As requested... I agree... It will make it easier if it was all together.
The coveted Occam's Razor prize.
(One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.)
Symmetry
is the tool being used to understand the universe and if there was an assumption underlying it (which could be wrong) then you can see that we would/could get wrong conclusions.
Everyone can look up the different symmetries that have been identified and that are used.
I have spent time doing that examination. Here is what I am concluding...
Packing and kissing numbers make symmetry. Symmetry arized from kissing numbers and packing.
I see this as the underlying and assumed principle.
I would like to pass on the following simple information:
Table of the Laws of Physics and their Sources
Also, there is a power point page which should be helpfull in giving further explanations.
by Vic Stenger
perception
QUOTE
Many cognitive psychologists hold that, as we move about in the world, we create a model of how the world works. That is, we sense the objective world, but our sensations map to percepts, and these percepts are provisional, in the same sense that scientific hypotheses are provisional (cf. in the scientific method). As we acquire new information, our percepts shift. Abraham Pais' biography refers to the 'esemplastic' nature of imagination. In the case of visual perception, some people can actually see the percept shift in their mind's eye. Others who are not picture thinkers, may not necessarily perceive the 'shape-shifting' as their world changes. The 'esemplastic' nature has been shown by experiment: an ambiguous image has multiple interpretations on the perceptual level.
Just as one object can give rise to multiple percepts, so an object may fail to give rise to any percept at all: if the percept has no grounding in a person's experience, the person may literally not perceive it.
The stronger you belief, the stronger will be your objection to accepting an idea that could cause a domino effect which would bring you house of belief tumbling down.
Therefore, an "idea" that can cause a house of belief to come down must be presented and accepted by the non-believer. It must be perceived as being a "better house".
Therefore, I must make some presumptions...
On Symmetry...
The language of math is very precise, yet...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Many cognitive psychologists hold that, as we move about in the world, we create a model of how the world works. That is, we sense the objective world, but our sensations map to percepts, and these percepts are provisional, in the same sense that scientific hypotheses are provisional (cf. in the scientific method). As we acquire new information, our percepts shift. Abraham Pais' biography refers to the 'esemplastic' nature of imagination. In the case of visual perception, some people can actually see the percept shift in their mind's eye. Others who are not picture thinkers, may not necessarily perceive the 'shape-shifting' as their world changes. The 'esemplastic' nature has been shown by experiment: an ambiguous image has multiple interpretations on the perceptual level. Just as one object can give rise to multiple percepts, so an object may fail to give rise to any percept at all: if the percept has no grounding in a person's experience, the person may literally not perceive it. |
The stronger you belief, the stronger will be your objection to accepting an idea that could cause a domino effect which would bring you house of belief tumbling down.
Therefore, an "idea" that can cause a house of belief to come down must be presented and accepted by the non-believer. It must be perceived as being a "better house".
Therefore, I must make some presumptions...
On Symmetry...
The language of math is very precise, yet...
In other postings I have alluded to the fact that Mrs. Susy, Mr. Slim and Mr. Slinky are up against the wall and cannot find out why particles have mass.
A) They/we are all working from the same measured particle quantities.
B ) There can only be one symmetry.
Therefore, the problem must be in the communication channels . I have seen the same thing on many web pages and even in the discussions on these forums.
People are saying, "I see similarities in your work and in my work."
When we look at our surroundings. We presume that we are receiving/sending communicating from an infinite number of points because we are surrounded by a sphere. (wrong?)
Someone else may answer, that we receive data from only 3 point because we are in a 3d environment. (Wrong?)
Another answer could be 6 point because there is back forward, up down, right left. (wrong?)
Another answer could be 6 sides because there is 6 sides to a cube. (Wrong?)
The math has already been done. Its at kissing numbers
QUOTE
The following table gives the largest known kissing numbers in dimension for lattice () and nonlattice (NL) packings (if a nonlattice packing with higher number exists). In nonlattice packings, the kissing number may vary from sphere to sphere, so the largest value is given below (Conway and Sloane 1993, p. 15). A more extensive and up-to-date tabulation is maintained by Sloane and Nebe.
The table did not quote. Here are some extracts.
dimension kissing number
1 -----------2
2 -----------6
3 -----------12
4 -----------24
10 ---------->336
12 ---------->756
The kissing numbers are equal to freedom of movements.
If you have more dimensions you will get more entropy, less potential energy and more broken symmetry.
All dimensions must be considered when considering entropy, potential energy.
You cannot fudge by hiding energy (kinetic) in unseen dimensions and pretend that the law of conservation of energy is being followed.
That is the maximum number of point that allows the flow of information from you to your environment.
There are 12 communication paths.
To understand the truth of this, you must stop time and motion.
Once the system is dynamic ... then you perceive that the information is exchanged from a sphere of infine number of points.
Since there are only 12 communication channel, which are in constant motion, it will affect how we receive/perceive a photon.
If I'm right, then that could explain why EMF is perceived to be travelling in a wave.
Of course, you will be able to make better predictions
Here is a picture of those 12 points of contact.
( to better see the 12 points you need to change it's shape/topology. It will resemble 2 sheet/circles joined together at six points)
The Standard theory has a different explanation at Masses and molasses
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The following table gives the largest known kissing numbers in dimension for lattice () and nonlattice (NL) packings (if a nonlattice packing with higher number exists). In nonlattice packings, the kissing number may vary from sphere to sphere, so the largest value is given below (Conway and Sloane 1993, p. 15). A more extensive and up-to-date tabulation is maintained by Sloane and Nebe. |
The table did not quote. Here are some extracts.
dimension kissing number
1 -----------2
2 -----------6
3 -----------12
4 -----------24
10 ---------->336
12 ---------->756
The kissing numbers are equal to freedom of movements.
If you have more dimensions you will get more entropy, less potential energy and more broken symmetry.
All dimensions must be considered when considering entropy, potential energy.
You cannot fudge by hiding energy (kinetic) in unseen dimensions and pretend that the law of conservation of energy is being followed.
That is the maximum number of point that allows the flow of information from you to your environment.
There are 12 communication paths.
To understand the truth of this, you must stop time and motion.
Once the system is dynamic ... then you perceive that the information is exchanged from a sphere of infine number of points.
Since there are only 12 communication channel, which are in constant motion, it will affect how we receive/perceive a photon.
If I'm right, then that could explain why EMF is perceived to be travelling in a wave.
Of course, you will be able to make better predictions
Here is a picture of those 12 points of contact.
( to better see the 12 points you need to change it's shape/topology. It will resemble 2 sheet/circles joined together at six points)
The Standard theory has a different explanation at Masses and molasses
Is space filled with a cosmic treacle whose stickiness gives particles their mass? The idea is not as crazy as it sounds, as leading physicist Frank Wilczek explains
Here is a good list of particles
They can even find particles for dark matter which some astronomers are now saying may not even exist.
DARK MATTER
QUOTE
theoretical physicists have studied a new model of gravity that can, they claim, account for the acceleration of the universe without any need for dark energy. Their model relies instead on modifications to the way that gravity behaves at ultra-large cosmological distances (Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 041103).
Dark Matter
From where I live, there was a beautifull big moon last night. The atmosphere was doing some "lensing" and making it look bigger.
We all heard that the sun (gravity) does some "lensing". We, also heard about galaxies doing "lensing" and focusing/bringing us light from way back of that galaxie. The "Einstein Cross" is the most famous.
Now, I don't know too much, I don't get invited to the conferences and workshops with the "doctorates".
Therefore, I have never heard any discussion, over a bottle of beer, on the possibility that our own galaxy is doing any "lensing".
Have you heard anything on "lensing" by our galaxy?
Have you seen anything published which would rule out "lensing" by our galaxy as a cause of us not seeing 95% of the sunlight?
(Otherwise, I'm going to keep believing in something possible?? or impossible and that does not make good science.)
By taking the situation to light years then it becomes obvious that the electron has more than "4 spots/bulleyes" to hit. It has millions of "spots" and it does not have enough time to hit every "spot". As a result, we cannot get enough photons to be able to see 95% of the universe. If there are only 300,000 variables that are available to the photon then it is obvious that you could be standing in a spot that is in perpetual darkness.
THAT IS WHY WE ONLY SEE 5% OF THE MASS OF THE UNIVERSE. THERE IS NO DARK MATTER. THERE IS ONLY ABSENCE OF PHOTONS THAT CAN GET TO US.
LENSING
2) Of course, there will be THOUSANDS OF galaxies that are so far away that we should not be getting any light. If you do not consider that ISL is a serious candidate then you should consider that "lensing" is the cause. A possible answer is that the spacetime of a far away galaxy is focusing part of its own light and we are in its focal path.
3) It is quite possible that our own galaxy is also acting as a len and focusing the light towards the center of our galaxy and as a result leaving our area "poor" in light.
Here is a page with some "lensing math"
ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY---SHAPE OF SPACE
I want to approach this subject from a different angle. In relationship to spacetime NOT PARTICLES. By-the-way, all proposed theories must be able to explain the ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY.
With entropy at 0.0%,
It would be required that there not be any freedom of movement. Therefore, we would be referring to a solid ball with no change of distances, no change of dimensions and no time. Everything would be symmetrical. All dimensions would be either unreachable or occupied. There would be no movement and no change. Nothing can happen.
Also,
Potential energy would be at 100.0%.
What I want to do is to see if there are logical step to get us to the opposite end of the scale where entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%. This would be where all dimensions are empty and reachable. Therefore, nothing could happen.
All symmetry would be gone. This would be a full circle.
For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry".
THEREFORE, THE FIRST BROKEN SYMMETRY WOULD BE...??? movement in the first dimension??
For more info on symmetry look at Wall Paper Groups
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| theoretical physicists have studied a new model of gravity that can, they claim, account for the acceleration of the universe without any need for dark energy. Their model relies instead on modifications to the way that gravity behaves at ultra-large cosmological distances (Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 041103). |
Dark Matter
From where I live, there was a beautifull big moon last night. The atmosphere was doing some "lensing" and making it look bigger.
We all heard that the sun (gravity) does some "lensing". We, also heard about galaxies doing "lensing" and focusing/bringing us light from way back of that galaxie. The "Einstein Cross" is the most famous.
Now, I don't know too much, I don't get invited to the conferences and workshops with the "doctorates".
Therefore, I have never heard any discussion, over a bottle of beer, on the possibility that our own galaxy is doing any "lensing".
Have you heard anything on "lensing" by our galaxy?
Have you seen anything published which would rule out "lensing" by our galaxy as a cause of us not seeing 95% of the sunlight?
(Otherwise, I'm going to keep believing in something possible?? or impossible and that does not make good science.)
By taking the situation to light years then it becomes obvious that the electron has more than "4 spots/bulleyes" to hit. It has millions of "spots" and it does not have enough time to hit every "spot". As a result, we cannot get enough photons to be able to see 95% of the universe. If there are only 300,000 variables that are available to the photon then it is obvious that you could be standing in a spot that is in perpetual darkness.
THAT IS WHY WE ONLY SEE 5% OF THE MASS OF THE UNIVERSE. THERE IS NO DARK MATTER. THERE IS ONLY ABSENCE OF PHOTONS THAT CAN GET TO US.
LENSING
2) Of course, there will be THOUSANDS OF galaxies that are so far away that we should not be getting any light. If you do not consider that ISL is a serious candidate then you should consider that "lensing" is the cause. A possible answer is that the spacetime of a far away galaxy is focusing part of its own light and we are in its focal path.
3) It is quite possible that our own galaxy is also acting as a len and focusing the light towards the center of our galaxy and as a result leaving our area "poor" in light.
Here is a page with some "lensing math"
ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY---SHAPE OF SPACE
I want to approach this subject from a different angle. In relationship to spacetime NOT PARTICLES. By-the-way, all proposed theories must be able to explain the ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY.
With entropy at 0.0%,
It would be required that there not be any freedom of movement. Therefore, we would be referring to a solid ball with no change of distances, no change of dimensions and no time. Everything would be symmetrical. All dimensions would be either unreachable or occupied. There would be no movement and no change. Nothing can happen.
Also,
Potential energy would be at 100.0%.
What I want to do is to see if there are logical step to get us to the opposite end of the scale where entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%. This would be where all dimensions are empty and reachable. Therefore, nothing could happen.
All symmetry would be gone. This would be a full circle.
For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry".
THEREFORE, THE FIRST BROKEN SYMMETRY WOULD BE...??? movement in the first dimension??
For more info on symmetry look at Wall Paper Groups
To completely understand orbifold and orbifold notation, a background in topology is required. For those who are ignorant of topology (including the author), the following is a helpful description: One can think that orbifold notation as consisting of symbols that represent the generators of the group. An integer n indicate the presence of n-fold rotations. An asterisk "*" indicate presence of reflections. A cross "x" indicates presence of glide reflections. For example, the group 442 consists of two distinct sets of 4-fold rotations and a set of 2-fold rotations. If the numbers come after the asterisk, then it means those rotation centers are the intersection of mirror lines. For example, the group *442 has all rotations centered on mirror lines. The group 4*2 has only the 2-fold rotation on mirror lines. Conway emphasize that to think of orbifold notation as generators is really missing the point. The revolutionary feature of orbifold notation is that it uses topology to explain symmetry, and results a more geometric understanding than groups. (those interested in orbifold should see J. H. Conway's paper and related websites, the scanned article is available at the Reference Section)
1) The kissing numbers are equal to freedom of movements.
2) If you have more dimensions you will get more entropy, less potential energy and more broken symmetry which results in a greater diffusions of information.
