong!
Have fun with this one friends.
Paul
I have been studying Olaf's spreadsheet to get a better idea of the particle zones. Any meson has 9 protosimplex's 3 each in the two inner zones 2 ps's in the 3rd zone and 1 in the 4th zone. Any baryon has the same number of protosimplex's but many more than the meson. A total of 104 ps's 21,34,34 and 15 from the inner to outer zone. The number of protosimplex's are calculated from k using simple equations for which I can find no derivation.
What is most curious to me is that e- the electron (a lepton not a meson) has the same k as the meson and therefore the same structure as the meson according to Heim. This could be interpreted as a lepton being a stable configuration of 2 quarks in the standard model. No one has seen these quarks but they would be very light. Yet the mass calculation works for both the meson's and electron.
Something profound is being stated here! This is a prediction of the structure of the electron from Heim's theory and significant revision to the standard model regarding leptons. Yikes, I must be doing something very wrong here but I have checked everything multiple times.
The mass calculation goes on to use additional quantum numbers to give varying mass to the various protosimplex's of the various particles which I have started to figure out and will comment on later. I will try to reproduce the derivation of protosimplex counts in the zones from k to see if I can gain any insight to the structure first.
Will someone please correct me. I must be wrong!
Have fun with this one friends.
Paul
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 8 2006, 05:17 PM)
What is most curious to me is that e- the electron (a lepton not a meson) has the same k as the meson and therefore the same structure as the meson according to Heim. This could be interpreted as a lepton being a stable configuration of 2 quarks in the standard model. No one has seen these quarks but they would be very light. Yet the mass calculation works for both the meson's and electron.
This really isn't strange. Both leptons and mesons have baryon number 0, or k=1 in Heim's language. The difference between leptons and mesons is that leptons have half integer spin, they are fermions and mesons have integer spin, they are bosons. Fermions and bosons obey opposite statistics because of this difference. Fermions obey Pauli's exclusion principle meaning there can't be two of them in the same quantum state. Bosons obey opposite statistics. They are more likely to be in the same state. They are really two different classes of particles.
Keep working on the protosimplex idea. I have the feeling that Heim theory might be a way to predict particle masses based on some rules that put several fundamental masses together to get a final mass. This would explain why there is a lot missing from it such as decay products and dynamics.
jreed
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 8 2006, 03:05 PM)
[QUOTE=beam,Apr 8 2006, 11:30 AM]Yep, I definitely have no ambitions to waste my time by some endless refusals, the electron is point particle (jreed) or created by photon (Good Elf), the light is electron (Robert W. Hawkins), the time is motion (amrit), dispute Wave Theory of Light (bentsutomuito) or Wave Theory of Matter (H Kurt Richter), etc...
There are so many theories...
Is there a theory with a point particles ? Even a String Theory describe it by strings (no points).
Most of them claim the space is discrete and quanized. In such a space an infinite small point does not exist.
There are so many theories...
Is there a theory with a point particles ? Even a String Theory describe it by strings (no points).
Most of them claim the space is discrete and quanized. In such a space an infinite small point does not exist.
Hi jreed and all
I am at the airport bar getting fortified for my long plane ride. So I may be less than fully coherent. I think in Zeph's terms I am getting decoherent. That way I can fit in my seat which approaches a 2 dimensional box.
Anyway, I will keep digging to try and understand protosimplex's. It is clear that additional quantum numbers change the density of the protosimplex without changing the quantity of protosimplex's. In fact the quantity of protosimplex's only has 2 variations. The way I read it even a neutrino has the low quantity of protosimplex's. But the protosimplex's are somehow unoccupied. Yet the mass of these protosimplex's form a spectrum that works.
From reviewing Olaf's spreadsheet the density increases sharply in the central zone. This says that any particle's structure is complex. Not a point. Not a string. But a dynamic structure in space-time with density variations and some sort of wavelike or oscillatory behavior. Much more complex than most have ever contemplated. This still seems to fit a CA model. And the whole wave particle duality thing that we all seem to love to argue about seems to be jam-able into the CA model as well.
So czeslaw and Zarabtul and jal and Troc and fivedoughnut and Zeph and others, don't give up. Keep contributing and after a lot of work we might figure this thing out. Just keep it fun on the way. Stay on topic. If you think of a new topic create it. Don't take it personal when jreed or anyone corrects you or says you are full of S***. They might be right or not! I promise that I won't. Remember, Heims's mass formula works!
I will be back on-line when I get a chance.
Regards
Paul
I am at the airport bar getting fortified for my long plane ride. So I may be less than fully coherent. I think in Zeph's terms I am getting decoherent. That way I can fit in my seat which approaches a 2 dimensional box.
Anyway, I will keep digging to try and understand protosimplex's. It is clear that additional quantum numbers change the density of the protosimplex without changing the quantity of protosimplex's. In fact the quantity of protosimplex's only has 2 variations. The way I read it even a neutrino has the low quantity of protosimplex's. But the protosimplex's are somehow unoccupied. Yet the mass of these protosimplex's form a spectrum that works.
From reviewing Olaf's spreadsheet the density increases sharply in the central zone. This says that any particle's structure is complex. Not a point. Not a string. But a dynamic structure in space-time with density variations and some sort of wavelike or oscillatory behavior. Much more complex than most have ever contemplated. This still seems to fit a CA model. And the whole wave particle duality thing that we all seem to love to argue about seems to be jam-able into the CA model as well.
So czeslaw and Zarabtul and jal and Troc and fivedoughnut and Zeph and others, don't give up. Keep contributing and after a lot of work we might figure this thing out. Just keep it fun on the way. Stay on topic. If you think of a new topic create it. Don't take it personal when jreed or anyone corrects you or says you are full of S***. They might be right or not! I promise that I won't. Remember, Heims's mass formula works!
I will be back on-line when I get a chance.
Regards
Paul
QUOTE (czeslaw+Apr 8 2006, 05:59 PM)
[/QUOTE]
There are so many theories...
Is there a theory with a point particles ? Even a String Theory describe it by strings (no points).
Most of them claim the space is discrete and quanized. In such a space an infinite small point does not exist.
Searched Planck "electron weight" today and got this:
International Mihr Foundation
Recall that the X-ray emissivity within the framework of bremmstrahlung is proportional to the square of the electron density.
We follow two approaches to describe the electron distribution within halos. First, gas is assumed to trace dark matter such that:
in which we have introduced the universal baryon fraction ...
and 
is the mean electron weight...
cited: EDP Sciences
and last but not least an answer. Please tell me if these numbers are wrong and can be disproven.
PHYSICAL CONSTANTS
International Mihr Foundation
Recall that the X-ray emissivity within the framework of bremmstrahlung is proportional to the square of the electron density.
We follow two approaches to describe the electron distribution within halos. First, gas is assumed to trace dark matter such that:
in which we have introduced the universal baryon fraction ...
and is the mean electron weight...
cited: EDP Sciences
and last but not least an answer. Please tell me if these numbers are wrong and can be disproven.
PHYSICAL CONSTANTS
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 8 2006, 05:17 PM)
What is most curious to me is that e- the electron (a lepton not a meson) has the same k as the meson and therefore the same structure as the meson according to Heim. This could be interpreted as a lepton being a stable configuration of 2 quarks in the standard model. No one has seen these quarks but they would be very light. Yet the mass calculation works for both the meson's and electron.
I was looking to see if there is any possiblity that leptons could consist of quarks. Here's something I found. Apparently the thought of most of the physics community is no. The quarks and leptons are paired off with each other into two separate families.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...es/leptons.html
I don't know the significance of Heim theory in computing the mass of the leptons and mesons using similar factors. There are a lot of unanswered questions about Heim theory in my mind.
jreed
Hi! jreed
I found these calculations and wondered if it would be helpfull in understanding Heim's way of doing the math.
130constants Webpage
There are 130 constants that have been converted. If nothing else, you'll find it interesting.
Jal
I found these calculations and wondered if it would be helpfull in understanding Heim's way of doing the math.
QUOTE
It is questioned why the fundamental physical constants are not fundamentally expressed mathematically.
The scheme employed here is to express all the physical constants as the factor of 2 times 3 times pi.
Pi is restricted to integer exponents, while both the 2 and the 3 may be either integer or 1/2 integer exponents.
That value is then converted to a value from 1.00000 to 9.999999 times 10 to the n. In this manner, all values can be contained and compared as to their significant digits. So, in essence here, equality refers to having equal significant digits regardless whether or not there is equality of the 10 to the E values ( as shown below ).
The scheme employed here is to express all the physical constants as the factor of 2 times 3 times pi.
Pi is restricted to integer exponents, while both the 2 and the 3 may be either integer or 1/2 integer exponents.
That value is then converted to a value from 1.00000 to 9.999999 times 10 to the n. In this manner, all values can be contained and compared as to their significant digits. So, in essence here, equality refers to having equal significant digits regardless whether or not there is equality of the 10 to the E values ( as shown below ).
130constants Webpage
There are 130 constants that have been converted. If nothing else, you'll find it interesting.
Jal
Hi! jreed
Here is another page concerning constants and I wonder if it would be helpfull in understanding Heim's way of doing the math.
How Many Physical Constants are Truly Fundamental?