3) All dimensions must be considered when considering entropy, potential energy.
(You cannot fudge by hiding energy (kinetic) in unseen dimensions and pretend that the law of conservation of energy is being followed.)
A) Initial conditions
When entropy is at 0.0% potential energy is at 100.0%. THIS WOULD BE A SOLID. This requires that there not be any freedom of movement. All dimensions are either unreacheable or occupied.
With the reverse situation, entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%, all dimensions are empty and reachable. THIS IS A VOID.
First step One dimension has 2 degree of freedom. It's not our universe. A string is 1D BUT it could be operating in a higher dimensional environment.
Second step
Two dimension has 6 degree of freedom. Would this be enough to make our universe? A string would be able to move in this environment. Lets look closer.
A practical example would be a 2d membrane.
A string could vibrate in a flat configuration and therefore could be making a two dimensional membrane. Therefore, string and m-theories calculations could have a place to start.
A 2D sheet/membrane made up of packed vibrating strings would have to take the configuration of "packed circles." One of these circles would be what Hawkins termed "an instanton." In 2d there would be a sheet of "instantons". Packed circles have 6 kissing points. This is the degree of freedom that a would be permitted. The packing density of circles is 90.69%.
What happened to ENTROPY?
It went from zero to 9.31%.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY?
It went from 100% to 90.69%.
What happened to SYMMETRY?
A SOLID HAD/HAS 100% SYMMETRY. The total amount of possible information. Therefore, there is a lost of information in a 2D configuration. Therefore, there
was a broken symmetry. There only exist the symmetry of packed circle and the information that can be contained in that configuration.
Third step
Three dimension
A "true" 3d object is a "solid ball." Our universe is not "solid".
Therefore, to get to a new dimension/equilibrium it is necessary to break the symmetry of 2d.
HOW?... BY OPENING A DOOR/punch a hole in the 2d membrane.
This is accomplished by having one of the instantons/"spot" spinning at right angle to the 2d membrane.
The 'Big Bang Instanton" was a portal from the 2d universe. The "spinning" of these 2d instantons at right angle to the 2d surface created our 3d spacetime. Our universe did not start from one instanton as postulated by Hawkins and others but rather of a whole lot of instantons. The result would be a cascading of "instantons/spots" into a 3d configuration - spheres. Therefore, what appear to be the beginning from one instantons is really a whole lot of instantons/spots coming from the same area out of 2d space and into 3d configuration. The size of the door only needs to be the size of a "instanton/spot". The term "Big Bang" has been misleading everyone. What we had was the opening of a door from the second dimension . This created what we refer to as inflation.
All of these instantons are still with us making the structure of spacetime. It is a very stable and symmetrical structure that has lasted for 14 BY.
Instantons which could not be incorporated into the structure of spacetime (10^80) became "the glove on the hand".
Since Hawkins and others have demonstrated that "Black Holes" have a 2d signatures then by taking the logic one step further we can postulate that particles have managed to open up a portal to the 2d universe. The 3d structure has been flatten to 2d.
Continuing the logic, there is no reason that would prevent the existence of many "big bangs and many black hole" as doorways to and from the 2nd dimension.
We are in an universe full of holes.
What happened to ENTROPY?
It went from zero to 25.95%.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY?
It went from 100% to 74.05%.
What happened to SYMMETRY?
Spheres have a packing density of 74.05%. Spheres have 12 kissing points. Therefore, the information that was contained in a 2d configuration will now be diffused through 12 contact points.
Therefore, it is possible to use a "spin quantum gravity" and twistor mathematic.
The more dimensions that are available the worst and more improbable it will become to have "our universe."
Anomalies are the result of having some "instantons/spots" failing to take a 3d sphere configurations. There were at 10^80 failures which we call particles. Theses "instantons/spots" that failed to get into the structure of spacetime are causing stress to the 3d spacetime and the spacetime is collapsing back into its 2d configuration which we call....
BLACK HOLES
Black holes are the result of the collapsing of the 3d configuration of space back to its previous 2d configuration. Since Black Holes are recycling 3d space back into the 2d space and since the universe is suppose to be expanding then the conclusion is that there is more 2d space being made into 3d space then what is being recycled to 2d space by the black holes. Not all information is lost.
There is more coming into our 3d universe then what is leaving to go to the 2d universe.
Your theories can be accommodated into the structure of spacetime. Your theories deal with particles that did not get incorporated into the structure of spacetime.
How does your theory incorporate packing and kissing numbers?
I have not invented anything new. I have only restated things more clearly from a different prospective.
"IT'S SO-O-O SIMPLE. IT CANNOT BE RIGHT."
PARTICLES
I have been avoiding discussing particles in my discussion for a very good reason...someone else has done it before me.
Chris Quigg .... he calls it a double simplex. I assume that everyone can download, in PDF, his published papers.
I cannot give you his picture but I found one that might be able to do some justice to his idea.
Here is what he has to say:
QUOTE
The mathematical underpinnings of the double simplex do bring discipline to the questions it elicits. The structure of the double simplex is based on SU(4)
SU(2) SU(2) decomposition of SO(10). A three-dimensional solid (tetrahedron) represents the fundamental 4 representation of SU(4). It is decorated at the vertices with dumbbells representing the SU(2)L and SU(2)R quantum numbers. The vertical coordinate of SU(4) can be read as B − L, the difference of baryon number and lepton number. The group SO(10) is a useful classification symmetry, because its 16-dimensional fundamental representation contains an entire generation of the known quarks and leptons. Using SO(10) as a coordinate system, if you like, carries no implication that it is the symmetry of the world, or that it is the basis of a unified theory of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions.
QUOTE
But the fact is that the electroweak symmetry is broken, so the world without a Higgs mechanism—but with strong-coupling QCD—is a world in which the SU(2)L U(1)Y becomes U(1)em. Because the W and Z have masses, the weak-isospin force, which we might have taken to be a confining force in the absence of symmetry breaking, is not confining.
Einstein came up with spacetime.
Hawkins came up with instanton and the 2d "information" for black holes.
Chris Quigg came up with "a new way to envision particles and interactions" the double simplex.
I found that nature builds a double simplex.
"A SPOT" as the unit particle of spacetime.
This cannot be coincidence.
The "spot" could be the shape that they are searching for to make the topology of spacetime in LQG and M-theories.
Maybe spacetime has a lot more to say in how the universe of particles works than what we could possibly imagine.
A SPOT
Yin_Yang
One cannot exist without the other.Yin and yang can transform into one another
Most forces in nature can be broken down into their respective yin and yang states, and the two are usually in movement rather than held in absolute stasis.
Yin Yang is a way of thinking about phenomena, and a way to describe how things function and interact with each other in the Universe.
(Note: If my images do not download it's because my web sit is overloaded. Try later to see the images.)
SPACE AND TIME ARE YIN_YANG.
The two are similar and are one.
PARTICLES FIT INTO SPACETIME LIKE A HAND INTO A GLOVE--YIN_YANG
I have been searching for any work that has been done which would demonstrate how the unitons/instantons/preons/strings/membrane/energy fields/knots/twistors/skirmions/spin wave/spots OR any other individual basic units THAT YOU HAVE COME UP WITH would be arranged/packed so that it would give us "The Inverse Square Law."
All that I found was the basic explanations, at INVERSE SQUARE LAW
The reason that the strength diminishes is because the area has increased, NOT that the force has weakened.
Just imagine, if there was not a pathway to every spot. You could be standing in a spot that would be in perpetually darkness.
An electron shoots one photon at a time, then reloads, goes back to its shooting position, fires again.... therefore, the structure of space must support hitting the four targets at 2R. You must go down, down.... to the level of an electron.... you cannot use a machine gun firing 300,000 rounds per sec. or use 300,000 electron to fire at your four targets. The other electrons have their own 4 target to hit.
Maybe you can make an educated guess .... what is the maximum size of a spot?
I am presuming that there is such a thing as a quantum of space/time. Therefore, it must have an internal structure that supports ISL.
If the individual "spots", have the right shape and are packed the right way we will get our spacetime.
( It could also be called an instanton, a uniton, a prion, a skyrmion, an astroid, a soliton, a sin wave, a spin wave, a torsion fields, a four lens, a figure-eight knot, a braid, a vibrating string/membrane, A 2d Toda lattice. These are all different approaches and they have different theories).
STRUCTURE OF SPACE
There has been mounting evidence over the last 20 years that time and space were combine, as proposed by Einstein. Continuing on that trend, Hawkins proposed that the universe started from a state of where space and time was combined. He called it an INSTANTON. Under this scenario, all of the energy of the universe is contained in spherical point size “SPOT”.
From a point, which has no dimensions an instanton/spot was created. From that spot I see that there are 3 possible scenarios.
#1. The original spot has expanded. That would mean that there is a lot and lots of void. ie. space is nothing.
#2. The original spot subdivided. That means that there is a structure.
#3. There are new spots being created all the time. That would mean that the structure of space is expanding.
Maybe you can think of other options?
Prof. Hawkins has an opinion, which should be read. It says it better than me.
instanton
Read the following page as well.
Quote, low density universe low density universe
"... The region where time becomes spacelike is technically termed the instanton region. Instantons are solutions to the equations of general relativity and matter (here, the inflaton field) which have four spacelike directions. Hawking and Turok showed that for essentially any theory which allows inflation, there is a family of instanton solutions each one of which describes the formation of an inflating open universe...."
I chose the option that space has a quantum structure. Do you want more opinions? I could give the pages that you could read or you could make your own searches.
If there is a structure, then it must be able to produce the inverse square law.
Therefore,.... I am looking at the question... not avoiding it by say that's the way it is.
WHAT COULD BE THE SIZE OF A SPOT?
A review of tests, of ISL (Inverse square Law) by E.G. Adelberger,
QUOTE
,"...ISL, (Inverse Square Law), has been verified down to a distance ë = 200 µm....".
Therefore, the maximum size of a spot could have been determined.
From by J.G. Williamson: "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
QUOTE
"...It is well known that in high-energy physics scattering experiments the interaction between two electrons remains point-like down to length scales of the order of 10^-18m. The size of our object is much larger than this, being of the order of 10^-12m...."
Therefore, the size of a spot of space could be between 200 µm and 10^-12m. Of course, Planck size is still possible but unlikely from what I have learned so far.
The approach that I used to make my spot was to imagine that a sin wave represented the smallest possible action in the smallest possible space, which would be the circle, and in the smallest possible time with the lowest Entropy. The result is a soliton/standing wave in a 2d circle or in a 3d sphere. As the "wave" progresses, it would have 4 possible positions in the circle/sphere at any one time. Since time does not stop then we cannot see a frozen picture of a spot, which is the packed 4 intersecting circles. As a result, we have the Uncertainty Principle.
Can you see it in the picture?
Therefore, in 3d, the blue area are capable of spinning/rotating and filling a sphere of influence. Yes, in 3d, it would be sphere packing and the grey, void, area would have the shape of HYPERBOLIC Stellated Tetrahedron/stella octangula/Self-Dual Polyhedron /Tetrahedron 2-Compound. .
That is the only, (that I found), 3d shape that can communicate in the x,y,z and produce 1/R^2.
This resulted from combining space and time into one "spot".
I am proposing a possible explanation, for WHY UNCERTAINTY AND WHY FOAMING VACCUM and showing you how it would look. Just examine the 4X4 grid. That would be the 16 possibilities of what spacetime would look like if you went below the graininess of a "spot" OR if the definition of a spot was changed. (use your imagination..Put the whole thing into motion and in 3d.)
(You could drive a truck through all that void)
WHY PACKING?
If you think of a case of eggs, there's an egg tray filled with eggs then another egg tray filled with more eggs then... you get the picture. Nobody is concentrating on the fact that the egg trays are the cause of the orderly packing of the eggs. In this example, the egg tray is the topology of space. The egg trays/space are made of something which we cannot see or of something that we have ignored or refused to admit as being there or of having any influence on our physical/atomic world. Circles, 2d, have a packing density of 0.9069 and spheres, 3d, have a packing density of 0.7405. Therefore, there is an increase of "voids/space" when going from 2d to 3d. (16.64%) Ellipsoid Packing, which could be the 2d version of space, is 0.703355.
There are 330 million neutrinos , one billion photons, and 0.5 protons per cubic meters of space. All nicely organized within a structured topology of space. If space did not have a structure then .... (use your imagination). The universe would not look the way it does.
Look at this page for PACKING
You can also use you pennies and your marbles. First, If you look at the square packing, you will see 5 rows. The hexagonal packing of the 5 rows is not as high as the square packing. If spacetime can have a mixture of these two packing then there will result some uncertainty in measuring position and velocity unless you know how spacetime is arranged before you make your measurements.
Your six extra dimensions might be required to achieve a math. description. You could certainly assume that a "spot" is a vibrating closed loop made from a string or a brane. (Other theories could assume different things.)
Okay..., so you cannot get the ISL from packing a solid circle or sphere. All that is possible to obtained is some uncertainty. Therefore, there has to be another way...
What would happen if the circles were not solid?
What if the same location could be shared by other circles?
What if the circles were made of "vibrating strings"/a standing wave/soliton/pilot wave/preons?
Suddenly..., it is possible to realized the ISL with circle packing. Each circle is composed of four different circle having the maximum packing.
It is obvious that the instanton/spot is now composed of the 4 adjacent instantons/spots.
A photon traveling in the void could/would be at 4 possible location at the same time. NOW... THAT IS UNCERTAINTY...