Good reading.
jal
Here is another page concerning constants and I wonder if it would be helpfull in understanding Heim's way of doing the math.
How Many Physical Constants are Truly Fundamental?
QUOTE
If we refer them to truly fundamental constants, it exists too much of them. If we accept a fact, that a single material essence makes a world base and all of physical phenomena should have a single nature, then amount of constants must be lesser. Here we remember Ockham-s rule, according to which we should not multiply a number of essences without necessity, and also Fresnel opinion, that L the nature is disposed to operate by great things with the help of the little¦ [5, 8]. Therefore, if priority and independence of constants are criterions of true fundamentality, then just a little amount of constants should be considered to be truly fundamental.
Good reading.
jal
Hi All
Have had some time to ponder and review Heim's math. He is saying that the structure of Leptons and Mesons are identical. That is the protosimplex structure is the same. There are only two types of protosimplex structures. One structure for Leptons and Mesons. The other for Baryons. What varies is not the particle structure but the curvature of the structure. More curvature is higher mass.
Heim is also saying there are no quarks. The quark model of Baryon structure is wrong. It results from incorrect analysis of Baryon structure which is multiples of protosimplex's of varying curvature where the protosimplex's have different curvature in different zones. There is something about later versions of the theory using higher dimensions reproducing quarks. But I have no documentation on these versions.
Heim is then adding the mass of the protosimplex's to get most of the total particle mass. But he is also adding in the field mass and the excitation mass to get the remaining mass. The motion of the protosimplex's in a particle also adds energy and allows calculation of particle lifetime.
This sort of comes from his modified theory of gravitation which says current versions of gravity are wrong because they ignore the mass equivalent of the energy of the field or field mass. The basic premise being that mass is equivalent to energy in GR so the energy stored in any kind of field is equivalent to and measurable as mass.
The mass formula uses this equivalence to turn the energy stored as spin and charge and other fields to mass.
And the mass formula works.
It also seems that using protosimplex nearest neighbor rules are capable of generating all fields and waves using a CA. But my understanding is still way to incomplete to map Heim into a CA.
There are also many testable details of Heim theory using data already in hand to prove Heim one way or the other. This is very different from string theory. Cosmic red shift of light is one. Gravitational field strength is another. Particle mass a third. The Pioneer data regarding their velocity difference from expectation might be the clearest test of Heim.
Paul
Have had some time to ponder and review Heim's math. He is saying that the structure of Leptons and Mesons are identical. That is the protosimplex structure is the same. There are only two types of protosimplex structures. One structure for Leptons and Mesons. The other for Baryons. What varies is not the particle structure but the curvature of the structure. More curvature is higher mass.
Heim is also saying there are no quarks. The quark model of Baryon structure is wrong. It results from incorrect analysis of Baryon structure which is multiples of protosimplex's of varying curvature where the protosimplex's have different curvature in different zones. There is something about later versions of the theory using higher dimensions reproducing quarks. But I have no documentation on these versions.
Heim is then adding the mass of the protosimplex's to get most of the total particle mass. But he is also adding in the field mass and the excitation mass to get the remaining mass. The motion of the protosimplex's in a particle also adds energy and allows calculation of particle lifetime.
This sort of comes from his modified theory of gravitation which says current versions of gravity are wrong because they ignore the mass equivalent of the energy of the field or field mass. The basic premise being that mass is equivalent to energy in GR so the energy stored in any kind of field is equivalent to and measurable as mass.
The mass formula uses this equivalence to turn the energy stored as spin and charge and other fields to mass.
And the mass formula works.
It also seems that using protosimplex nearest neighbor rules are capable of generating all fields and waves using a CA. But my understanding is still way to incomplete to map Heim into a CA.
There are also many testable details of Heim theory using data already in hand to prove Heim one way or the other. This is very different from string theory. Cosmic red shift of light is one. Gravitational field strength is another. Particle mass a third. The Pioneer data regarding their velocity difference from expectation might be the clearest test of Heim.
Paul
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 10 2006, 03:02 PM)
Heim is also saying there are no quarks. The quark model of Baryon structure is wrong.
If Heim's theory predict the same structure for particles with different properties, it's evident, the mass formula isn't enough. It simply means, the Heim's structure model is able to explain the difference in mass, but not in the other properties.
But I don't think, such interpretation is right, Are able to prove, Heim's predicts the same structure for the mesons and electron? Or you're simply ignoring the other parameters meaning, than protosimplex numbers ("k constant")?
Concerning the quark concept, the Standard model predicts, we will never be able to observe separate quarks. But at the high energies condition, the quark exhibits the asymptotic freedom phenomena, as they're able to move freely in the baryons in the form of quark-gluon plasma mixture with gluons. Such behavior were predicted and confirmed experimentally. After all, the analysis of hadron collisions jet has demonstrated the free quark scattering under such conditions. For example, the proton, according to HERA experiments: is densely filled with number of quarks, antiquarks and gluons, which can be detected independently. The Aether Wave Theory explains this behavior by the same way, as delocalization of electron or photons in double slit/quantum entanglement experiments:
When an electron strikes a proton in the H1 or ZEUS detector, it is possible for the electron to collide with one of the quarks (q) from which the proton is formed. The electron then transfers energy and momentum to the quark either by emitting a photon as a carrier of the electromagnetic force or a Z or a W particle as the carrier of the weak force. These exchange particles are subsequently captured by one of the three quarks. This quark is ejected from the proton, producing a particle bundle, or jet, at a large angle to the direction of travel of the proton. In contrast, the two remaining quarks of the proton continue to travel in their original direction and also produce particle jets which for the most part exit the detector without being observed. Should the electron emit a photon or a Z particle (top illustration) during the collision, the electron itself is deflected and becomes visible in the detector. If, in contrast, a W particle is transferred (bottom illustration), the electron is transformed into a neutrino, which passes through the detector without a trace.
One can even verify the collision dynamics of the electron-quark collision just using a college textbook on elementary (relativistic) mechanics. This is probably the most direct evidence we shall ever have that there are actually quarks inside the proton. (see the full article about HERA experiments.)
After all, the fact, some theory is able to predict exact values doesn't necessarily means, the structure model used is exact. Even the Bohr planetary model is able to predict diameter of hydrogen atom with high precision. BTW The Mendeleev was able to predict properties of unknown elements with high precision even at the very beginning of the 19th century, i.e. without any knowledge about atom structure at all.
Despite of this, I've no reason to refute the electron/positron as the simplest (amd most stable) case of two quark meson, composed from photon and Z-boson vibrations. But it's structure will not be definitely the same, as in the case of pion, because pions are behaving like quite different stuffs.
If Heim's theory predict the same structure for particles with different properties, it's evident, the mass formula isn't enough. It simply means, the Heim's structure model is able to explain the difference in mass, but not in the other properties.
But I don't think, such interpretation is right, Are able to prove, Heim's predicts the same structure for the mesons and electron? Or you're simply ignoring the other parameters meaning, than protosimplex numbers ("k constant")?
Concerning the quark concept, the Standard model predicts, we will never be able to observe separate quarks. But at the high energies condition, the quark exhibits the asymptotic freedom phenomena, as they're able to move freely in the baryons in the form of quark-gluon plasma mixture with gluons. Such behavior were predicted and confirmed experimentally. After all, the analysis of hadron collisions jet has demonstrated the free quark scattering under such conditions. For example, the proton, according to HERA experiments: is densely filled with number of quarks, antiquarks and gluons, which can be detected independently. The Aether Wave Theory explains this behavior by the same way, as delocalization of electron or photons in double slit/quantum entanglement experiments:
When an electron strikes a proton in the H1 or ZEUS detector, it is possible for the electron to collide with one of the quarks (q) from which the proton is formed. The electron then transfers energy and momentum to the quark either by emitting a photon as a carrier of the electromagnetic force or a Z or a W particle as the carrier of the weak force. These exchange particles are subsequently captured by one of the three quarks. This quark is ejected from the proton, producing a particle bundle, or jet, at a large angle to the direction of travel of the proton. In contrast, the two remaining quarks of the proton continue to travel in their original direction and also produce particle jets which for the most part exit the detector without being observed. Should the electron emit a photon or a Z particle (top illustration) during the collision, the electron itself is deflected and becomes visible in the detector. If, in contrast, a W particle is transferred (bottom illustration), the electron is transformed into a neutrino, which passes through the detector without a trace.
One can even verify the collision dynamics of the electron-quark collision just using a college textbook on elementary (relativistic) mechanics. This is probably the most direct evidence we shall ever have that there are actually quarks inside the proton. (see the full article about HERA experiments.)
After all, the fact, some theory is able to predict exact values doesn't necessarily means, the structure model used is exact. Even the Bohr planetary model is able to predict diameter of hydrogen atom with high precision. BTW The Mendeleev was able to predict properties of unknown elements with high precision even at the very beginning of the 19th century, i.e. without any knowledge about atom structure at all.
Despite of this, I've no reason to refute the electron/positron as the simplest (amd most stable) case of two quark meson, composed from photon and Z-boson vibrations. But it's structure will not be definitely the same, as in the case of pion, because pions are behaving like quite different stuffs.
QUOTE (jal+Apr 10 2006, 12:01 AM)
Hi! jreed
Here is another page concerning constants and I wonder if it would be helpfull in understanding Heim's way of doing the math.
How Many Physical Constants are Truly Fundamental?
Good reading.
jal
That URL suggested there are only five fundamental constants.
lx, ly, c, h, and Pi. The common physical constants were functions of two or more of those five.
Many of the links from that site were obsolete. While the one to John Baez's site concerned the couple of dozen 'standard' constants.
That 130 constants site involved nothing but numerology. The fits to know constants weren't that good, and some of the 'derived' constants weren't fundamental. Such as standard atmos. pressure, speed of sound, etc.
Here is another page concerning constants and I wonder if it would be helpfull in understanding Heim's way of doing the math.
How Many Physical Constants are Truly Fundamental?
QUOTE
............
Good reading.
jal
That URL suggested there are only five fundamental constants.
lx, ly, c, h, and Pi. The common physical constants were functions of two or more of those five.
Many of the links from that site were obsolete. While the one to John Baez's site concerned the couple of dozen 'standard' constants.
That 130 constants site involved nothing but numerology. The fits to know constants weren't that good, and some of the 'derived' constants weren't fundamental. Such as standard atmos. pressure, speed of sound, etc.
Hi Zephir
In Heim Theory the basic structure is one unit of area. If I have all of this right a protosimplex is a single unit of area that is not flat.
Heim says the number of protosimplex's in a particle have only 2 classes. One small for electron like particles and one large for proton like particles. The Standard model has 3 quarks in the large area particle and some but not all of the small area particles have 2 quarks. So it is not a leap to say that if Heim is right then all small area particles have 2 quarks. This is a pretty fundamental conflict with the standard model.
When I say structure in terms of Heim Theory I mean the area and the cyclical motion of the area segments. So until now I have ignored the other quantum numbers. The difference between particles and the forces they carry is that the additional quantum numbers cause the protosimplex's to curve or scrunch or compress (this part is not clear to me yet). So charge is caused by a certain type of scrunching and charge also contributes mass to the particle. Mass mass is caused by a certain type of scrunching but it does not contribute all of the particles mass. Presumably with more than 6 dimensions the other forces can also be accommodated. I think that is what the Droscher extensions are about. So all fields are created by the same mechanism which is scrunching of area around the particle causing more scrunching (maybe I should say stretching) of the empty space surrounding the particle so to offset the scrunching of the particle. Presumably, different quantum numbers cause different scrunching in the different dimensions. But, I am getting pretty far ahead of myself here because I need to study Heim much more to be sure of myself at this point. But I think the Heim basics are about correct.
So I guess this is a GR formulation where all forces are the results of a type of curvature. But it also needs physics below the Planck limit to explain the area scrunching and I can find nothing in the Heim documentation that I have that covers this.
This would clearly indicate that Heim is a way point to a final theory but not the final theory.
More later
Paul
In Heim Theory the basic structure is one unit of area. If I have all of this right a protosimplex is a single unit of area that is not flat.
Heim says the number of protosimplex's in a particle have only 2 classes. One small for electron like particles and one large for proton like particles. The Standard model has 3 quarks in the large area particle and some but not all of the small area particles have 2 quarks. So it is not a leap to say that if Heim is right then all small area particles have 2 quarks. This is a pretty fundamental conflict with the standard model.
When I say structure in terms of Heim Theory I mean the area and the cyclical motion of the area segments. So until now I have ignored the other quantum numbers. The difference between particles and the forces they carry is that the additional quantum numbers cause the protosimplex's to curve or scrunch or compress (this part is not clear to me yet). So charge is caused by a certain type of scrunching and charge also contributes mass to the particle. Mass mass is caused by a certain type of scrunching but it does not contribute all of the particles mass. Presumably with more than 6 dimensions the other forces can also be accommodated. I think that is what the Droscher extensions are about. So all fields are created by the same mechanism which is scrunching of area around the particle causing more scrunching (maybe I should say stretching) of the empty space surrounding the particle so to offset the scrunching of the particle. Presumably, different quantum numbers cause different scrunching in the different dimensions. But, I am getting pretty far ahead of myself here because I need to study Heim much more to be sure of myself at this point. But I think the Heim basics are about correct.
So I guess this is a GR formulation where all forces are the results of a type of curvature. But it also needs physics below the Planck limit to explain the area scrunching and I can find nothing in the Heim documentation that I have that covers this.
This would clearly indicate that Heim is a way point to a final theory but not the final theory.
More later
Paul
Hi! PNeilson
Welll... that good that your evaluation says that it works.
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.
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?
If the readers are not trying to read the protosimplex then all you'll see are poor simple drawings.
Jal
QUOTE
And the mass formula works.
Welll... that good that your evaluation says that it works.
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.
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?
If the readers are not trying to read the protosimplex then all you'll see are poor simple drawings.
Jal
Hi jal
Your help with the visuals will be a big help to us. I am having a great deal of difficulty with getting the Metron and Protosimplex figured out. Heim talks about 3 circles at the beginning of time but he also calls them the trinity of spheres which is quite a bit different. Then there is a whole lot of stuff of 6 and 8 and 12 d projections into 3 d plus time space. And I still get pretty lost in that stuff.
Keep at it. Can you or anyone help me understand a 12 d to 4 d projection?
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.
Hi Zephir
Can you come up with any way to explain particle collisions in terms of exchange of area scrunching. Try something simple first like an electron adsorbing a photon in 6 d if you don't mind. The area of the photon returns to empty area. The electron gets more scrunched, more stored energy that is. Heck, that is not simple but easier than including quarks. I have no idea how this is all sorted out dimensionally. Heim says a photon uses hyper dimensions only. But we know when the electron adsorbs the photon its position changes so it takes energy from the informational dimensions and ends up changing its positional dimensions. Good luck.
Hi jreed
I think I am far enough along in understanding the mass formula to say that it is a method of summing mass contributions to a total mass. And it is taking mass energy equivalence to do it. So any stored energy is mass. Even the field energy. So a magnet's stored magnetic field energy appears as a mass in the magnet. Same for charge. Is their anything in mainstream physics that relates to this? Or is this just off the wall?
Hi Zarabtul
Thanks for the links on the electron. Something is really wrong between measured particle sizes and Heim. If I take all of the area available as I currently understand Heim the ratio of length to width would have to be very ridiculous to get to the published sizes. This is a major difficulty with Heim as far as I can see right now. I will be trying to resolve where the error lies ASAP.
Thanks all, for your effort.
Paul
Your help with the visuals will be a big help to us. I am having a great deal of difficulty with getting the Metron and Protosimplex figured out. Heim talks about 3 circles at the beginning of time but he also calls them the trinity of spheres which is quite a bit different. Then there is a whole lot of stuff of 6 and 8 and 12 d projections into 3 d plus time space. And I still get pretty lost in that stuff.
Keep at it. Can you or anyone help me understand a 12 d to 4 d projection?
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.
Hi Zephir
Can you come up with any way to explain particle collisions in terms of exchange of area scrunching. Try something simple first like an electron adsorbing a photon in 6 d if you don't mind. The area of the photon returns to empty area. The electron gets more scrunched, more stored energy that is. Heck, that is not simple but easier than including quarks. I have no idea how this is all sorted out dimensionally. Heim says a photon uses hyper dimensions only. But we know when the electron adsorbs the photon its position changes so it takes energy from the informational dimensions and ends up changing its positional dimensions. Good luck.
Hi jreed
I think I am far enough along in understanding the mass formula to say that it is a method of summing mass contributions to a total mass. And it is taking mass energy equivalence to do it. So any stored energy is mass. Even the field energy. So a magnet's stored magnetic field energy appears as a mass in the magnet. Same for charge. Is their anything in mainstream physics that relates to this? Or is this just off the wall?
Hi Zarabtul
Thanks for the links on the electron. Something is really wrong between measured particle sizes and Heim. If I take all of the area available as I currently understand Heim the ratio of length to width would have to be very ridiculous to get to the published sizes. This is a major difficulty with Heim as far as I can see right now. I will be trying to resolve where the error lies ASAP.
Thanks all, for your effort.
Paul
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 10 2006, 05:41 PM)
...Heim is right then all small area particles have 2 quarks. This is a pretty fundamental conflict with the standard model...
I suppose, all readers of this forum knows my quark model of particles - by my opinion, quarks are virtual pieces of charge, i.e the torsion helicity. From this point of view, the composition of proton and neutron from quark can appears something like this:
In the picture above, a three 2/3 pieces of charge are used as the model of up and down quarks. But we know, the 1/3 quark can exist too and from such tiny pieces is easy to construct all the leptons, including the neutrino and electron:
It's obvious, the electron should contain a two helicities with different radius, being composed from 1/3 Z-boson/photon quark and 2/3 Z-boson quark, whereas the neutrino can be formally constructed from three 1/3 Z-boson quark. From this point of view the pions can be constructed from less stable combinations of 2/3 photon quark and 1/3 of Z-boson loop, thus resulting the nearly same structure, like electron, but phase shifted 2*pi/3 towards the photon loop.
Is such explanation of electron-pion similarity clear for at least somebody?