Are you aware of any "theory" that explains the cause of uncertainty?
Because a "spot" has the freedom of moving within a space of 2pi and a time of 2pi there could result uncertainties as to position and velocities.
Because, a unit of time, space and movement are frozen in the definition of "smallest", (spot), all movement are considered nil/zero, not happening if they occur within 2 pi.
DON'T GET LOST...STAY WITH ME....
TIME OCCURS FOR A PACKAGE OF INFORMATION WHEN IT GOES FARTHER THAN 2PI.
A DISTANCE OCCURS FOR FOR A PACKAGE OF INFORMATION WHEN IT GOES FARTHER THAN 2PI.
(The information can be particles or EFM).
When a package of information enters the "void" of the "spot" it is in limbo. It is in between, (when/where it came from), and (when/where it will go), because the "spot" is not rigid, (like pennies). The "spot" is made of a packed energy soliton/standing wave. Since there is "flexing" of the "spot", the information could have traveled 2pi or only pi.
That is why, it is possible for the information package to get to all of the "spots" at R^2.
Therefore, as a Matrix.. Who can Tell me?... How many dimensions does this matrix represent? Now ... if we added the third dimension... How many dimensions would this then represent? Are we going to need your extra 6 dimensions in order to determine "a dynamic space configuration"?
As long as a "len" does not travel farther than 2pi or take longer than 2pi, then it is a valid possibility because it would not destroy the concept of "unit time and unit space."
Spin is only .... a lens going around another axis (x,y,or z). The fourth stop would be back to its starting position. Spin has the advantage of opening/creating the 3rd dimension. The spin of the "lens" does create packed spheres that have the "voids" inside.
I played with other ideas, such as folding but I could not get enough space symmetry that would be the same as our universe.
I would like to have you focus on a particular "item" on the ABOVE diagram. When going from 2d, and spinning the "lens", this creates a 3d sphere full of similar 3d spheres (on the right). The large sphere is not totally filled with spheres. (The small interior spheres at the outside must be completed.) Therefore, there is an automatically "inflation" of the spacetime of the instanton. I guess that this means that there is an other/alternate mechanism for "inflation".
The (ISL) will be one of the possible path, that has to be addressed, that could help resolve the problems. Don't forget,- space, and 3d got made from an "instanton." Those working on "M" like to use 10 dimensions.
Nobody has verified that the inverse square law works at all distances.
Therefore, once you introduce the concept of having "space" made from something, you got to then try to figure out how it influences our universe.
Go and read this article. "A Theory of the Whole Universe" by LEE SMOLIN, a theoretical physicist.
A Quote from; Overlooked SymmetriesOf Spacetime
QUOTE
If such a spacetime can be found, then complexity and mysteriousness may turn into simplicity and obviousness, while particles, interactions and the (external) geometry would form an intimately related 3-sided coin like photons, electromagnetism and Lorentz spacetime. Consequently, symmetries of all particles would coincide with that of the “external” spacetime and hence answers all the 3 ultimate questions in the same way photon does. Actually, it seems that an (external) spacetime defined by strong/weak interactions is the “only” answer to the 3 ultimate questions, because the only thing that exists “throughout the universe simultaneously” seems to be the external spacetime itself, and it appears there is no way “a priori building blocks” is able to answer its own properties without referring to one more level of sub-constituents.
You can read the rest of the thread to get a more technical presentation than the one that I did.
Important note for all!....
Do you want to be a "math. kid?" read this by Gerard 't Hooft
QUOTE
It should be possible, these days, to collect all knowledge you need from the internet. Problem then is, there is so much junk on the internet. Is it possible to weed out those very rare pages that may really be of use? I know exactly what should be taught to the beginning student.
and this by Warren Siegel, High energy physics from easy to hard
QUOTE
This story is about the impressions many people have about physics, and how they differ from the real thing. (See also Are you a quack?) In particular, it is also about high energy physics, the most fundamental part of physics, and the misconceptions of it held even by many students of physics.
yep!!! ... We could all be wrong.
Jal
Hi jal,
I'm from the yin/yang school of thought, personally, but I recently came across this site...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
...which is making me think deeper on the science.
It seems to be very simple, even to the point of unifying 'old Eastern thinking' with 'modern Western science'. And, apart form everything else, the guy that runs the site seems incredibly genuine!
Best wishes
S.
I'm from the yin/yang school of thought, personally, but I recently came across this site...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
...which is making me think deeper on the science.
It seems to be very simple, even to the point of unifying 'old Eastern thinking' with 'modern Western science'. And, apart form everything else, the guy that runs the site seems incredibly genuine!
Best wishes
S.
Hi!
I have 3 problems with waves.
1. Our instruments cannot produce and/or detect one wave/photon from an electron.
2. If we install our sensors in a spherical pattern around an electron that released one photon then one of those sensor would receive that photon. The "wave" would collapse in that receiver/sensor. That means/requires that the energy that was/is spread out in a spherical pattern around the electron must travel to the sensor at faster than the speed of light. (Think about it. Your sensor is at r. The energy of the wave is spread out in a sphere as per the Inverse Square Law. The energy on the other side of the electron now has to travel 2r to get to the sensor).
You cannot invoke the speed of light as a constant and then ignore it when it does not fit in with your theory.
Therefore, you must invent a new mechanism to explain how the energy gets to the sensor
Therefore, what is that new mechanism that allows faster than the speed of light?
3. Information (the wave) must be "connected" to the sensor. There must exist an uninterupted path between the two points. A signal must be sent to the "wave" at 2r that says,"come here" and then it must "go there". All of this communication, you would say, must happen at faster than the speed of light.
Why not use a simpler explanation? (ISL structured spacetime and a particle)
jal
I have 3 problems with waves.
1. Our instruments cannot produce and/or detect one wave/photon from an electron.
2. If we install our sensors in a spherical pattern around an electron that released one photon then one of those sensor would receive that photon. The "wave" would collapse in that receiver/sensor. That means/requires that the energy that was/is spread out in a spherical pattern around the electron must travel to the sensor at faster than the speed of light. (Think about it. Your sensor is at r. The energy of the wave is spread out in a sphere as per the Inverse Square Law. The energy on the other side of the electron now has to travel 2r to get to the sensor).
You cannot invoke the speed of light as a constant and then ignore it when it does not fit in with your theory.
Therefore, you must invent a new mechanism to explain how the energy gets to the sensor
Therefore, what is that new mechanism that allows faster than the speed of light?
3. Information (the wave) must be "connected" to the sensor. There must exist an uninterupted path between the two points. A signal must be sent to the "wave" at 2r that says,"come here" and then it must "go there". All of this communication, you would say, must happen at faster than the speed of light.
Why not use a simpler explanation? (ISL structured spacetime and a particle)
jal
Hi Jal,
From what I can make of it, Space is the ONE 'THING' that exists Infinitely, and that our Universe is finite (exists as a wave MOTION) of infinite Space. This DOES postulate the idea of multiple (finite) Universes, within (infinite) Space, and I, personally, don't have a problem accepting that there could be some way to connect these.
I have to point out that this is not MY theory, but i'm beginning to understand it from a metaphysical point of view.
(I'm much more 'philosopher' than 'scientist', but recognise that WE are all HUMAN, and necessarily need to agree on any 'Ultimate truths', which are, of course, beyond 'Human' in their origin.)
For many other reasons, the Wave Structure of Matter appeals to me. Science is one aspect of the little that Humans have conceived of as 'Life', and i believe it would be naive to reject any other perspectives. However, there must surely be a certain 'wisdom' to unifying what we currently give many 'names', and limiting our potential for conflict, simply because we 'disagree'!
Truth is Truth, whoever 'finds' it!
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-eq...n-of-cosmos.htm
Even if people cannot totally agree with each other, surely it makes sense to test our own 'theories' against others (peers)? This is all I did, in a metaphorical sense, and found that many aspects 'fitted', even though they were 'called/termed/postulated as' something different!
S.
From what I can make of it, Space is the ONE 'THING' that exists Infinitely, and that our Universe is finite (exists as a wave MOTION) of infinite Space. This DOES postulate the idea of multiple (finite) Universes, within (infinite) Space, and I, personally, don't have a problem accepting that there could be some way to connect these.
I have to point out that this is not MY theory, but i'm beginning to understand it from a metaphysical point of view.
(I'm much more 'philosopher' than 'scientist', but recognise that WE are all HUMAN, and necessarily need to agree on any 'Ultimate truths', which are, of course, beyond 'Human' in their origin.)
For many other reasons, the Wave Structure of Matter appeals to me. Science is one aspect of the little that Humans have conceived of as 'Life', and i believe it would be naive to reject any other perspectives. However, there must surely be a certain 'wisdom' to unifying what we currently give many 'names', and limiting our potential for conflict, simply because we 'disagree'!
Truth is Truth, whoever 'finds' it!
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-eq...n-of-cosmos.htm
Even if people cannot totally agree with each other, surely it makes sense to test our own 'theories' against others (peers)? This is all I did, in a metaphorical sense, and found that many aspects 'fitted', even though they were 'called/termed/postulated as' something different!
S.
Hi!
Knot of this world...
I have no problem with what you have said
I have no problem with particles being made of standing waves/solitons/instantons
I have no problem with having any kind of waves, even all those that I cannot detect, which, by the way, are in a majority
I want to be able to understand how they are "put together" and how they "interact"
I'm not trying to "sell an idea" and I won't buy "a leaky bucket"
Have a good day...
jal
Knot of this world...
I have no problem with what you have said
I have no problem with particles being made of standing waves/solitons/instantons
I have no problem with having any kind of waves, even all those that I cannot detect, which, by the way, are in a majority
I want to be able to understand how they are "put together" and how they "interact"
I'm not trying to "sell an idea" and I won't buy "a leaky bucket"
Have a good day...
jal
Hi!
It looks like that there are even more possible explanations for DARK MATTER . It's starting to look like my presentation may have more validity then expected.
See:
Dark Energy Stars
All the reading that I have done concerning m-theories does not address the possible topology of those curled up dimensions. The closest description was: "A flat mesh of torus with spheres (our 3d/us) at each junction."
Can someone do a little bit of calculation to see what the shape of that mesh would be if it acted like a rubber sheet when "matter" was put on it?
(DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH WHAT YOU THINK, DO THE CALCULATION, OPEN YOUR OWN THREAD...I'LL READ IT.)
I would suspect that there would be low spots. I would suspect that the math. might reveal that "mass" is due to the concave shape of those curled up dimensions.
It might even be the very reason that spacetime is curved around lots of "gravity".
It might even explain what causes gravity.
ALL I GOT ARE QUESTIONS. NO ANSWERS.
(I DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, IN THIS THREAD, IF IT IS NOT SUPPORTED WITH MATH.)
JAL
It looks like that there are even more possible explanations for DARK MATTER . It's starting to look like my presentation may have more validity then expected.
See:
Dark Energy Stars
QUOTE
Event horizons and closed time-like curves cannot exist in the real world for the simple reason that they are inconsistent with quantum mechanics. Following ideas originated by Robert Laughlin, Pawel Mazur, Emil Mottola, David Santiago, and the speaker it is now possible to describe in some detail what happens physically when one approaches and crosses a region of space-time where classical general relativity predicts there should be an infinite red shift surface. This quantum critical physics provides a new perspective on a variety of enigmatic astrophysical phenomena, including supernovae explosions, gamma ray bursts, positron emission, and dark matter.
All the reading that I have done concerning m-theories does not address the possible topology of those curled up dimensions. The closest description was: "A flat mesh of torus with spheres (our 3d/us) at each junction."
Can someone do a little bit of calculation to see what the shape of that mesh would be if it acted like a rubber sheet when "matter" was put on it?
(DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH WHAT YOU THINK, DO THE CALCULATION, OPEN YOUR OWN THREAD...I'LL READ IT.)
I would suspect that there would be low spots. I would suspect that the math. might reveal that "mass" is due to the concave shape of those curled up dimensions.
It might even be the very reason that spacetime is curved around lots of "gravity".
It might even explain what causes gravity.
ALL I GOT ARE QUESTIONS. NO ANSWERS.
(I DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, IN THIS THREAD, IF IT IS NOT SUPPORTED WITH MATH.)
JAL
HOW GRAVITY AFFECTS THE SHAPE OF SPACETIME/SPOT
What would be the shape of spacetime in gravity? We have been told that spacetime is bent by gravity. We have been told that photons are red shifted by gravity. We have been told that lenght increases as you get closer to a black hole. Therefore, what would be the shape of spacetime that would cause these observations? (THE QUESTION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED.)
See the shape of spacetime in progressively increasing gravity. (space, earth, sun, big sun, and black hole. Or, if you like, no particle to progressing to more particles.) Therefore, there should be some observations in quantum physics.
It becomes obvious that there should be red shift perpendicular to the horizon and that there should be blue shift horizontal to the horizon. The blue shift cannot be detected. However, the bending is detected.
There should be variations in the experimental observations of the Inverse Square Law. The RADIUS IS DIFFERENT (X,Y,Z), THE SURFACES AREA IS DIFFERENT (X,Y,Z). SPACE IS NOT A SPHERE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITY. Therefore, space MUST have an internal structure. THE EVENT HORIZON OF A BLACK HOLE IS 2 DIMENSIONAL.
The reason that we do not detect a difference when measuring forces that depend on the Inverse Square Law, is because of the internal structure of the packed "spots". In 3d there are still 12 "kissing numbers".