It's evident, the helicity of vibrations in particle can be deeply violated by the deformations at the case of unstable particles by the same way, as in the case of some unstable electron orbital hybridizations. So I don't expect, it wouldn't be so easy to implement the knot model for all known particles with all its subtleties and to make it consistent with Standard model symmetries. I've no motivation/support/theoretical background to do such things, but the knot quark model seems to have a lot of sense for explanation of composition of elementary particle from quarks like LEGO components.
By my opinion, the charge is the result of overall topology of particle vibrations by such way, the symmetries of Standard model can have some physical meaning either. It's just a different, more qualitative look at problem: the Standard model predicts the vibration modes of the metron elastic foam, whereas the Heim theory predict exact number of metron areas or protosimplex bubbles inside each foam layer, which is amazing, but less advantage with respect of some intuitive view.
I suppose, all readers of this forum knows my quark model of particles - by my opinion, quarks are virtual pieces of charge, i.e the torsion helicity. From this point of view, the composition of proton and neutron from quark can appears something like this:
In the picture above, a three 2/3 pieces of charge are used as the model of up and down quarks. But we know, the 1/3 quark can exist too and from such tiny pieces is easy to construct all the leptons, including the neutrino and electron:
It's obvious, the electron should contain a two helicities with different radius, being composed from 1/3 Z-boson/photon quark and 2/3 Z-boson quark, whereas the neutrino can be formally constructed from three 1/3 Z-boson quark. From this point of view the pions can be constructed from less stable combinations of 2/3 photon quark and 1/3 of Z-boson loop, thus resulting the nearly same structure, like electron, but phase shifted 2*pi/3 towards the photon loop.
Is such explanation of electron-pion similarity clear for at least somebody?
It's evident, the helicity of vibrations in particle can be deeply violated by the deformations at the case of unstable particles by the same way, as in the case of some unstable electron orbital hybridizations. So I don't expect, it wouldn't be so easy to implement the knot model for all known particles with all its subtleties and to make it consistent with Standard model symmetries. I've no motivation/support/theoretical background to do such things, but the knot quark model seems to have a lot of sense for explanation of composition of elementary particle from quarks like LEGO components.
By my opinion, the charge is the result of overall topology of particle vibrations by such way, the symmetries of Standard model can have some physical meaning either. It's just a different, more qualitative look at problem: the Standard model predicts the vibration modes of the metron elastic foam, whereas the Heim theory predict exact number of metron areas or protosimplex bubbles inside each foam layer, which is amazing, but less advantage with respect of some intuitive view.
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 10 2006, 06:55 PM)
...Can you come up with any way to explain particle collisions in terms of exchange of area scrunching...
I have just a very qualitative idea of exact vacuum behavior. Try to imagine the foam as th result of supercritical vapor condensation in microgravity conditions - it's a intimate mixture of bubbles and less dense phase in 1:1 volume ratio, pretty similar to foam. If you introduce some energy into foam, the density of bubbles increases by such a way, the ratio of more dense / less dense phase increases. This result in higher frequency of metrons oscillations - the metrons are forming a walls of foam bubbles. Try to imagine a vibrating soap foam: if the foam will become more dense, the pitch of foam vibrations increases, because of diameter of bubble walls decreases, whereas the surface tension remains the same.
When the vacuum bubbles will become so small, so that the further decreasing of bubble size has no effect, a new phase transition occurs by such way, it means, the foam creation from existing foam occurs. You can imagine it as the subsequent phase transition of existent foam. Such process can be even observed directly in Bose-Einstein condensates in 1D vortexes - When the density of energy increases, the vortices are forming the composite vortexes from vortices. It means, the Heim's model of dynamic vibrating foam has a deep physical sense, at least for me.
I have just a very qualitative idea of exact vacuum behavior. Try to imagine the foam as th result of supercritical vapor condensation in microgravity conditions - it's a intimate mixture of bubbles and less dense phase in 1:1 volume ratio, pretty similar to foam. If you introduce some energy into foam, the density of bubbles increases by such a way, the ratio of more dense / less dense phase increases. This result in higher frequency of metrons oscillations - the metrons are forming a walls of foam bubbles. Try to imagine a vibrating soap foam: if the foam will become more dense, the pitch of foam vibrations increases, because of diameter of bubble walls decreases, whereas the surface tension remains the same.
When the vacuum bubbles will become so small, so that the further decreasing of bubble size has no effect, a new phase transition occurs by such way, it means, the foam creation from existing foam occurs. You can imagine it as the subsequent phase transition of existent foam. Such process can be even observed directly in Bose-Einstein condensates in 1D vortexes - When the density of energy increases, the vortices are forming the composite vortexes from vortices. It means, the Heim's model of dynamic vibrating foam has a deep physical sense, at least for me.
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 10 2006, 06:55 PM)
...Heim says the number of protosimplex's in a particle have only 2 classes....
I've definitely no problem with this. By my opinion, all real particles are created just by the combinations of loops of Z/W boson charge (low diameter helicity in my knot model of particles) and the larger and more massive photon loop (i.e. EMG charge). But such loops are able to live in three consecutive subspaces of spacetime, thus forming the particle generations and a lot of combinations possible.
The Z/W bosons helicity corresponds the protosimplex layer with cubic dependence of density, thus a low distance interactions. The photonic part is the protosimplex layer with linear density dependence, because it's a part of our spacetime. The mesolayer is formed by the gluons, being a composite layer formed by the mixed W/Z-boson interaction and EMG interaction.
These layers are having a different surface tension, at the particle collision they're can condense, when the inner parts intersect, thus forming a metastable resonance state, which decomposes producing a new particle(s). It's a nearly exact analogy of common nuclear fusion/fission processes. Such fusion doesn't occurs until the atom nuclei physicall met together through the electron orbital cover layer, too.
I've definitely no problem with this. By my opinion, all real particles are created just by the combinations of loops of Z/W boson charge (low diameter helicity in my knot model of particles) and the larger and more massive photon loop (i.e. EMG charge). But such loops are able to live in three consecutive subspaces of spacetime, thus forming the particle generations and a lot of combinations possible.
The Z/W bosons helicity corresponds the protosimplex layer with cubic dependence of density, thus a low distance interactions. The photonic part is the protosimplex layer with linear density dependence, because it's a part of our spacetime. The mesolayer is formed by the gluons, being a composite layer formed by the mixed W/Z-boson interaction and EMG interaction.
These layers are having a different surface tension, at the particle collision they're can condense, when the inner parts intersect, thus forming a metastable resonance state, which decomposes producing a new particle(s). It's a nearly exact analogy of common nuclear fusion/fission processes. Such fusion doesn't occurs until the atom nuclei physicall met together through the electron orbital cover layer, too.
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 10 2006, 05:41 PM)
needs physics below the Planck limit to explain the area scrunching ... Heim is a way point to a final theory but not the final theory.
It's evident, prof. Heim was very close to formulation of the quite universal theory. There is a lot of cosmological insights in his theory: the origin of mass by the phase transformation of vacuum, the explanation of dark matter streaks, the derivation of the minimal and maximal Universe curvature in particular, which leads directly to the hypothesis of Universe recursive evolution.
Nevertheless, from Heim's theory perspective, the Universe origin remains unexplained, it's even unclear, whether the current Universe generation is the very first one, or just another one in sequence of Universe generation. All the metron computations are based on ad-hoc vacuum elastic constants (light speed, gravity constant, permeability & permittivity constant). The origin of such constants and their mutual dependence, even the quantum & general relativity postulates remains unexplained, although I suppose, the derivation of such postulates from hidden dimensional foamy structure is rather formal deduction.
I suppose, the ad-hoc structures of Heim theory can be explained/computed by the recursive solution of wave equation by the very same way, as the phase transition behavior of supercritical vapor, using the dense elastic inhomogeneous elastic phase model. Such simulation would be a computativelly intensive, but it would give us a connection of the Heim's theory to the superstring and quantum loop gravity theories, because I suppose, all these theories are just a special versions of Heim's theory.
Of course, here's a lot of work to do, but it's evident, the main vacuum concepts are converging a quite significantly in the recent years. The experimental proofs of the Heim's theory concept (the Heim's mass formula results, in particular) can serve as the strong evidence, our intuitive ideas are really correct - even without expensive and potentially unsafe collider experiments.
It's evident, prof. Heim was very close to formulation of the quite universal theory. There is a lot of cosmological insights in his theory: the origin of mass by the phase transformation of vacuum, the explanation of dark matter streaks, the derivation of the minimal and maximal Universe curvature in particular, which leads directly to the hypothesis of Universe recursive evolution.
Nevertheless, from Heim's theory perspective, the Universe origin remains unexplained, it's even unclear, whether the current Universe generation is the very first one, or just another one in sequence of Universe generation. All the metron computations are based on ad-hoc vacuum elastic constants (light speed, gravity constant, permeability & permittivity constant). The origin of such constants and their mutual dependence, even the quantum & general relativity postulates remains unexplained, although I suppose, the derivation of such postulates from hidden dimensional foamy structure is rather formal deduction.
I suppose, the ad-hoc structures of Heim theory can be explained/computed by the recursive solution of wave equation by the very same way, as the phase transition behavior of supercritical vapor, using the dense elastic inhomogeneous elastic phase model. Such simulation would be a computativelly intensive, but it would give us a connection of the Heim's theory to the superstring and quantum loop gravity theories, because I suppose, all these theories are just a special versions of Heim's theory.
Of course, here's a lot of work to do, but it's evident, the main vacuum concepts are converging a quite significantly in the recent years. The experimental proofs of the Heim's theory concept (the Heim's mass formula results, in particular) can serve as the strong evidence, our intuitive ideas are really correct - even without expensive and potentially unsafe collider experiments.
QUOTE (jal+Apr 9 2006, 06:04 PM)
[QUOTE]It is questioned why the fundamental physical constants are not fundamentally expressed mathematically.
The scheme employed here is to express all the physical constants as the factor of 2 times 3 times pi.
Pi is restricted to integer exponents, while both the 2 and the 3 may be either integer or 1/2 integer exponents.
I set this up in Mathematica with the Minimize function. I'm able to duplicate the results for pi. However when I substitute e, the exponential constant, the Golden ratio constant or Euler's gamma constant for pi I get as good or better results. There's nothing to this. It's easy to cook up numbers using known constants.
Back on the question of Heim's mass equations, frankly I'm suspicious of these calculations. If true it would mean that most of elementary particle physics is wrong. Scattering experiments seem to confirm the existance of quarks and several predictions of particle physics have proven out. Secondly, I haven't found any connections between Heim's theory of six dimensional space to the equations for mass predictions yet. I'm still working on that. They may be there, but are hidden under lots of mathematical derivation that aren't in the notes. I have the feeling that things were manipulated as they were with the quoted example to give good mass values for known masses. But I could be wrong. I'm from Missouri and you have to show me.
I now have a copy of "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram. It's a large book, over 1200 pages so it's not something to do over a weekend. Wolfram has a Ph.D in physics and there is a lot of physics in the book. Maybe I can get back to the original topic of this group a little more.
jreed
The scheme employed here is to express all the physical constants as the factor of 2 times 3 times pi.
Pi is restricted to integer exponents, while both the 2 and the 3 may be either integer or 1/2 integer exponents.
I set this up in Mathematica with the Minimize function. I'm able to duplicate the results for pi. However when I substitute e, the exponential constant, the Golden ratio constant or Euler's gamma constant for pi I get as good or better results. There's nothing to this. It's easy to cook up numbers using known constants.
Back on the question of Heim's mass equations, frankly I'm suspicious of these calculations. If true it would mean that most of elementary particle physics is wrong. Scattering experiments seem to confirm the existance of quarks and several predictions of particle physics have proven out. Secondly, I haven't found any connections between Heim's theory of six dimensional space to the equations for mass predictions yet. I'm still working on that. They may be there, but are hidden under lots of mathematical derivation that aren't in the notes. I have the feeling that things were manipulated as they were with the quoted example to give good mass values for known masses. But I could be wrong. I'm from Missouri and you have to show me.
I now have a copy of "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram. It's a large book, over 1200 pages so it's not something to do over a weekend. Wolfram has a Ph.D in physics and there is a lot of physics in the book. Maybe I can get back to the original topic of this group a little more.
jreed
Hi jreed....
I did not really think that those constant pages would give you much insight. I am glad that you were able to do some investigation as to their possible validity and possible application by Heim.
I have always said that I do not have a theory. I have looked at many theories and found problems with all of them.
Let me tell you a story….
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SECRETS OF THE WISE MEN
Way back…. Way back …. Before recorded history….
A warrior asked his friend, “Why are things the way they are?”
Not wanting to admit that he did not have the answer and wanting to be known as a “wise man”, he answered, “Go sit by the river and look at the water, look at the waves, look at the foam. The answer to your question will be revealed to you.”
Sure enough, the young warrior came back and excitedly said, “You are so wise. I had a vision. The answer has been revealed to me.
I, now, know why things are the way they are.”
Off he went. Everybody was happy.
As a result, of this trick, the wise men have been passing this “trick” to other wise men. It has survived from one generation to next generation of wise men.
In ancient time, these wise men learned how to read and write and wrote down these tricks so that other wise men would be able to use them. As a result, some of these wise men got the reputation of being the wisest of the wise men. They did not have to take precautions to safeguard their holy books of secret tricks. Their secrets were safe because only wise men could read and write.
A few hundred years ago, some of the young wise men rebelled and started a new group. This group was in competition with the old group. They did things differently. As a result, this young group of rebellious wise men became known as scientists.
They wrote their secrets in a strange language which took many years to understand.
If you could learn and understand the secret language of mathematics then you would be known as a “wise man”. Only a few, those who were rich or those who were selected by the wise men to be trained, had a change of learning these secrets.
Until today.
The young warriors have learned how to read and write. They have gotten a hold of the secret books and learned the secret language of mathematics. All of the wise men are very disturbed because everybody can become a wise man.
The wise men are being asked questions that they can’t answer and the young warriors do not want to accept the answer of “go sit by the river”.
The warriors now know that the wise men do not have all of the answers.
The young warriors are getting together and talking about their “visions”.
Soon, the young warriors will realize that their visions do not have all the answers and that some “visions” do not have any of the right answers.
You can be certain, that for once, in the history of mankind, that the wise men ( especially Mrs. Susy, Mr. Slim and Mr. Twisty), are paying attention to what the young warriors are saying.
They do not want the resources that they are receiving to be share with a third group of “wise men”. They do not want to be replaced.
They are watching and listening to your activities. They want to survive.
They would use agents to sow the seeds of dissention among you. They would delay your search for the truth. They would try to prevent the flow/exchange of information.
Who knows what will happen. EVERYONE who seeks the truth can get together (on the web) to look for answers.
You are no longer an isolated ignorant superstitious warrior…. You are seekers .
End of story
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The web is making everything different.
jal
I did not really think that those constant pages would give you much insight. I am glad that you were able to do some investigation as to their possible validity and possible application by Heim.
QUOTE
I now have a copy of "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram
I also have a copy... I'm still not able to work on a meaningfull "run". I will keep it handy for when it is needed.I have always said that I do not have a theory. I have looked at many theories and found problems with all of them.
Let me tell you a story….
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SECRETS OF THE WISE MEN
Way back…. Way back …. Before recorded history….
A warrior asked his friend, “Why are things the way they are?”
Not wanting to admit that he did not have the answer and wanting to be known as a “wise man”, he answered, “Go sit by the river and look at the water, look at the waves, look at the foam. The answer to your question will be revealed to you.”
Sure enough, the young warrior came back and excitedly said, “You are so wise. I had a vision. The answer has been revealed to me.
I, now, know why things are the way they are.”
Off he went. Everybody was happy.
As a result, of this trick, the wise men have been passing this “trick” to other wise men. It has survived from one generation to next generation of wise men.
In ancient time, these wise men learned how to read and write and wrote down these tricks so that other wise men would be able to use them. As a result, some of these wise men got the reputation of being the wisest of the wise men. They did not have to take precautions to safeguard their holy books of secret tricks. Their secrets were safe because only wise men could read and write.
A few hundred years ago, some of the young wise men rebelled and started a new group. This group was in competition with the old group. They did things differently. As a result, this young group of rebellious wise men became known as scientists.
They wrote their secrets in a strange language which took many years to understand.
If you could learn and understand the secret language of mathematics then you would be known as a “wise man”. Only a few, those who were rich or those who were selected by the wise men to be trained, had a change of learning these secrets.
Until today.
The young warriors have learned how to read and write. They have gotten a hold of the secret books and learned the secret language of mathematics. All of the wise men are very disturbed because everybody can become a wise man.
The wise men are being asked questions that they can’t answer and the young warriors do not want to accept the answer of “go sit by the river”.
The warriors now know that the wise men do not have all of the answers.
The young warriors are getting together and talking about their “visions”.
Soon, the young warriors will realize that their visions do not have all the answers and that some “visions” do not have any of the right answers.
You can be certain, that for once, in the history of mankind, that the wise men ( especially Mrs. Susy, Mr. Slim and Mr. Twisty), are paying attention to what the young warriors are saying.
They do not want the resources that they are receiving to be share with a third group of “wise men”. They do not want to be replaced.
They are watching and listening to your activities. They want to survive.
They would use agents to sow the seeds of dissention among you. They would delay your search for the truth. They would try to prevent the flow/exchange of information.
Who knows what will happen. EVERYONE who seeks the truth can get together (on the web) to look for answers.
You are no longer an isolated ignorant superstitious warrior…. You are seekers .
End of story
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The web is making everything different.
jal
Hi All
Thanks for all the good work. I read Wolfram's book when it first came out and I was struck by how powerful it's concepts are. But I had absolutely no idea how to apply any of it. Then I stumbled across Heim's theory and put it and Wolfram's CA ideas together and here we are.
I still don't have enough insight to find any tangible way to connect them but I still feel a connection. I really like Zephir's graphic of the Heims zones to a particle. I think it's on the right path.
I am with you jreed on not yet trusting Heim's math formula. It is a spectrum not a formula. But even if you leave out its fine tuning parameters it gets closer to the mark than any thing else does. So trying to re-derive it is worthwhile.
But their are so many orders of magnitude between the Plank limit and the size of the particles that there is plenty of room for a lot of structure.
More later. I have to get back to work now.