However, when space is close to the event horizon of a black hole the 3d dimension is squashed and the event horizon is 2 dimensional and the kissing numbers are reduced to 6.
The bending of light by a gravitational body was predicted by Einstein (1912) a few years before the publication of General Relativity in 1916. For a point mass the defection can be calculated and is one of the classical tests of general relativity.
See
Deflecting of light by a gravitational field
Here is how the packing of spots would look like in gravity.
Is GR and SR being violated or being explained?
It appears that the Heim's Theory has a "Big Bang" version similar to mine.
Introduction to Heim's Mass Formula
I mean which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.
I mean which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.
------------------------------------------------- news------------------------------------
There's going to be enough bread and mollasses for everyone ... even Mrs. Susy, Mr. Slim and Mr. Slinky
It appears that the Heim's Theory is a COMPLEMENTARY version of my presentation. ( I have the mollases he has worked out the math for the bread.)
He used the hexagonal lattice (6 sides) which is the densest packing of circles in the plane.
see CirclePacking
The largest number of unit circles which can touch a given unit circle is six. For spheres, the maximum number is 12.
See the following
protosimplex/summary
See the following
protosimplex/summary
Responsible for the inertial mass are the protosimplexes, i.e. the basic building blocks of flux aggregates, which form the structures of the k + 1 subconstituents in R3. They compose 4 concentric spherical shell-like configuration zones maintaining a dynamical equilibrium, during whose existence there appears a measurable particle mass. However, an attempt to measure the mass of a subconstituent part by scattering experiments will result in a very broad, variable bandwidth of measurements, because such a mass depends on the instantaneous flux phase. The sum of the k + 1 subconstituent masses, on the other hand, is constant and gives in essence the measurable particle mass. The relevant quantity in this connection is the degree to which the 4 configuration zones in R3 are occupied by dynamic flux elements .
Here is my visual interpretation (to be modified as I improve my knowledge)
You can chose more than one way to view the topology. However, the packing is the same. In 2d there are 6 comunication paths. In 3d there are 12 communication paths.
Here is how I visualize the dynamic flux elements.
You can chose more than one way to view the topology. However, the packing is the same. In 2d there are 6 comunication paths. In 3d there are 12 communication paths.
Here is how I visualize the dynamic flux elements.
For k = 1 and k = 2 there are altogether 25 sets of 6 quantum numbers each, characterizing the occupation of configuration zones and the corresponding invariant rest masses. The particles belonging to these invariant basic patterns are in turn combined into several families of spin isomorphisms,in which the spatial flux dynamics of the configuration zones is in dynamic equilibrium .
This is the voids in the center of the spot.
Hi!
I will try to give my simple explanation of the 12 dimensions found in the protosimplex/summary.
protosimplex/summary
He used the hexagonal lattice (6 sides) which is the densest packing of circles in the plane.
Expanding that to 3d you then have cubes or sphere packing which has 12 connections. ( do a search on circle packing and sphere packing). You can think of those connections as being the 12 dimensions existing in 3d.
I reject cubes for the reason that solitons are not cubic. That leave only sphere that will pack in a 3d hexagonal lattice.
Each point of contact in 3d, (there are 12), can be thought of as doing a dual role.
Connecting to a lower dimension. Yes, .... I mean lower. Do not think of higher, hidden or curled up. You'll lose your way.... just like everyone else.
We are all familiar with 2d. You won't get lost.
The dual role that is played by each of those contact point is to link to the 2d and to give homogeneity to 3d. There cannot be less than one contact at any one time.
There cannot be more than 6 contact at any one time. Why 6? Because 2d has only 6 contact points.
The contact point do not need to be the same ones all the time. They can rotate among the 12 contact point in 3d.
There does not need to be 6 contact points at all times.
The contact points from 3d do not need to connect to the same contact points in 2d. Movement/rotation is permitted.
I cannot show you an image of this 3d statement. However, you can see it in the 2d image in the previous post where I divided the time and space into a 4X4 grid. In 2d you can see the the metron/spot/circle has 4 lens. The 4 lens make up the soliton. The solitons are dynamic.
In 3d, the best image that I can do, for now, is the following:
(If you make a better one.... can I borrow it?) (Not yours Zephir. They are only good for preschoolers)
Jal
Comments on these presentations are appreciated in the discussion threads.
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
and
Yin_yang of spacetime and matter
jal
What would be the shape of spacetime in gravity? We have been told that spacetime is bent by gravity. We have been told that photons are red shifted by gravity. We have been told that lenght increases as you get closer to a black hole. Therefore, what would be the shape of spacetime that would cause these observations? (THE QUESTION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED.)
See the shape of spacetime in progressively increasing gravity. (space, earth, sun, big sun, and black hole. Or, if you like, no particle to progressing to more particles.) Therefore, there should be some observations in quantum physics.
It becomes obvious that there should be red shift perpendicular to the horizon and that there should be blue shift horizontal to the horizon. The blue shift cannot be detected. However, the bending is detected.
There should be variations in the experimental observations of the Inverse Square Law. The RADIUS IS DIFFERENT (X,Y,Z), THE SURFACES AREA IS DIFFERENT (X,Y,Z). SPACE IS NOT A SPHERE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITY. Therefore, space MUST have an internal structure. THE EVENT HORIZON OF A BLACK HOLE IS 2 DIMENSIONAL.
The reason that we do not detect a difference when measuring forces that depend on the Inverse Square Law, is because of the internal structure of the packed "spots". In 3d there are still 12 "kissing numbers".
However, when space is close to the event horizon of a black hole the 3d dimension is squashed and the event horizon is 2 dimensional and the kissing numbers are reduced to 6.
The bending of light by a gravitational body was predicted by Einstein (1912) a few years before the publication of General Relativity in 1916. For a point mass the defection can be calculated and is one of the classical tests of general relativity.
See
Deflecting of light by a gravitational field
Here is how the packing of spots would look like in gravity.
Is GR and SR being violated or being explained?
It appears that the Heim's Theory has a "Big Bang" version similar to mine.
Introduction to Heim's Mass Formula
QUOTE
Since the phenomenological part which appears in Einstein’s field equations now is totally geometrizised, there is, according to Heim, no “big bang“ with an infinitely dense energy. Instead, matter appears only after very long evolution of a world without any physical measurable objects, which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.
I mean which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since the phenomenological part which appears in Einstein’s field equations now is totally geometrizised, there is, according to Heim, no “big bang“ with an infinitely dense energy. Instead, matter appears only after very long evolution of a world without any physical measurable objects, which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta. |
I mean which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.
------------------------------------------------- news------------------------------------
There's going to be enough bread and mollasses for everyone ... even Mrs. Susy, Mr. Slim and Mr. Slinky
It appears that the Heim's Theory is a COMPLEMENTARY version of my presentation. ( I have the mollases he has worked out the math for the bread.)
He used the hexagonal lattice (6 sides) which is the densest packing of circles in the plane.
see CirclePacking
The largest number of unit circles which can touch a given unit circle is six. For spheres, the maximum number is 12.
QUOTE
which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.
See the following
protosimplex/summary
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta. |
See the following
protosimplex/summary
Responsible for the inertial mass are the protosimplexes, i.e. the basic building blocks of flux aggregates, which form the structures of the k + 1 subconstituents in R3. They compose 4 concentric spherical shell-like configuration zones maintaining a dynamical equilibrium, during whose existence there appears a measurable particle mass. However, an attempt to measure the mass of a subconstituent part by scattering experiments will result in a very broad, variable bandwidth of measurements, because such a mass depends on the instantaneous flux phase. The sum of the k + 1 subconstituent masses, on the other hand, is constant and gives in essence the measurable particle mass. The relevant quantity in this connection is the degree to which the 4 configuration zones in R3 are occupied by dynamic flux elements .
Here is my visual interpretation (to be modified as I improve my knowledge)
QUOTE
The protosimplex flow is a circulatory, periodic motion similar to an oscillation. A particle can only exist if the flux period comprises at least one full cycle, so that the duration of a particle's stability is always expressible as an integer multiple of the flux period.
You can chose more than one way to view the topology. However, the packing is the same. In 2d there are 6 comunication paths. In 3d there are 12 communication paths.
Here is how I visualize the dynamic flux elements.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The protosimplex flow is a circulatory, periodic motion similar to an oscillation. A particle can only exist if the flux period comprises at least one full cycle, so that the duration of a particle's stability is always expressible as an integer multiple of the flux period. |
You can chose more than one way to view the topology. However, the packing is the same. In 2d there are 6 comunication paths. In 3d there are 12 communication paths.
Here is how I visualize the dynamic flux elements.
For k = 1 and k = 2 there are altogether 25 sets of 6 quantum numbers each, characterizing the occupation of configuration zones and the corresponding invariant rest masses. The particles belonging to these invariant basic patterns are in turn combined into several families of spin isomorphisms,in which the spatial flux dynamics of the configuration zones is in dynamic equilibrium .
This is the voids in the center of the spot.
Hi!
I will try to give my simple explanation of the 12 dimensions found in the protosimplex/summary.
protosimplex/summary
He used the hexagonal lattice (6 sides) which is the densest packing of circles in the plane.
Expanding that to 3d you then have cubes or sphere packing which has 12 connections. ( do a search on circle packing and sphere packing). You can think of those connections as being the 12 dimensions existing in 3d.
I reject cubes for the reason that solitons are not cubic. That leave only sphere that will pack in a 3d hexagonal lattice.
Each point of contact in 3d, (there are 12), can be thought of as doing a dual role.
Connecting to a lower dimension. Yes, .... I mean lower. Do not think of higher, hidden or curled up. You'll lose your way.... just like everyone else.
We are all familiar with 2d. You won't get lost.
The dual role that is played by each of those contact point is to link to the 2d and to give homogeneity to 3d. There cannot be less than one contact at any one time.
There cannot be more than 6 contact at any one time. Why 6? Because 2d has only 6 contact points.
The contact point do not need to be the same ones all the time. They can rotate among the 12 contact point in 3d.
There does not need to be 6 contact points at all times.
The contact points from 3d do not need to connect to the same contact points in 2d. Movement/rotation is permitted.
I cannot show you an image of this 3d statement. However, you can see it in the 2d image in the previous post where I divided the time and space into a 4X4 grid. In 2d you can see the the metron/spot/circle has 4 lens. The 4 lens make up the soliton. The solitons are dynamic.
In 3d, the best image that I can do, for now, is the following:
(If you make a better one.... can I borrow it?) (Not yours Zephir. They are only good for preschoolers)
Jal
Comments on these presentations are appreciated in the discussion threads.
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
and
Yin_yang of spacetime and matter
jal
Hi!
In another thread I gave the following explanation which I thought should be repeated here.
We have more than one theory because there is more than one understanding/interpretation of "reality".
As you rightfully pointed out,
You used the word "concept" which implies that I have a mental image which I have acquired in my lifetime. Both of us must have the acquired the same mental image if we want to communicate/talk about the "mental image".
Time
Time is something that is experienced by "objects" that are moving at less than speed of light. Time is the displacement or the observance of displacement of an object beyond a specified distance. (Even in this definition the battle rages )
If "space" is bent then you are saying that there is a displacement from some reference point or beyond a specified distance over/during a period of time ( the time in this case would be during the period that you are observing. One second or ....??.)
Einstein attempted to make thing easier by giving us the concept of spacetime.
You and a lot of people are still puzzled. Now, we have other questions.... and the battle rages on
Zephir (Mr. Twisty way of thinking) says that he has it figured out and that he's right. Zephir uses examples that are good for a preschooler. Mr. Twisty, uses a precise language called math.
Good Elf ( Mr. Stringy's way of thinking) says that eventually the stringy thingies will be the easiest way of explaining everythings.
They tried.... (however, neither can explain their way to each other and make the other change their mind)
In my opinion, we are all going to have to wait until Mrs. SUSY, MR. STRINGY, MR. TWISTY AND NOW MR. B.H. get together with their math and come up with an explanation that simple SPOT can understand.
I had a PM from someone too shy to post here.
“How do the 12 “kissing” points of 3d connect to the 6 “kissing” points of 2d?”
Here goes a very simple explanation.
1) Follow the energy flow. Potential energy at 100% to the succeeding levels. There is more energy locked up in 2d then in 3d.
2) Follow the complexity. Entropy which is no movement in no dimension to more movements in more dimensions.
3) Make the smallest package possible. A circle.( a spacetime quanta)
4) Fill that package with as much energy as possible.
5) Put all those packages together. First, like packing pennies. (2d) Second, like filling a container with balls. (3d)
6) See... the touching points are the only ways that energy can go from one place to another place . Pennies, 2d, has 6 ”kissing numbers”. Balls, 3d, have 12 “kissing numbers.
7) Our universe is filled with these quantas of energy. We cannot notice the majority of them.
This has been studied for the last 50 years and there are still no answer.
Therefore, imagine that you have a ball on the table. Look under it. It is touching the table at only one point.
Roll the ball on the table. Still one point. Now image that the ball has 12 little dimples on it and that the table is a grid of dimples. In this situation if you roll the ball the dimples on the ball and the tables must line up. If they don’t line up then everything is going to go BUMP PETY BUMP BUMP PETY BUMP. ( GEE!!... SHAKING EVERYTHING UP AND MAKING WAVES).
How the 12 dimples in 3d line up/cycle with the 6 dimples of 2d is where the math is needed to describe OUR universe.
If there are no dimples on the ball then the ball would fall through (fall off the edge of the table). The ball would be in free fall. The ball would be empty. That was the easiest to figure out ( 50 years ago). It’s called a deSitter universe.