Paul
Thanks for all the good work. I read Wolfram's book when it first came out and I was struck by how powerful it's concepts are. But I had absolutely no idea how to apply any of it. Then I stumbled across Heim's theory and put it and Wolfram's CA ideas together and here we are.
I still don't have enough insight to find any tangible way to connect them but I still feel a connection. I really like Zephir's graphic of the Heims zones to a particle. I think it's on the right path.
I am with you jreed on not yet trusting Heim's math formula. It is a spectrum not a formula. But even if you leave out its fine tuning parameters it gets closer to the mark than any thing else does. So trying to re-derive it is worthwhile.
But their are so many orders of magnitude between the Plank limit and the size of the particles that there is plenty of room for a lot of structure.
More later. I have to get back to work now.
Paul
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 11 2006, 07:27 AM)
But their are so many orders of magnitude between the Plank limit and the size of the particles that there is plenty of room for a lot of structure.
Paul
Cellular Automata is very useful tool. On the end of my web site - http://www.blackholes.int.pl you may read about some interesting systems in our Universe :
- you can compare order of the magnitude systems of the ATOMS and STARS.
- Is our Observable Universe a HIPERBRAIN ?
- EVERYTHING TENDS TO CREATE SYSTEM OF HIERARCHIC GROUPS
Do you think is it a property of the empty space ? Or is it writen in the space with an energy together ?
Paul
Cellular Automata is very useful tool. On the end of my web site - http://www.blackholes.int.pl you may read about some interesting systems in our Universe :
- you can compare order of the magnitude systems of the ATOMS and STARS.
- Is our Observable Universe a HIPERBRAIN ?
- EVERYTHING TENDS TO CREATE SYSTEM OF HIERARCHIC GROUPS
Do you think is it a property of the empty space ? Or is it writen in the space with an energy together ?
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 11 2006, 10:27 AM)
I really like Zephir's graphic of the Heims zones to a particle. I think it's on the right path.
Thank you, but the base of graphic isn't really mine. It's not just about cellular automata, but I suppose, from the programmer point of view, some static aspects of such quantum foam can be modeled in 2D by the well known fun Soda constructor as the system of mutually connected vibrating strings.
The difference is, the Heim's structure model is fully dynamic - in fact, it's based on neverending phase transitions occurring in it - here are no solid "join points" inside such foam. The bubbles in such quantum foam are appearing and destroying dynamically.
Thank you, but the base of graphic isn't really mine. It's not just about cellular automata, but I suppose, from the programmer point of view, some static aspects of such quantum foam can be modeled in 2D by the well known fun Soda constructor as the system of mutually connected vibrating strings.
The difference is, the Heim's structure model is fully dynamic - in fact, it's based on neverending phase transitions occurring in it - here are no solid "join points" inside such foam. The bubbles in such quantum foam are appearing and destroying dynamically.
Hi!
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.
jal
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.
jal
Hi Czeslaw
Good question. I don't understand Heim enough to really be able to answer.
This is as close as I can get right now. If you viewed space as a multidimensional lattice and energy as deformations in the lattice or as in Zephir's foam analogy energy as a membrane filling a 2D lattice section. Then add repeating dynamic behavior as a CA evolving in time where any time slice in the structure repeats x time slices later where some of the energy is in the structure dynamics. But there is also the energy of empty space that is stored in the lattice.
So flat empty space has energy. Curved space that is stretched has more energy. This is field mass. Curved space that is scrunched has even more energy. This is mass mass. The dynamical process that can be thought of as a wave in space has energy and is mass. At this point I am not sure if the question is this a wave or a particle has any meaning. It is both and neither. Maybe it is better to think of it as a complex structure in space. I think what Heim is saying is there is only flat space and deformed space. Mass and energy are properties of space. And the other forces follow the exact same rules in other dimensions.
At this point the exact mechanism that is scrunching or stretching space is unknown. Use the foam membrane or a knot at the lattice point or vibration in the lattice or string between the lattice point what ever you can relate to. I am sure that there are a lot of mechanisms that can produce the correct result. I think a CA using a simple set of nearest neighbor rules with a foam condensate marking the filled lattice cell may work. Just look for the simplest model that works.
Whew! What a long non answer. Let me know what you think!
Zephir, yes I have a MS in comp sci so I do have that certain point of view. I am more interested in getting a computable model that works even if it is not the correct mechanism. I don't know how to compute phase transitions in a foam except maybe using a CA. In my life as a Chemical Engineer that was way to complicated to model. But I was a Chem E long before a non trivial CA was computable.
GTG
Paul
Good question. I don't understand Heim enough to really be able to answer.
This is as close as I can get right now. If you viewed space as a multidimensional lattice and energy as deformations in the lattice or as in Zephir's foam analogy energy as a membrane filling a 2D lattice section. Then add repeating dynamic behavior as a CA evolving in time where any time slice in the structure repeats x time slices later where some of the energy is in the structure dynamics. But there is also the energy of empty space that is stored in the lattice.
So flat empty space has energy. Curved space that is stretched has more energy. This is field mass. Curved space that is scrunched has even more energy. This is mass mass. The dynamical process that can be thought of as a wave in space has energy and is mass. At this point I am not sure if the question is this a wave or a particle has any meaning. It is both and neither. Maybe it is better to think of it as a complex structure in space. I think what Heim is saying is there is only flat space and deformed space. Mass and energy are properties of space. And the other forces follow the exact same rules in other dimensions.
At this point the exact mechanism that is scrunching or stretching space is unknown. Use the foam membrane or a knot at the lattice point or vibration in the lattice or string between the lattice point what ever you can relate to. I am sure that there are a lot of mechanisms that can produce the correct result. I think a CA using a simple set of nearest neighbor rules with a foam condensate marking the filled lattice cell may work. Just look for the simplest model that works.
Whew! What a long non answer. Let me know what you think!
Zephir, yes I have a MS in comp sci so I do have that certain point of view. I am more interested in getting a computable model that works even if it is not the correct mechanism. I don't know how to compute phase transitions in a foam except maybe using a CA. In my life as a Chemical Engineer that was way to complicated to model. But I was a Chem E long before a non trivial CA was computable.
GTG
Paul
QUOTE (jal+Apr 11 2006, 05:23 PM)
...Imagine that you are a metron at the center of 12 spheres. That is called a hex. packing....
I'm not so sure, whether the 12 spatial dimensions can be explained so easily... The introducing of 12 spatial dimensions is required for explanation of all possible particle properties, from axions/Higgs bosons to strange quarks and highest generation of particles, like tauon. But the number of spatial dimensions can be even substantially higher, being virtually unlimited, in fact. It's just disadvantageous with respect of the supergravity wave packing.
Nevertheless, I suppose the number of 3D dimensions can be explained by the achievable effectives of 3D sphere packing, because the packing density of 2D spheres (circles) or 4D hypersphere or above is substantially lower. It means, the 3D liquid is the most effective way, how to achieve dense hierarchy. You can found the answer about number of dimension in Lagrangian analysis of space-time packing level.
So flat empty space has energy. Curved space that is stretched has more energy. This is field mass. Curved space that is scrunched has even more energy. This is mass mass. The dynamical process that can be thought of as a wave in space has energy and is mass. At this point I am not sure if the question is this a wave or a particle has any meaning. It is both and neither. Maybe it is better to think of it as a complex structure in space. I think what Heim is saying is there is only flat space and deformed space. Mass and energy are properties of space. And the other forces follow the exact same rules in other dimensions.
If the energy is a space deformation and we observe the energy conservation – it is not possible an infinite dense singularity in a Black Hole. There must be conserved a minimum structure of the space.
I'm not so sure, whether the 12 spatial dimensions can be explained so easily...
The introducing of 12 spatial dimensions is required for explanation of all possible particle properties, from axions/Higgs bosons to strange quarks and highest generation of particles, like tauon. But the number of spatial dimensions can be even substantially higher, being virtually unlimited, in fact. It's just disadvantageous with respect of the supergravity wave packing.Nevertheless, I suppose the number of 3D dimensions can be explained by the achievable effectives of 3D sphere packing, because the packing density of 2D spheres (circles) or 4D hypersphere or above is substantially lower. It means, the 3D liquid is the most effective way, how to achieve dense hierarchy. You can found the answer about number of dimension in Lagrangian analysis of space-time packing level.
QUOTE (Czeslaw+Apr 11 2006, 05:23 PM)
...EVERYTHING TENDS TO CREATE SYSTEM OF HIERARCHIC GROUPS....
It's quite important remark. The Aether doesn't forms some flat uniform 12 D spacetime, but the hierarchy groups of nested 4D subspaces, which are sharing one dimension through corresponding energy density.
Such hierarchy is given by the principle of minimization of action quantity again, and most the interactions are influencing just 3D space. Such topology can be imagined by much more easily, than uniform 12D space and can be even simulated by the nested isolated 3D spaces, connected through energy density as the fourth dimension.
It's quite important remark. The Aether doesn't forms some flat uniform 12 D spacetime, but the hierarchy groups of nested 4D subspaces, which are sharing one dimension through corresponding energy density.
Such hierarchy is given by the principle of minimization of action quantity again, and most the interactions are influencing just 3D space. Such topology can be imagined by much more easily, than uniform 12D space and can be even simulated by the nested isolated 3D spaces, connected through energy density as the fourth dimension.
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 11 2006, 05:28 PM)
I am more interested in getting a computable model that works even if it is not the correct mechanism. I don't know how to compute phase transitions in a foam except maybe using a CA.
I suppose, the iterative solution of wave equation gives both the correct mechanism, both is feasible (although quite intensive to computations). Everything what u need is to solve the wave equation for elastic massive string in at least 6D space, substituting the mass density of string by the energy density (in red) od solution (in blue) for each iteration step. A common predictor-corrector Runge-Kutta FE method is suitable for this. An example of such phase transition in 2D is given below:
I suppose, the iterative solution of wave equation gives both the correct mechanism, both is feasible (although quite intensive to computations). Everything what u need is to solve the wave equation for elastic massive string in at least 6D space, substituting the mass density of string by the energy density (in red) od solution (in blue) for each iteration step. A common predictor-corrector Runge-Kutta FE method is suitable for this. An example of such phase transition in 2D is given below:
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 11 2006, 02:28 PM)
So flat empty space has energy. Curved space that is stretched has more energy. This is field mass. Curved space that is scrunched has even more energy. This is mass mass. The dynamical process that can be thought of as a wave in space has energy and is mass. At this point I am not sure if the question is this a wave or a particle has any meaning. It is both and neither. Maybe it is better to think of it as a complex structure in space. I think what Heim is saying is there is only flat space and deformed space. Mass and energy are properties of space. And the other forces follow the exact same rules in other dimensions.
If the energy is a space deformation and we observe the energy conservation – it is not possible an infinite dense singularity in a Black Hole. There must be conserved a minimum structure of the space.
Hi czeslaw
I addressed your point in my thread (entropy potential energy) where I describe "black holes". When you pile up matter/energy you are making a mountain, not a hole, and your mountain deforms the 3d structure until you reach the 2d event horizon.
jal
I addressed your point in my thread (entropy potential energy) where I describe "black holes". When you pile up matter/energy you are making a mountain, not a hole, and your mountain deforms the 3d structure until you reach the 2d event horizon.
jal
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 11 2006, 05:28 PM)
..the exact mechanism that is scrunching or stretching space is unknown....
I suppose, the phase transition inside vacuum is the result of spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is quite common in the nature, so if you can imagine/explain/compute the supercritical vapor condensation process, you can describe the phase transition in metron laticce too. During such phase transition a foamy mixture of less and more dense phase appears (see the frame No. 5 on the animation below).
The principle of the phase transition can be easily understood as the instability of the wave equation numeric solution (see the DHTML applet). If you increase the time step (i.e. the density of string) above certain limit (the stability criterion derivation can be found in the literature), the solution becomes unstable. You can make it stable again by involving another dimension for solution, thus decreasing the energy density.
I suppose, the phase transition inside vacuum is the result of spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is quite common in the nature, so if you can imagine/explain/compute the supercritical vapor condensation process, you can describe the phase transition in metron laticce too. During such phase transition a foamy mixture of less and more dense phase appears (see the frame No. 5 on the animation below).
The principle of the phase transition can be easily understood as the instability of the wave equation numeric solution (see the DHTML applet). If you increase the time step (i.e. the density of string) above certain limit (the stability criterion derivation can be found in the literature), the solution becomes unstable. You can make it stable again by involving another dimension for solution, thus decreasing the energy density.
QUOTE (jal+Apr 11 2006, 03:22 PM)
Hi czeslaw
I addressed your point in my thread (entropy potential energy) where I describe "black holes". When you pile up matter/energy you are making a mountain, not a hole, and your mountain deforms the 3d structure until you reach the 2d event horizon.
jal
Thank you jal.
I go in your thread .
I addressed your point in my thread (entropy potential energy) where I describe "black holes". When you pile up matter/energy you are making a mountain, not a hole, and your mountain deforms the 3d structure until you reach the 2d event horizon.
jal
Thank you jal.
I go in your thread .
Hi!
Stephen Wolfram, on page 476, says, "... any node with more than three connections can in effect always be broken into a collection of nodes with exactly three connections..."
By changing the topology of the first level of quantization I get the following illustration.
As a reminder, this is where space and time are equal and are (spheres (12d)).
Is it posssible to use that to construct a Cellular Automata?
There are some 4 connecting nodes which need to be addressed.
Since the second level of quantization produces the first level, do we need to try to do Cellular Automata of second level of quantization (where the metron reside)?
jal
Stephen Wolfram, on page 476, says, "... any node with more than three connections can in effect always be broken into a collection of nodes with exactly three connections..."
By changing the topology of the first level of quantization I get the following illustration.
As a reminder, this is where space and time are equal and are (spheres (12d)).
Is it posssible to use that to construct a Cellular Automata?
There are some 4 connecting nodes which need to be addressed.
Since the second level of quantization produces the first level, do we need to try to do Cellular Automata of second level of quantization (where the metron reside)?
jal
Seven page review on Stephen Wolfram and "A New Kind of Science".
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/wolfram.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/wolfram.html
QUOTE
"I've got to ask you," I say. "How long do you envision this rule of the universe to be?"
"I'm guessing it's really very short."
"Like how long?"
"I don't know. In Mathematica, for example, perhaps three, four lines of code."
"I'm guessing it's really very short."
"Like how long?"
"I don't know. In Mathematica, for example, perhaps three, four lines of code."
QUOTE (RAF+Apr 13 2006, 05:10 AM)
Seven page review on Stephen Wolfram and "A New Kind of Science".
In my short reading of the book, I have to say I'm not overly impressed with it. The cellular automaton looks like a solution in search of a problem. Usually science works in the opposite direction. It's hard to see how one would apply this discipline. I'll withhold final judgement until I've finished more of this book. I'm waiting to see applications.
On Heim theory, I'm now able to compute resonant states for particles and am comparing them to experimental data. First impressions are that there are a lot of extra resonant states in Heim that don't match experiments, and many well established experimental states that are missed by Heim. The theory will need a lot more work in this area.
jreed
In my short reading of the book, I have to say I'm not overly impressed with it. The cellular automaton looks like a solution in search of a problem. Usually science works in the opposite direction. It's hard to see how one would apply this discipline. I'll withhold final judgement until I've finished more of this book. I'm waiting to see applications.
On Heim theory, I'm now able to compute resonant states for particles and am comparing them to experimental data. First impressions are that there are a lot of extra resonant states in Heim that don't match experiments, and many well established experimental states that are missed by Heim. The theory will need a lot more work in this area.
jreed
Hi all,
this was originally posted by hdeasy in the other heim thread, I'm reposting here to make sure you don't miss it...
Hauser & Droscher have posted a 7 page article - here's the blurb on the Hpcc-space.de site and the PDF link:
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...dHeimTheory.pdf
10 April 2006: In this non-mathematical overview we present a very brief introduction to some of the basic physical assumptions of Extended Heim Theory (EHT) as developed by Heim and Dröscher. We also explain the differences to the original 6-dimensional theory of Heim. These differences may be substantial, and we will show that a completely different picture of physical interactions is the result. EHT predicts six fundamental physical interactions. Heim had adopted Dröscher's idea of a 12-dimensional internal symmetry space from which the polymetric tensor, describing physical interactions, has to be constructed. Together with Dröscher, he published the book Strukturen der physikalischen Welt und ihrer nichtmateriellen Seite, Resch Verlag, 1996, Innsbruck, in which the physical consequences of this 12-dimensional internal space are discussed. Unfortunately, because of his failing health, Heim could not any more accomplish the task of rewriting his first two volumes on Elementarstrukturen der Materie, Resch Verlag, Innsbruck. The notes below are an excerpt from a forthcoming paper and are only a beginning
this was originally posted by hdeasy in the other heim thread, I'm reposting here to make sure you don't miss it...
Hauser & Droscher have posted a 7 page article - here's the blurb on the Hpcc-space.de site and the PDF link:
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...dHeimTheory.pdf
10 April 2006: In this non-mathematical overview we present a very brief introduction to some of the basic physical assumptions of Extended Heim Theory (EHT) as developed by Heim and Dröscher. We also explain the differences to the original 6-dimensional theory of Heim. These differences may be substantial, and we will show that a completely different picture of physical interactions is the result. EHT predicts six fundamental physical interactions. Heim had adopted Dröscher's idea of a 12-dimensional internal symmetry space from which the polymetric tensor, describing physical interactions, has to be constructed. Together with Dröscher, he published the book Strukturen der physikalischen Welt und ihrer nichtmateriellen Seite, Resch Verlag, 1996, Innsbruck, in which the physical consequences of this 12-dimensional internal space are discussed. Unfortunately, because of his failing health, Heim could not any more accomplish the task of rewriting his first two volumes on Elementarstrukturen der Materie, Resch Verlag, Innsbruck. The notes below are an excerpt from a forthcoming paper and are only a beginning
Hi! RAF
This quote is very interesting.
I quoted
I quoted
Stephen Wolfram, on page 476, says, "... any node with more than three connections can in effect always be broken into a collection of nodes with exactly three connections..."
So we could possibly reduce the 12 internal dimensions that exist at the first level of quantization to 4 lines of codes. (4X3=12).
jal
This quote is very interesting.