If you want more than one kissing point, at the same time, with the table and the ball then things get hard.
Solution
Slide a piece of paper between the ball and the table. The piece of paper will represent the 2d. Yes,… you got it…. Fold the paper so that two dimples will line up. Three dimples….
Notice that 3d ball has not changed. The change is occurring in the paper which is the 2d level.
The next possibility
Could the shape of the ball be changed to get more than one dimple touching?
Einstein said, yes. In that case the ball would be like a blob of jelly where there is an accumulation of matter . An accumulation of matter is an accumulation of energy. When you accumulate as much energy in the same place it could be equal or more than the energy locked up in the 2d. So,… We would see that the energy could go back to the 2d surface. (horizon). These are improperly called “Black Holes”. The opposite is also happening. Energy is coming back from the 2d and into our 3d universe. We first notice the energy coming into our universe and we mistakenly called it “The Big Bang”. We mistakenly described the coming of that energy as “Expansion” and “inflation”. Now, if there is more energy coming into our universe than what is leaving then it is growing bigger. Supernovae explosions, gamma ray bursts, positron emission etc. could also be adding more energy from the 2d and into our 3d universe. However, the math would be able to tell.
Is this REALLY the way it is? My answer is … The math can figure out all of the possibilities but we must select the one that represents OUR universe.
It’s hard to do because everything is moving so fast it is very hard to actually see or to measure what is happening.
That is why there are so many ideas. They are trying to describe what is “reality”.
The best ideas come from, “Mrs. SUSY, MR. SLINKY, MR SLIM AND NOW FROM METRON SPOTS ”.
It would be nice if THEY could understand each other. THEY don’t have to believe, just understand.
I think this PRESENTATION should be understandable for the ordinary people, even for a 12 year old.
I guess that we will have to wait to see how Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory handles energy tranfer from one dimension to the next.
This is:
Simple Jal
In another thread I gave the following explanation which I thought should be repeated here.
We have more than one theory because there is more than one understanding/interpretation of "reality".
As you rightfully pointed out,
QUOTE
...How can you say the universe is expanding, If you don't have an arbitrary concept of the progression of time?...There are many flaws with our language on a fundamental level when it comes to talking about this, as we all know. Mass bends space? Can this really be said if the particles that are the mass have no size and are defined by the spaces around them? ....
You used the word "concept" which implies that I have a mental image which I have acquired in my lifetime. Both of us must have the acquired the same mental image if we want to communicate/talk about the "mental image".
Time
Time is something that is experienced by "objects" that are moving at less than speed of light. Time is the displacement or the observance of displacement of an object beyond a specified distance. (Even in this definition the battle rages
) If "space" is bent then you are saying that there is a displacement from some reference point or beyond a specified distance over/during a period of time ( the time in this case would be during the period that you are observing. One second or ....??.)
Einstein attempted to make thing easier by giving us the concept of spacetime.
You and a lot of people are still puzzled. Now, we have other questions.... and the battle rages on
Zephir (Mr. Twisty way of thinking)
says that he has it figured out and that he's right. Zephir uses examples that are good for a preschooler. Mr. Twisty, uses a precise language called math.Good Elf ( Mr. Stringy's way of thinking)
says that eventually the stringy thingies will be the easiest way of explaining everythings.They tried.... (however, neither can explain their way to each other and make the other change their mind)
In my opinion, we are all going to have to wait until Mrs. SUSY, MR. STRINGY, MR. TWISTY AND NOW MR. B.H. get together with their math and come up with an explanation that simple SPOT can understand.
I had a PM from someone too shy to post here.
“How do the 12 “kissing” points of 3d connect to the 6 “kissing” points of 2d?”
Here goes a very simple explanation.
1) Follow the energy flow. Potential energy at 100% to the succeeding levels. There is more energy locked up in 2d then in 3d.
2) Follow the complexity. Entropy which is no movement in no dimension to more movements in more dimensions.
3) Make the smallest package possible. A circle.( a spacetime quanta)
4) Fill that package with as much energy as possible.
5) Put all those packages together. First, like packing pennies. (2d) Second, like filling a container with balls. (3d)
6) See... the touching points are the only ways that energy can go from one place to another place . Pennies, 2d, has 6 ”kissing numbers”. Balls, 3d, have 12 “kissing numbers.
7) Our universe is filled with these quantas of energy. We cannot notice the majority of them.
This has been studied for the last 50 years and there are still no answer.
Therefore, imagine that you have a ball on the table. Look under it. It is touching the table at only one point.
Roll the ball on the table. Still one point. Now image that the ball has 12 little dimples on it and that the table is a grid of dimples. In this situation if you roll the ball the dimples on the ball and the tables must line up. If they don’t line up then everything is going to go BUMP PETY BUMP BUMP PETY BUMP. ( GEE!!... SHAKING EVERYTHING UP AND MAKING WAVES).
How the 12 dimples in 3d line up/cycle with the 6 dimples of 2d is where the math is needed to describe OUR universe.
If there are no dimples on the ball then the ball would fall through (fall off the edge of the table). The ball would be in free fall. The ball would be empty. That was the easiest to figure out ( 50 years ago). It’s called a deSitter universe.
If you want more than one kissing point, at the same time, with the table and the ball then things get hard.
Solution
Slide a piece of paper between the ball and the table. The piece of paper will represent the 2d. Yes,… you got it…. Fold the paper so that two dimples will line up. Three dimples….
Notice that 3d ball has not changed. The change is occurring in the paper which is the 2d level.
The next possibility
Could the shape of the ball be changed to get more than one dimple touching?
Einstein said, yes. In that case the ball would be like a blob of jelly where there is an accumulation of matter . An accumulation of matter is an accumulation of energy. When you accumulate as much energy in the same place it could be equal or more than the energy locked up in the 2d. So,… We would see that the energy could go back to the 2d surface. (horizon). These are improperly called “Black Holes”. The opposite is also happening. Energy is coming back from the 2d and into our 3d universe. We first notice the energy coming into our universe and we mistakenly called it “The Big Bang”. We mistakenly described the coming of that energy as “Expansion” and “inflation”. Now, if there is more energy coming into our universe than what is leaving then it is growing bigger. Supernovae explosions, gamma ray bursts, positron emission etc. could also be adding more energy from the 2d and into our 3d universe. However, the math would be able to tell.
Is this REALLY the way it is? My answer is … The math can figure out all of the possibilities but we must select the one that represents OUR universe.
It’s hard to do because everything is moving so fast it is very hard to actually see or to measure what is happening.
That is why there are so many ideas. They are trying to describe what is “reality”.
The best ideas come from, “Mrs. SUSY, MR. SLINKY, MR SLIM AND NOW FROM METRON SPOTS ”.
It would be nice if THEY could understand each other. THEY don’t have to believe, just understand.
I think this PRESENTATION should be understandable for the ordinary people, even for a 12 year old.
I guess that we will have to wait to see how Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory handles energy tranfer from one dimension to the next.
This is:
Simple Jal
Hi!
Here is my latest posting.
Hi!
Yes.... I'm pleased to get positive feed back.
My simple presentations are not without a little bit of science. Here is a some for the interested. From PACKING (They got all kinds of other interesting visuals and explanations. If you want to learn, take your time, look around their site.)
CAN YOU SEE THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN MY APPROACH, (SPOTS) , AND THE METRON APPROACH?
I DON'T REFER TO THE "KISSING NUMBERS" AS DIMENSIONS. It's just a 2d membrane with 6 kissing numbers not 6 dimensions. Of course, I do not refer to 3d as 12d just because it has 12 kissing numbers.
Jal
On the plane (2-dimensional space) 2-spheres
(circles) can be most efficiently packed in
the hexagonal arrangement shown above.
This naturally leads to a tiling of the
plane by hexagons whose sides are tangent
to the 2-spheres.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 3-space (where we live) we can stack 3-spheres (oranges) most efficiently using hexagonal closest packing.
This consists of layers of spheres packed in a hexagonal arrangement, each layer fitting as snuggly as
possible into the layers below and above (a kind of "laminating" process).
In the 2-dimensional case we created tangent hexagons from the packing (tiling) of 2-spheres (circles) on the
plane. In 3-space we can in a similar way generate tangent shapes to our 3-spheres. In the animation
above a portion of one such 3-sphere packing is shown with the tangent shapes indicated (use the
buttons to rotate the thing). This shape is called a regular rhombic dodecahedron, and as the hexagon
packs the plane with no gaps, this shape - the 3-d version of the hexagon - packs 3-space leaving no gaps.
(By the way, the shape at left is also a weight diagram for the adjoint representation of the Lie group SU(4)
(no explanation provided here for this statement - SU(3) weight diagrams can be made in 2-space from hexagons).)
These two examples of packings give rise to lattices of points in 2- and 3-dimensional spaces (the centers
of the 2- and 3-spheres). These specific lattices are called laminated. The laminated lattice in
n-dimensional space is constructed from that in (n-1)-dimensional space by a layering operation similar to that we just outlined.
Here is my latest posting.
Hi!
Yes.... I'm pleased to get positive feed back. My simple presentations are not without a little bit of science.
Here is a some for the interested. From PACKING (They got all kinds of other interesting visuals and explanations. If you want to learn, take your time, look around their site.) CAN YOU SEE THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN MY APPROACH, (SPOTS) , AND THE METRON APPROACH?
I DON'T REFER TO THE "KISSING NUMBERS" AS DIMENSIONS. It's just a 2d membrane with 6 kissing numbers not 6 dimensions. Of course, I do not refer to 3d as 12d just because it has 12 kissing numbers.
Jal
On the plane (2-dimensional space) 2-spheres
(circles) can be most efficiently packed in
the hexagonal arrangement shown above.
This naturally leads to a tiling of the
plane by hexagons whose sides are tangent
to the 2-spheres.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 3-space (where we live) we can stack 3-spheres (oranges) most efficiently using hexagonal closest packing.
This consists of layers of spheres packed in a hexagonal arrangement, each layer fitting as snuggly as
possible into the layers below and above (a kind of "laminating" process).
In the 2-dimensional case we created tangent hexagons from the packing (tiling) of 2-spheres (circles) on the
plane. In 3-space we can in a similar way generate tangent shapes to our 3-spheres. In the animation
above a portion of one such 3-sphere packing is shown with the tangent shapes indicated (use the
buttons to rotate the thing). This shape is called a regular rhombic dodecahedron, and as the hexagon
packs the plane with no gaps, this shape - the 3-d version of the hexagon - packs 3-space leaving no gaps.
(By the way, the shape at left is also a weight diagram for the adjoint representation of the Lie group SU(4)
(no explanation provided here for this statement - SU(3) weight diagrams can be made in 2-space from hexagons).)
These two examples of packings give rise to lattices of points in 2- and 3-dimensional spaces (the centers
of the 2- and 3-spheres). These specific lattices are called laminated. The laminated lattice in
n-dimensional space is constructed from that in (n-1)-dimensional space by a layering operation similar to that we just outlined.
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.
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: 2pi visuals
I'd like to add another visual to try to help.
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.
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
edited 8 April2006
inserted story
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edit 9 April:inserted references
Using a packing approach has been thought of by Steve Waterman.
See his presentations at universalconcepts
I'm sure that you will find his approach more comprehensive than my presentation.
In order to be able to apply sphere packing to reality then there must be some constant inserted. See a presentation/discussion at How Many Physical Constants are Truly Fundamental?
I cannot bring you up to speed concerning sphere packing as a good approach. You need to do your own search and learning. (You are seekers) .
However, here are some search results to help.
Applying Coding Theory to Sphere Packing
Getting Serious About Series
sphere packing and highr dimensions
SPHERE PACKING STUDIES
Sphere Packing with Rhombic Dodecahedra
edit 12 april: entered the 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)?
edit 13 April: entered the following
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.
ps pssss... don't tell Y... (he's a good seeker) that we have an approach of why there is mass.
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.
jal
Comments on these presentations are appreciated in the discussion threads.
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
and
Yin_yang of spacetime and matter
note: Do not rely on the web to give you access or preserve the information that you like. Make a hard copy. ( I have binders full of info that has dissapeared)
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.
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: 2pi visuals
I'd like to add another visual to try to help.
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.
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
edited 8 April2006
inserted story
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edit 9 April:inserted references
Using a packing approach has been thought of by Steve Waterman.
See his presentations at universalconcepts
I'm sure that you will find his approach more comprehensive than my presentation.
In order to be able to apply sphere packing to reality then there must be some constant inserted. See a presentation/discussion at How Many Physical Constants are Truly Fundamental?
I cannot bring you up to speed concerning sphere packing as a good approach. You need to do your own search and learning. (You are seekers)
.However, here are some search results to help.
Applying Coding Theory to Sphere Packing
Getting Serious About Series
sphere packing and highr dimensions
SPHERE PACKING STUDIES
Sphere Packing with Rhombic Dodecahedra
QUOTE
An infinite lattice of spheres can be modeled as a single sphere inscribed in a unit cell with reflecting boundaries (i.e., a polyhedral box of mirrors). For a 2D close-packing, each sphere is in contact with six neighbors, so it is easy to see that the unit cell consists of a sphere contained in a mirrored right hexagonal prism. In a 3D close-packed lattice, each sphere has an additional three neighbors on top and three on bottom, giving a total of twelve neighbors. There are two kinds of 3D close-packings to consider: 1) the face-centered-cubic (fcc) lattice, and 2) the hexagonal-close-packed (hcp) lattice. In the fcc lattice, the top three and bottom three spheres are offset by 180 degrees (or 30 degrees), while they are directly opposite each other in the hcp lattice. For both cases, the unit cells can be described as a right hexagonal prism cut by three slanting planes on the top and three slanting planes on the bottom.
edit 12 april: entered the 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)?
edit 13 April: entered the following
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.
ps pssss... don't tell Y... (he's a good seeker) that we have an approach of why there is mass.