QUOTE
"I've got to ask you," I say. "How long do you envision this rule of the universe to be?"
"I'm guessing it's really very short."
"Like how long?"
"I don't know. In Mathematica, for example, perhaps three, four lines of code."
"I'm guessing it's really very short."
"Like how long?"
"I don't know. In Mathematica, for example, perhaps three, four lines of code."
I quoted
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I've got to ask you," I say. "How long do you envision this rule of the universe to be?" "I'm guessing it's really very short." "Like how long?" "I don't know. In Mathematica, for example, perhaps three, four lines of code." |
I quoted
Stephen Wolfram, on page 476, says, "... any node with more than three connections can in effect always be broken into a collection of nodes with exactly three connections..."
So we could possibly reduce the 12 internal dimensions that exist at the first level of quantization to 4 lines of codes. (4X3=12).
jal
All,
Yes, ... imagine.
A simple code that through a spherical division of "the fundamental creative quantities" of 1 and 2 into 12 discreet "dimensions" all things could be described by the limitation of the "binary" set of resonant/dissonant duality; and any 3 superimposed resonances would form a unit that would remain fundamentally unchanged by the addition of any unlimited number of other oscillations due to the initial mathematical limitations of "ordered" quantities based on the "fundamental harmonic" of Two from One.
If Wolfram's ideas do indeed generate a "rethinking" of all areas of Science, then who knows??
Maybe such "basics" in Science as the "triad" of a musical chord, or the "triads" of subtractive and additive color mixing, the "triad" of dimensions, and even the "triad" of consciousness will be EXPLAINED MATHEMATICALLY instead of "ad hoc" by the esteemed "professionals" of Science !!??
T.Roc
Yes, ... imagine.
A simple code that through a spherical division of "the fundamental creative quantities" of 1 and 2 into 12 discreet "dimensions" all things could be described by the limitation of the "binary" set of resonant/dissonant duality; and any 3 superimposed resonances would form a unit that would remain fundamentally unchanged by the addition of any unlimited number of other oscillations due to the initial mathematical limitations of "ordered" quantities based on the "fundamental harmonic" of Two from One.
If Wolfram's ideas do indeed generate a "rethinking" of all areas of Science, then who knows??
Maybe such "basics" in Science as the "triad" of a musical chord, or the "triads" of subtractive and additive color mixing, the "triad" of dimensions, and even the "triad" of consciousness will be EXPLAINED MATHEMATICALLY instead of "ad hoc" by the esteemed "professionals" of Science !!??
T.Roc
Hi TRoc....
You have been doing a lot of seeking into the "fundamental harmonic" of Two from One.
I do expect that it is valuable.
Why don't you have a discussion with stevew at the mathematics of the ccp I'm sure that you might find common language and you might be able to relate it to the first quantization where the packing can be cubic or hex.
If both of you use little words... I might be able to understand the conversation.
Jal
You have been doing a lot of seeking into the "fundamental harmonic" of Two from One.
I do expect that it is valuable.
Why don't you have a discussion with stevew at the mathematics of the ccp I'm sure that you might find common language and you might be able to relate it to the first quantization where the packing can be cubic or hex.
If both of you use little words... I might be able to understand the conversation.
Jal
Hi jal
I think you are really on to something here. From 12 to 3 space dimensions in the CA is the key. Time is different. It is the result of the evaluation of the CA nearest neighbors. Not a global clock but a local clock. Sounds like GR to me. I think Heim in his evaluation of the different dimensions might be a good source for the start of a CA hierarchy. But I like Hex packing better than spherical. The space between the spheres requires yet new physics and the problem we are trying to solve is really hard enough.
Hi RAF
This short code is exactly what we want. Much complexity from simple rules. That is what the CA is all about.
Hi jreed
I agree that Wolfram is a solution in search of a problem. In my normal experience this is a fault. In business with VC's it is rampant but it usually leads to a big loss. And I don't ever like solutions in search of problems.
But in the case of the CA I make an exception. That is because of Wolfram's other point. Computational Irreducibility makes a CA always a solution in search of the problem because computing from the problem to the solution in a CA is nearly impossible. But computation of the CA to the problem, once solved, is simple. This is sort of the basis (oversimplified) for public key encryption methods. The correlation of Computational Irreducibility to the problem at hand (TOE) seems to predict that a CA is the solution.
Hi Zephir
Do you have any insight into Heim's phase transition from uniform space to matter condensation? That is, how does a regular CA go irregular then to a new phase?
Hi beam
Thanks for the post to Droscher. I am going to this site now.
To All
What happens to a non-continuous wave? That is, if time is quantitizied then the waves we experience are discontinuous. If that is so, can a CA produce waves and how?
I have finished my business any have a day off till I return to the US. So I will be able to catch up to the postings I have been unable to track.
I'll have another beer here in the hotel bar and toast you all for your contributions.
Paul
I think you are really on to something here. From 12 to 3 space dimensions in the CA is the key. Time is different. It is the result of the evaluation of the CA nearest neighbors. Not a global clock but a local clock. Sounds like GR to me. I think Heim in his evaluation of the different dimensions might be a good source for the start of a CA hierarchy. But I like Hex packing better than spherical. The space between the spheres requires yet new physics and the problem we are trying to solve is really hard enough.
Hi RAF
This short code is exactly what we want. Much complexity from simple rules. That is what the CA is all about.
Hi jreed
I agree that Wolfram is a solution in search of a problem. In my normal experience this is a fault. In business with VC's it is rampant but it usually leads to a big loss. And I don't ever like solutions in search of problems.
But in the case of the CA I make an exception. That is because of Wolfram's other point. Computational Irreducibility makes a CA always a solution in search of the problem because computing from the problem to the solution in a CA is nearly impossible. But computation of the CA to the problem, once solved, is simple. This is sort of the basis (oversimplified) for public key encryption methods. The correlation of Computational Irreducibility to the problem at hand (TOE) seems to predict that a CA is the solution.
Hi Zephir
Do you have any insight into Heim's phase transition from uniform space to matter condensation? That is, how does a regular CA go irregular then to a new phase?
Hi beam
Thanks for the post to Droscher. I am going to this site now.
To All
What happens to a non-continuous wave? That is, if time is quantitizied then the waves we experience are discontinuous. If that is so, can a CA produce waves and how?
I have finished my business any have a day off till I return to the US. So I will be able to catch up to the postings I have been unable to track.
I'll have another beer here in the hotel bar and toast you all for your contributions.
Paul
MSNBC article on 'building blocks'. Based on article in Science
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077418/
Sounds like Wolfram.
This might be a more appropriate way to pack Heim's Metrons than what he, Droshcer, etc. use.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077418/
QUOTE
WASHINGTON, July 24, 2003 - Researchers have discovered a series of radically different building blocks for new materials, made from tiny spheres snuggled into oddly shaped clusters. Nature seems to have given these spheres an altogether new set of instructions for how small parcels of matter should fit together, a problem researchers have pondered for centuries. The study appears in the journal Science, published by AAAS, the science society. While these findings probably won’t help you stuff your suitcase for summer vacation, they could enhance fiber-optic technology as well as our understanding of the structure of matter.
............
"The researchers couldn’t fully explain the physical processes that generated the clusters. But, Manoharan discovered a recent mathematics paper suggesting that the different shapes of such clusters are governed by a simple mathematical principle. That is, they minimize the distribution of particle distances from the center of mass of each cluster. Pine found the confluence of the two approaches “absolutely shocking.”
............
"The researchers couldn’t fully explain the physical processes that generated the clusters. But, Manoharan discovered a recent mathematics paper suggesting that the different shapes of such clusters are governed by a simple mathematical principle. That is, they minimize the distribution of particle distances from the center of mass of each cluster. Pine found the confluence of the two approaches “absolutely shocking.”
Sounds like Wolfram.
This might be a more appropriate way to pack Heim's Metrons than what he, Droshcer, etc. use.
Hi PNeilson
Glad that you got the bread and butter issues done successfully.
I have one more visual.....duh...
This one will show that strings, metron, LQG, are not that far apart.
It might also suggest the importance of attempting to use CA.
I also think that Wolfram has been trying, (but not saying), to blend those four lines of code together.
The first thing that you will notice, is that there are now two sheets/membranes.
The next thing that will be noticeable is that there are 3 sheet that are interacting.
(The third is shown with only one R4.)
The next thing is that there is that sphere. It is us.
All of this was derived from the fact that 3d has 12 paths of information. Ya.... that stupid thing called hex packing.
jal
ps pssss... don't tell Y... (he's a good seeker) that we have an approach of why there is mass.
Glad that you got the bread and butter issues done successfully.
I have one more visual.....duh...
This one will show that strings, metron, LQG, are not that far apart.
It might also suggest the importance of attempting to use CA.
I also think that Wolfram has been trying, (but not saying), to blend those four lines of code together.
The first thing that you will notice, is that there are now two sheets/membranes.
The next thing that will be noticeable is that there are 3 sheet that are interacting.
(The third is shown with only one R4.)
The next thing is that there is that sphere. It is us.
All of this was derived from the fact that 3d has 12 paths of information. Ya.... that stupid thing called hex packing.
jal
ps pssss... don't tell Y... (he's a good seeker) that we have an approach of why there is mass.
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.