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.
jal
Comments on these presentations are appreciated in the discussion threads.
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
and
Yin_yang of spacetime and matter
note: Do not rely on the web to give you access or preserve the information that you like. Make a hard copy. ( I have binders full of info that has dissapeared)
I guess I'll answer my own question from what I'm getting from other statements in other threads.
yquantum's thread
Lorentz_group
Lorentz_group
As stated above, the restricted Lorentz group is the identity component of the Lorentz group. This means that it consists of all Lorentz transformations which can be connected to the identity by a continuous curve lying in the group. The restricted Lorentz group is a connected normal subgroup of the full Lorentz group with the same dimension (in this case, 6 dimensions).
The restricted Lorentz group is generated by ordinary spatial rotations and Lorentz boosts (which can be thought of as hyperbolic rotations in a plane that includes a time-like direction). The set of all rotations forms a Lie subgroup isomorphic to the ordinary rotation group SO(3). The set of all boosts, however, does not form a subgroup, since composing two boosts does not, in general, result in another boost.
A boost in some direction, or a rotation about some axis, each generate a one-parameter subgroup. An arbitrary rotation is specified by 3 real parameters, as is an arbitrary boost. Since every proper, orthochronous Lorentz transformation can be written as a product of a rotation and a boost, it takes 6 real numbers (parameters) to specify an arbitrary proper orthochronous Lorentz transformation. This is one way to understand why the restricted Lorentz group is six dimensional. (We'll study this in more detail in a later section on the Lie algebra of the Lorentz group.) To specify an arbitrary Lorentz transformation requires a further two bits of information, which pick out one of the four connected components. This pattern is typical of finite dimensional Lie groups.
In order to arrive at a 3d structured spacetime from a 2d structured dimension it takes more than one soliton spinning at right angle to the 2d dimension. It is necessary to have a minimum of 12 solitons. It is necessary to find the way all of the solitons are structured/put together.
I have been saying that a 3d structure can only be arrived at by "PACKING".
UNTIL YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU CAN GET A 3D STRUCTURE FOR SPACETIME....you will never get the right answers.
In science fiction....
You can talk about higher dimensions and how energy can get from A to B.... You can imagine faster than light travel through those imaginary dimensions.... you can avoid dealing with a structure of our own 3d spacetime.....you can avoid specifying a structure for those higher dimensions....
In reality....
You got to face the facts..... it takes a minimum of 12 solitons to create a 3d structure for spacetime.
OOHHH!!!.... you disagree? How many solitons do you want to use?
Well! what do you know....
Wolfram and Kurzweil Roundtable Discussion
hehehe like my spot hehehe
hehehe like my spot hehehe The traditional idea that's existed in most of physics that space just is and then there's matter and all the particles and so on that do things on top of space. Part of what I think is going on and it's more abstract more difficult to understand and to explain is something where space is all there is and it's features of space itself that correspond to things like particles and so on. The analogy is something like some fluid like water, seems to be continuous, just like space seems to be to us continuous in the sense that you can move from anywhere to anywhere in arbitrarily small increments and so on. But in fact we know that water isn't at an underlying level a continuous fluid, it has a bunch of discrete molecules bouncing around.
RK: There has to be some kind of network and our conception of space is an abstraction where the fundamental reality is the cellular network, and it I'm not saying it can't be done but its not clear how you get a network that would give you the results that we've seen.
Actually one person who did think seriously about idea that there might be nothing in the universe except space was Einstein. In the later years of his life when he tried to develop what he called the unified field theory which has little to do with modern unified grand unified theories and so on he had the idea that the only thing that might exist in the universe is gravity and gravitational fields and that somehow the particles we see might be some sort of knots or singularities in the gravitational fields.
The reason that I think that the underlying stuff of the universe is based on these networks is sort of the network has as little as possible built into it; it doesn't have a notion of space. It doesn't have a notion of colors of cells and it doesn't have a notion of, it has sort of the minimal set of possible notions built into it. It doesn't know how many dimensions it's in. It's just a bunch of connectivity information and from that there then can what's interesting is there can emerge from that notions like space, like time, and to my surprise, special relativity and to my even greater surprise, general relativity and features of gravity.
hehehe Maybe 12 is a lucky number
yquantum's thread
QUOTE
It is an excellent concept that can be extended to as many dimensions as needed.
Special Relativity and torsion in nearly flat spacetime (Minkowski Manifold plus extra dimensions) is obviously easier to deal with and is the best approximation without too much "grief".
Wikipedia: Cartan connection applications - Vierbeins
The underlying Restricted Lorentz symmetry for SU(2). Torsion in "spacetime" seems to be almost a non-issue.
Special Relativity and torsion in nearly flat spacetime (Minkowski Manifold plus extra dimensions) is obviously easier to deal with and is the best approximation without too much "grief".
Wikipedia: Cartan connection applications - Vierbeins
The underlying Restricted Lorentz symmetry for SU(2). Torsion in "spacetime" seems to be almost a non-issue.
Lorentz_group
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is an excellent concept that can be extended to as many dimensions as needed. Special Relativity and torsion in nearly flat spacetime (Minkowski Manifold plus extra dimensions) is obviously easier to deal with and is the best approximation without too much "grief". Wikipedia: Cartan connection applications - Vierbeins The underlying Restricted Lorentz symmetry for SU(2). Torsion in "spacetime" seems to be almost a non-issue. |
Lorentz_group
As stated above, the restricted Lorentz group is the identity component of the Lorentz group. This means that it consists of all Lorentz transformations which can be connected to the identity by a continuous curve lying in the group. The restricted Lorentz group is a connected normal subgroup of the full Lorentz group with the same dimension (in this case, 6 dimensions).
The restricted Lorentz group is generated by ordinary spatial rotations and Lorentz boosts (which can be thought of as hyperbolic rotations in a plane that includes a time-like direction). The set of all rotations forms a Lie subgroup isomorphic to the ordinary rotation group SO(3). The set of all boosts, however, does not form a subgroup, since composing two boosts does not, in general, result in another boost.
A boost in some direction, or a rotation about some axis, each generate a one-parameter subgroup. An arbitrary rotation is specified by 3 real parameters, as is an arbitrary boost. Since every proper, orthochronous Lorentz transformation can be written as a product of a rotation and a boost, it takes 6 real numbers (parameters) to specify an arbitrary proper orthochronous Lorentz transformation. This is one way to understand why the restricted Lorentz group is six dimensional. (We'll study this in more detail in a later section on the Lie algebra of the Lorentz group.) To specify an arbitrary Lorentz transformation requires a further two bits of information, which pick out one of the four connected components. This pattern is typical of finite dimensional Lie groups.
In order to arrive at a 3d structured spacetime from a 2d structured dimension it takes more than one soliton spinning at right angle to the 2d dimension. It is necessary to have a minimum of 12 solitons. It is necessary to find the way all of the solitons are structured/put together.
I have been saying that a 3d structure can only be arrived at by "PACKING".
UNTIL YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU CAN GET A 3D STRUCTURE FOR SPACETIME....you will never get the right answers.
In science fiction....
You can talk about higher dimensions and how energy can get from A to B.... You can imagine faster than light travel through those imaginary dimensions.... you can avoid dealing with a structure of our own 3d spacetime.....you can avoid specifying a structure for those higher dimensions....
In reality....
You got to face the facts..... it takes a minimum of 12 solitons to create a 3d structure for spacetime.
OOHHH!!!.... you disagree? How many solitons do you want to use?
Well! what do you know....
Wolfram and Kurzweil Roundtable Discussion
QUOTE
The most dramatic possibility is the universe started from a simple initial condition that had some simple geometrical symmetry.
hehehe like my spot hehehe QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The most dramatic possibility is the universe started from a simple initial condition that had some simple geometrical symmetry. |
hehehe like my spot hehehe The traditional idea that's existed in most of physics that space just is and then there's matter and all the particles and so on that do things on top of space. Part of what I think is going on and it's more abstract more difficult to understand and to explain is something where space is all there is and it's features of space itself that correspond to things like particles and so on. The analogy is something like some fluid like water, seems to be continuous, just like space seems to be to us continuous in the sense that you can move from anywhere to anywhere in arbitrarily small increments and so on. But in fact we know that water isn't at an underlying level a continuous fluid, it has a bunch of discrete molecules bouncing around.RK: There has to be some kind of network and our conception of space is an abstraction where the fundamental reality is the cellular network, and it I'm not saying it can't be done but its not clear how you get a network that would give you the results that we've seen.
Actually one person who did think seriously about idea that there might be nothing in the universe except space was Einstein. In the later years of his life when he tried to develop what he called the unified field theory which has little to do with modern unified grand unified theories and so on he had the idea that the only thing that might exist in the universe is gravity and gravitational fields and that somehow the particles we see might be some sort of knots or singularities in the gravitational fields.
The reason that I think that the underlying stuff of the universe is based on these networks is sort of the network has as little as possible built into it; it doesn't have a notion of space. It doesn't have a notion of colors of cells and it doesn't have a notion of, it has sort of the minimal set of possible notions built into it. It doesn't know how many dimensions it's in. It's just a bunch of connectivity information and from that there then can what's interesting is there can emerge from that notions like space, like time, and to my surprise, special relativity and to my even greater surprise, general relativity and features of gravity.
hehehe Maybe 12 is a lucky number
MY SANDBOX
It is not fun to play in your sandbox. Your sandbox is too small. It’s for babies. Your sandbox has only 4 sides (3d+T). In your sandbox you got to pretend that it has 12 sides. It’s for babies who like to be amazed by the sparks from rubbing two stones together.
Only babies want to dig holes that are black and say that there is nothing to see.
Your sandbox is for babies who like to stand around waiting for toys to come bubbling out of the bottom of the sandbox.
Only babies like to be amazed by “spooky action at a distance”, “entanglement”, “renormalization”, “Uncertainty relationship”, “virtual particles”, and all kinds of magic and unexplained things.
75 years ago, the kids, that are now old, found a nice box of particles toys which they left for you to play with but you don’t know how to play with them and put them together properly. You only play with them the same way that the older kids did. Over and over and over and over again.
It’s too bad that Einstein didn’t know about my sandbox--- he would have had a great time.
My sandbox is 3 times bigger than yours. In my sandbox there are 12 sides and we can pretend that there are 36 sides.
My sandbox is for older kids. In my sandbox you are not allowed to dig holes and wait for pretend new toys to come bubbling out of the bottom.
My sandbox is filled with piles of sand and when you stand on them you can see over the edge of the 12 sides and see that there is another sandbox that has 6 sides. Also, off in the distance you can see the edge of the great big mountain that made all the sand.
In my sandbox we can see where the light came from, what it’s doing, and where it’s going.
In my sandbox you can see the harmonic resonant processes.
In my sandbox you don’t need to have somebody tell you to shut up and calculate.
When the older kids come to play in my sandbox they are going to find new ways to have fun. No more digging of stupid holes. No more playing with pretend/virtual toys. They are not allowed in this sandbox because there are lots of real toys to find and to play with.
There’s only one kid, Heim, who is playing in my sandbox. He found a box of particles just like the one in you small sandbox. His box of particles is more fun to play with.
Slinky and Twisty have left your sandbox and I expect --- pretty soon --- they will find my sandbox --- then everyone is going to have a lot of fun.
I see that Susy is getting tired of playing in a small sandbox. You should come over and play with Heim. You are going to have a lot of fun. Your toy –Higgs and his toy – Metron.
Hi yquantum! book??
All of you have been my proof readers. my critiques my board of examiners
Here is the last paragraph
Why are there so few people playing in my sandbox
First reason
Evolution has made humans to be able to see 3d+T for reasons of survival. Therefore, your body is repeatedly telling your brain that the “sandbox” has only 4 sides.
Second reason
Whenever you see the math that says 12 sides (packing) your body overrides that information, your mind glazes over and you reject it and accept 4 sides.
Third reason
Your body is lying to you. You prefer to believe your body. Yet the math does not lie.
You refuse to accept the math.
Fourth reason
Slim and slinky have done the math and even they have not made their body shut up and they have not found the 12 sided sandbox.
Fifth reason
I know that Heim is playing in my sandbox because he used 12 sides X 3 = 36 imaginary sides and rejected 12 as not being good.
Lo! and Behold!…. He found the box of particles.
Sixth reason
The people don’t realize how much fun it’s going to be playing in the real sandbox.
Therefore, don’t challenge what I have said, I’m just the messenger.
Challenge your body or change the math.
The only people who will be able to play in the 12 sided sandbox are the people who will be able to tell their bodies to shut up so that the can use their brains
jal
Good night yquantum...pleasant dreams
ps
I keep my hat beside my bedside in case I need to eat it for breakfast
Hi fivedoughnut!!....
I'm sure that I said that there were similarities with what I was saying. I don't know.... all that I did was to show that there has to be a connecting structure for what ever is our there. I took the easy way out and picked the structure that had all the math done (packing) and that was being ignored for some reason.
After 75 years of playing the same record..... (It's too good to throw away) it is time for a new tune.
You can play my record, (it has promising tunes on it) or get your own.
simple jal
ps (you cannot write a book, make a hard copy, that everyone on the web has read!)
Hi!
I'm trying to put some pieces together.... I decided to stop and give you a bedtime story
Blinking Maze
You suddenly become aware that you are at the center of a maze that has 12 paths leading out (sphere packing). WOW!
You slowly look back and see 6 paths and you wonder, “ Which path did I come from? Or was it all six?” Since you are old, you have a memory problem and cannot figure out how you got here. Suddenly you realize that you are drifting. As you turn around you realize that you are drifting towards the other 6 pathways. BLINK!
Those 6 pathways have taken on a different shape. They look like the 6 pathways of sheet. (circle packing) WOW! And you are about to enter into it.
BLINK!
You find yourself inside the 6 pathways. Your memory has not improved one darn bit, you can’t figure out if you came in by one of the 3 door or all of them. Oh, well, that’s life when you get old. So you look forward towards the direction that you are drifting and see 3 pathways.
BLINK!
What is going on? You realized that the configuration has change from being flat to being one that you recognize; x,y,z. AHAH! This is my recognizable 3 dimension universe. So you conclude that what you identify as time is the drifting that you have just experienced.
You ask yourself is this a dream or reality?
BLINK! BLINK!
You are back into the maze with 12 paths.
You now take the time to do some closer inspection of your surroundings.
It becomes apparent that the paths do not remain in a fixed location, they are moving. They are cycling through a regular pattern.
Being the intelligent person that you claim to be, you quickly deduce that the cycling process is similar to having 12 sphere moving from hex packing to cubic packing and back again and that the paths are the passages between the spheres.
You also realized that because the walls of this maze are shifting that it will be impossible for anyone to pin point your exact location. On top of that, you realized that an observer could also concluded that you are actually able to “tunnel”. An Observer cannot tell that the walls of the maze are doing the moving.
WOW!
Within a few moment more of observation you suddenly realize that the walls of the maze seem to appear and disappear. The center of your maze appears to get larger because some times that you can only see one wall and other times you see 3 walls. You never get to see 4 walls. WOW! Talk about having uncertainty. Being the intelligent person that you are you conclude that the wall of the maze are actually the lens shaped solitons going though its cycle of it 4 positions and that the positions are being exchanged within the 12 spheres.
No wonder people go crazy when they get into the blinking maze. Reality keeps changing when they blink.
Pleasant dreams
jal
Hi yquantum!
If you keep reading my bedtime story before going to bed, after a while the blinking maze will make the nightmares go away. (Especially the one about the cat suffocation in a box because the owner cannot decide to let it out.)
jal
It is not fun to play in your sandbox. Your sandbox is too small. It’s for babies. Your sandbox has only 4 sides (3d+T). In your sandbox you got to pretend that it has 12 sides. It’s for babies who like to be amazed by the sparks from rubbing two stones together.
Only babies want to dig holes that are black and say that there is nothing to see.
Your sandbox is for babies who like to stand around waiting for toys to come bubbling out of the bottom of the sandbox.
Only babies like to be amazed by “spooky action at a distance”, “entanglement”, “renormalization”, “Uncertainty relationship”, “virtual particles”, and all kinds of magic and unexplained things.
75 years ago, the kids, that are now old, found a nice box of particles toys which they left for you to play with but you don’t know how to play with them and put them together properly. You only play with them the same way that the older kids did. Over and over and over and over again.
It’s too bad that Einstein didn’t know about my sandbox--- he would have had a great time.
My sandbox is 3 times bigger than yours. In my sandbox there are 12 sides and we can pretend that there are 36 sides.
My sandbox is for older kids. In my sandbox you are not allowed to dig holes and wait for pretend new toys to come bubbling out of the bottom.
My sandbox is filled with piles of sand and when you stand on them you can see over the edge of the 12 sides and see that there is another sandbox that has 6 sides. Also, off in the distance you can see the edge of the great big mountain that made all the sand.
In my sandbox we can see where the light came from, what it’s doing, and where it’s going.
In my sandbox you can see the harmonic resonant processes.
In my sandbox you don’t need to have somebody tell you to shut up and calculate.
When the older kids come to play in my sandbox they are going to find new ways to have fun. No more digging of stupid holes. No more playing with pretend/virtual toys. They are not allowed in this sandbox because there are lots of real toys to find and to play with.
There’s only one kid, Heim, who is playing in my sandbox. He found a box of particles just like the one in you small sandbox. His box of particles is more fun to play with.
Slinky and Twisty have left your sandbox and I expect --- pretty soon --- they will find my sandbox --- then everyone is going to have a lot of fun.
I see that Susy is getting tired of playing in a small sandbox. You should come over and play with Heim. You are going to have a lot of fun. Your toy –Higgs and his toy – Metron.
Hi yquantum!
book?? All of you have been my proof readers.
my critiques my board of examiners Here is the last paragraph
Why are there so few people playing in my sandbox
First reason
Evolution has made humans to be able to see 3d+T for reasons of survival. Therefore, your body is repeatedly telling your brain that the “sandbox” has only 4 sides.
Second reason
Whenever you see the math that says 12 sides (packing) your body overrides that information, your mind glazes over and you reject it and accept 4 sides.
Third reason
Your body is lying to you. You prefer to believe your body. Yet the math does not lie.
You refuse to accept the math.
Fourth reason
Slim and slinky have done the math and even they have not made their body shut up and they have not found the 12 sided sandbox.
Fifth reason
I know that Heim is playing in my sandbox because he used 12 sides X 3 = 36 imaginary sides and rejected 12 as not being good.
Lo! and Behold!…. He found the box of particles.
Sixth reason
The people don’t realize how much fun it’s going to be playing in the real sandbox.
Therefore, don’t challenge what I have said, I’m just the messenger.
Challenge your body or change the math.
The only people who will be able to play in the 12 sided sandbox are the people who will be able to tell their bodies to shut up so that the can use their brains
jal
Good night yquantum...pleasant dreams
ps
I keep my hat beside my bedside in case I need to eat it for breakfast
Hi fivedoughnut!!....
I'm sure that I said that there were similarities with what I was saying. I don't know.... all that I did was to show that there has to be a connecting structure for what ever is our there. I took the easy way out and picked the structure that had all the math done (packing) and that was being ignored for some reason.
After 75 years of playing the same record..... (It's too good to throw away) it is time for a new tune.
You can play my record, (it has promising tunes on it) or get your own.
simple jal
ps (you cannot write a book, make a hard copy, that everyone on the web has read!)
Hi!
I'm trying to put some pieces together.... I decided to stop and give you a bedtime story
Blinking Maze
You suddenly become aware that you are at the center of a maze that has 12 paths leading out (sphere packing). WOW!
You slowly look back and see 6 paths and you wonder, “ Which path did I come from? Or was it all six?” Since you are old, you have a memory problem and cannot figure out how you got here.
Suddenly you realize that you are drifting. As you turn around you realize that you are drifting towards the other 6 pathways. BLINK! Those 6 pathways have taken on a different shape. They look like the 6 pathways of sheet. (circle packing) WOW! And you are about to enter into it.
BLINK!
You find yourself inside the 6 pathways. Your memory has not improved one darn bit, you can’t figure out if you came in by one of the 3 door or all of them. Oh, well, that’s life when you get old.
So you look forward towards the direction that you are drifting and see 3 pathways.BLINK!
What is going on? You realized that the configuration has change from being flat to being one that you recognize; x,y,z. AHAH! This is my recognizable 3 dimension universe. So you conclude that what you identify as time is the drifting that you have just experienced.
You ask yourself is this a dream or reality?
BLINK! BLINK!
You are back into the maze with 12 paths.
You now take the time to do some closer inspection of your surroundings.
It becomes apparent that the paths do not remain in a fixed location, they are moving. They are cycling through a regular pattern.
Being the intelligent person that you claim to be, you quickly deduce that the cycling process is similar to having 12 sphere moving from hex packing to cubic packing and back again and that the paths are the passages between the spheres.
You also realized that because the walls of this maze are shifting that it will be impossible for anyone to pin point your exact location. On top of that, you realized that an observer could also concluded that you are actually able to “tunnel”. An Observer cannot tell that the walls of the maze are doing the moving.
WOW!
Within a few moment more of observation you suddenly realize that the walls of the maze seem to appear and disappear. The center of your maze appears to get larger because some times that you can only see one wall and other times you see 3 walls. You never get to see 4 walls. WOW! Talk about having uncertainty. Being the intelligent person that you are you conclude that the wall of the maze are actually the lens shaped solitons going though its cycle of it 4 positions and that the positions are being exchanged within the 12 spheres.
No wonder people go crazy when they get into the blinking maze. Reality keeps changing when they blink.
Pleasant dreams
jal Hi yquantum!
If you keep reading my bedtime story before going to bed, after a while the blinking maze will make the nightmares go away. (Especially the one about the cat suffocation in a box because the owner cannot decide to let it out.)
jal
The WEB is great for getting information!
LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE FOUND!!!
Theories that had been published and ignored. Those are the theories that lost the political battle with the Standard Theory. Their science was accepted by their peers.
The math to make a working theory of a quantum spacetime has been around a long time.
As a matter of fact, it would be very naïve of me to think that the work had not started PRIOR 1982. I’m not egoistic enough to think that the PACKING approach was the missing key ingredient to finally getting a working theory of a quantum spacetime! (There won’t be anybody to beat down my door to offer me Degrees)
1)My presentation Is my “SPOT” approach that examines the implications of having a structured spacetime. My approach does not require that the metron/spot be a “hidden” and unreachable at the Plank Scale. Rather, the “SPOT” size must be bigger than EMF. Also, there is no requirement to have “point like particles” which would be “unreachable”.
2) There is Heim’s approach with protosimplex metron formula that actually gets the particles. protosimplex(1982)
3) Then there is the the metron model by K. Hasselmann Journal-ref: Phys.Essays 9 (1996) 311-325 in which The principal properties of the Standard Model are reproduced assuming a four-or five-dimensional harmonic-space background metric. The Standard Model gauge symmetries are explained as a special case of the diffeomorphic gauge symmetries of the Einstein equations.
4) Then there is Geometric Calculus which is a mathematical language for expressing and elaborating geometric concepts. Spacetime algebra is an application of this language to model physical space and time. The most comprehensive treatment of the mathematical theory is given in the book Clifford Algebra to Geometric Calculus [1984].
As an alternate theory, it appears that 20 years ago, LQG and Strings were not even in the race, and I would now say that they are still out of the race.Those old “math kids”are being replaced by a new generation of “math kids”. They will be able to take those theories, dust them off, and add all kinds of bell and whistles. They may not even need to go to more peer review.
The old way of doing things are gone. The old generation that produced those theories did not have the WEB.
The Hydrino Theory is a good example of what will be happening in the future. Discussion groups, Published Books, Interactive 3D figures, Patents, and Financing for a company are just some of the new indications of things to come.
There are a lot of people who pursued careers that did not involve trying to figure out the universe. Now, with the new tools, they will be exposed to visual representations of those lines of numbers. No more scary stories to make nightmares.
It would not surprise me to see some kind of Metron/Spot as an interactive 3D java being used in every classrooms of the world to learn about the universe.
The results of the experiments being done by the colliders will not change. What will change will be the story that will accompany those results. The “New Physics” does not have to equal SUSY as some would have us believe. After 2007, the “New Physics” will need to incorporate other explanations.
jal
edit: inserted 19 May 2006
Hi!
I found something interesting concerning circle packing.
MinimalCircle
Especially (new expressions for me.) The dual of an S-isothermic surface is S-isothermic.
There are great pictures.
edit: Here is the math approach to my circle packing (citation?) Asymptotic behavior of discrete holomorphic
Stochastic Loewner Evolution SLE
Webpage
As I have been continuously saying, "Someone has done this before me."
I expect that the "new physic" will include SPOTS". It's nice to have figured out the structure of a membrane.
Something new to learn. holodynamics courses
I guess the next step is to find the link with Thurston's_geometrization_conjecture
and see if 3D packing has already been done.
Experimental Differential Geometry-Uniformization and Quantum field theory
As I have been continuously saying, "Someone has done this before me."
I expect that the "new physic" will include SPOTS". It's nice to have figured out the structure of a membrane.
Something new to learn. holodynamics courses
I guess the next step is to find the link with Thurston's_geometrization_conjecture
and see if 3D packing has already been done.
Experimental Differential Geometry-Uniformization and Quantum field theory
The method of flowing uses ideas borrow from Ashtekar's new variable (connection representation) formulation of general relativity, and Yang-Mills quantum field theory. We start by representing the metric on a manifold in terms of a connection representation, which is simple a connection that contains a metric, represented by a dyad in two dimensions, and a spin-connection. The spin-connection does not have to be compatible with the metric. The connection is then evolved using a flow that has fixed points at the homogeneous metrics. The conjecture is that the flow always converges to those fixed points for arbitrary initial conditions. If true, then this gives a proof of the uniformization theorem much akin to the Ricci flow proof of Hamilton and Chow (see J. Diff Geom. 35, 723 (1992) or Mathematics and General Relativity, ed J. Isenberg, Contemp. Math 71, AMS (1988)). if this program can be extended to three dimensions, then it may be possible to prove the elusive Thurston Geometrization Conjecture, and produce a classification of all 3-manifolds. This is important both in math, and in physics, where we are interested in summing over all three-geometries in modern formulations of quantum gravity.
Steve Braham has some interesting stuff but I don't think that his approach will yield the structure of space time in 3 dimension. He would need to start from 2d packing. (See links in previous post. You'll also get better images.)
Hi!
You might want to read some of John Baez"s stuff and see how he approaches quantum spacetime. You should find some similarity with what I have been saying.
Of course he does not do any "packing".
quantum_spacetime.
You should also follow the link by Urs Schreiber. There you will find the explanations of "spinning strings" that make surfaces.
Hum-m-m
They are getting close.
insert: check this out Electricity, magnetism and Hypercube by Derek Wise
jal
If you went to the links then you noticed the image of the two branes. Would any one care to do the meeting of braids for the SPOT?
Now you can see why I'm saying that they are getting close to finding the answer.
jal
(for some reason theses images are degraded in quality?
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAL
LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE FOUND!!!
Theories that had been published and ignored. Those are the theories that lost the political battle with the Standard Theory. Their science was accepted by their peers.
The math to make a working theory of a quantum spacetime has been around a long time.
As a matter of fact, it would be very naïve of me to think that the work had not started PRIOR 1982. I’m not egoistic enough to think that the PACKING approach was the missing key ingredient to finally getting a working theory of a quantum spacetime! (There won’t be anybody to beat down my door to offer me Degrees)
1)My presentation Is my “SPOT” approach that examines the implications of having a structured spacetime. My approach does not require that the metron/spot be a “hidden” and unreachable at the Plank Scale. Rather, the “SPOT” size must be bigger than EMF. Also, there is no requirement to have “point like particles” which would be “unreachable”.
2) There is Heim’s approach with protosimplex metron formula that actually gets the particles. protosimplex(1982)
3) Then there is the the metron model by K. Hasselmann Journal-ref: Phys.Essays 9 (1996) 311-325 in which The principal properties of the Standard Model are reproduced assuming a four-or five-dimensional harmonic-space background metric. The Standard Model gauge symmetries are explained as a special case of the diffeomorphic gauge symmetries of the Einstein equations.
4) Then there is Geometric Calculus which is a mathematical language for expressing and elaborating geometric concepts. Spacetime algebra is an application of this language to model physical space and time. The most comprehensive treatment of the mathematical theory is given in the book Clifford Algebra to Geometric Calculus [1984].
As an alternate theory, it appears that 20 years ago, LQG and Strings were not even in the race, and I would now say that they are still out of the race.Those old “math kids”are being replaced by a new generation of “math kids”. They will be able to take those theories, dust them off, and add all kinds of bell and whistles. They may not even need to go to more peer review.
The old way of doing things are gone. The old generation that produced those theories did not have the WEB.
The Hydrino Theory is a good example of what will be happening in the future. Discussion groups, Published Books, Interactive 3D figures, Patents, and Financing for a company are just some of the new indications of things to come.
There are a lot of people who pursued careers that did not involve trying to figure out the universe. Now, with the new tools, they will be exposed to visual representations of those lines of numbers. No more scary stories to make nightmares.
It would not surprise me to see some kind of Metron/Spot as an interactive 3D java being used in every classrooms of the world to learn about the universe.
The results of the experiments being done by the colliders will not change. What will change will be the story that will accompany those results. The “New Physics” does not have to equal SUSY as some would have us believe. After 2007, the “New Physics” will need to incorporate other explanations.
jal
edit: inserted 19 May 2006
Hi!
I found something interesting concerning circle packing.
MinimalCircle
Especially (new expressions for me.) The dual of an S-isothermic surface is S-isothermic.
There are great pictures.
edit: Here is the math approach to my circle packing (citation?) Asymptotic behavior of discrete holomorphic
Stochastic Loewner Evolution SLE
Webpage
QUOTE
Abstract. Stochastic Loewner evolution (SLEκ) has been introduced as a description of the continuum limit of cluster boundaries in two-dimensional critical systems. We show that the problem of N radial SLEs in the unit disc is equivalent to Dyson's Brownian motion on the boundary of the disc, with parameter β = 4/κ. As a result, various equilibrium critical models give realizations of circular ensembles with β different from the classical values of 1, 2 and 4 which correspond to symmetry classes of random U(N) matrices. Some of the bulk critical exponents are related to the spectrum of the associated Calogero-Sutherland Hamiltonian. The main result is also checked against the predictions of conformal field theory.
As I have been continuously saying, "Someone has done this before me."
I expect that the "new physic" will include SPOTS". It's nice to have figured out the structure of a membrane.
Something new to learn. holodynamics courses
I guess the next step is to find the link with Thurston's_geometrization_conjecture
and see if 3D packing has already been done.
Experimental Differential Geometry-Uniformization and Quantum field theory
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract. Stochastic Loewner evolution (SLEκ) has been introduced as a description of the continuum limit of cluster boundaries in two-dimensional critical systems. We show that the problem of N radial SLEs in the unit disc is equivalent to Dyson's Brownian motion on the boundary of the disc, with parameter β = 4/κ. As a result, various equilibrium critical models give realizations of circular ensembles with β different from the classical values of 1, 2 and 4 which correspond to symmetry classes of random U(N) matrices. Some of the bulk critical exponents are related to the spectrum of the associated Calogero-Sutherland Hamiltonian. The main result is also checked against the predictions of conformal field theory. |
As I have been continuously saying, "Someone has done this before me."
I expect that the "new physic" will include SPOTS". It's nice to have figured out the structure of a membrane.
Something new to learn. holodynamics courses
I guess the next step is to find the link with Thurston's_geometrization_conjecture
and see if 3D packing has already been done.
Experimental Differential Geometry-Uniformization and Quantum field theory
The method of flowing uses ideas borrow from Ashtekar's new variable (connection representation) formulation of general relativity, and Yang-Mills quantum field theory. We start by representing the metric on a manifold in terms of a connection representation, which is simple a connection that contains a metric, represented by a dyad in two dimensions, and a spin-connection. The spin-connection does not have to be compatible with the metric. The connection is then evolved using a flow that has fixed points at the homogeneous metrics. The conjecture is that the flow always converges to those fixed points for arbitrary initial conditions. If true, then this gives a proof of the uniformization theorem much akin to the Ricci flow proof of Hamilton and Chow (see J. Diff Geom. 35, 723 (1992) or Mathematics and General Relativity, ed J. Isenberg, Contemp. Math 71, AMS (1988)). if this program can be extended to three dimensions, then it may be possible to prove the elusive Thurston Geometrization Conjecture, and produce a classification of all 3-manifolds. This is important both in math, and in physics, where we are interested in summing over all three-geometries in modern formulations of quantum gravity.
Steve Braham has some interesting stuff but I don't think that his approach will yield the structure of space time in 3 dimension. He would need to start from 2d packing. (See links in previous post. You'll also get better images.)
Hi!
You might want to read some of John Baez"s stuff and see how he approaches quantum spacetime. You should find some similarity with what I have been saying.
Of course he does not do any "packing".
quantum_spacetime.
You should also follow the link by Urs Schreiber. There you will find the explanations of "spinning strings" that make surfaces.
Hum-m-m
They are getting close.
insert: check this out Electricity, magnetism and Hypercube by Derek Wise
jal
If you went to the links then you noticed the image of the two branes. Would any one care to do the meeting of braids for the SPOT?
Now you can see why I'm saying that they are getting close to finding the answer.
jal
(for some reason theses images are degraded in quality?
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAL
Hi gadfly!
A quote from their conclusion:
MOND habitats within the solar system
I would even go farther by saying that "Earth is in a poor light receiving position".
Light is being focused, but we are not in the focal path.
Hum-mmm.... I thought that I said that before in my thread.
----------------------------------------------------
I would even go farther by saying that "Earth is in a poor light receiving position".
Light is being focused, but we are not in the focal path.
Hum-mmm.... I thought that I said that before in my thread.
----------------------------------------------------
#1
Hello! I found a lot of great information on waves. The complexity is enough to blow your mind. What have you two got?
#2
I got some very simple stuff. Simple solitons.
#3
Me!, I found out that we should also be looking at where the energy is NOT located. We should be looking at spacetime.
#1
In that case…. Let’s put all that information on the table and work out what we want to try to achieve with the balloon.
-----------------------------------------
References:
(1) Wave_function
(2) Wave_packet
(3) Normalisable_wavefunction
(4) Boson
Fermion
(5) Casimir_effect#Vacuum_energy
(6) Nucleon#Models_of_the_nucleon
(7) qm_gallery
(8) Superposition and interferometers
(9) Ring lasers and Ring interferometers
(10) 2d images
(11) gravity
(12) zero-point-energy
(13) quantum harmonic oscillator
(14) gas-in-a-harmonic-trap
(15)planck-s-law-of-black-body-radiation
(16)WiensDisplacementLaw
(17) Learning by simulations
(18) A RECENT ALTERNATIVE VACUUM APPROACH TO GRAVITY
(19) Symmetrically Structured Spacetime
(20) The photon box
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Discussion now opened.
I cannot learn if I’m talking. So, if you don’t want me to publish the ranting and ravings of my ideas, …. Then …I’d like to hear from you. There are a lot of great tutorials on the web…. Use your favorite links for in depth discussion and reference.
A quote from their conclusion:
MOND habitats within the solar system
QUOTE
Postulating dark matter or MONDifying the gravitational
interaction are conceptually conflicting ways of
dealing with several anomalous astrophysical observations.
While it is possible that these anomalies will
themselves decide between the two approaches, a “direct
detection” would be far more convincing, for example,
ongoing dark matter searches finding a particle with
suitable cosmological and astrophysical features [20]. In
this paper we examined what might constitute “direct”
detection of MOND behavior. We predicted the existence
of regions displaying full MOND behavior well inside
the Solar system, specifically in bubbles surrounding
the saddle points of the gravitational potential. If
abnormally high tidal stresses are observed in these regions
this would prove MOND beyond reasonable doubt.
Occasional astrophysical difficulties with the theory (e.g.
with regards to lensing [21] or cosmological density fluctuations
[18, 22, 23]) would no doubt mysteriously dissipate
should such a discovery be made.
interaction are conceptually conflicting ways of
dealing with several anomalous astrophysical observations.
While it is possible that these anomalies will
themselves decide between the two approaches, a “direct
detection” would be far more convincing, for example,
ongoing dark matter searches finding a particle with
suitable cosmological and astrophysical features [20]. In
this paper we examined what might constitute “direct”
detection of MOND behavior. We predicted the existence
of regions displaying full MOND behavior well inside
the Solar system, specifically in bubbles surrounding
the saddle points of the gravitational potential. If
abnormally high tidal stresses are observed in these regions
this would prove MOND beyond reasonable doubt.
Occasional astrophysical difficulties with the theory (e.g.
with regards to lensing [21] or cosmological density fluctuations
[18, 22, 23]) would no doubt mysteriously dissipate
should such a discovery be made.
I would even go farther by saying that "Earth is in a poor light receiving position".
Light is being focused, but we are not in the focal path.
Hum-mmm.... I thought that I said that before in my thread.
----------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Postulating dark matter or MONDifying the gravitational interaction are conceptually conflicting ways of dealing with several anomalous astrophysical observations. While it is possible that these anomalies will themselves decide between the two approaches, a “direct detection” would be far more convincing, for example, ongoing dark matter searches finding a particle with suitable cosmological and astrophysical features [20]. In this paper we examined what might constitute “direct” detection of MOND behavior. We predicted the existence of regions displaying full MOND behavior well inside the Solar system, specifically in bubbles surrounding the saddle points of the gravitational potential. If abnormally high tidal stresses are observed in these regions this would prove MOND beyond reasonable doubt. Occasional astrophysical difficulties with the theory (e.g. with regards to lensing [21] or cosmological density fluctuations [18, 22, 23]) would no doubt mysteriously dissipate should such a discovery be made. |
I would even go farther by saying that "Earth is in a poor light receiving position".
Light is being focused, but we are not in the focal path.
Hum-mmm.... I thought that I said that before in my thread.
----------------------------------------------------
#1
Hello! I found a lot of great information on waves. The complexity is enough to blow your mind. What have you two got?
#2
I got some very simple stuff. Simple solitons.
#3
Me!, I found out that we should also be looking at where the energy is NOT located. We should be looking at spacetime.
#1
In that case…. Let’s put all that information on the table and work out what we want to try to achieve with the balloon.
QUOTE
The objective of this experiment are:
1) To compare the actual/physical energy wave patterns with the theoretical wave patterns that should be displayed in the sphere.
2) To examine what happens by varying the sphere volume. It is hoped to confirm that the inverse square law continues at smaller scales. It is hoped to get a better. understanding of the light cone.
3) The wave patterns could also reveal the yet unseen hidden variables that could be the cause of the wave patterns and thereby give us a greater understanding of QM.
4) However, the greatest challenge will be to try to understand what is happening when we have the sphere continuously expanding. Will it model the expansion of the universe?
5) To find a path to “NEW PHYSICS”
1) To compare the actual/physical energy wave patterns with the theoretical wave patterns that should be displayed in the sphere.
2) To examine what happens by varying the sphere volume. It is hoped to confirm that the inverse square law continues at smaller scales. It is hoped to get a better. understanding of the light cone.
3) The wave patterns could also reveal the yet unseen hidden variables that could be the cause of the wave patterns and thereby give us a greater understanding of QM.
4) However, the greatest challenge will be to try to understand what is happening when we have the sphere continuously expanding. Will it model the expansion of the universe?
5) To find a path to “NEW PHYSICS”
-----------------------------------------
References:
(1) Wave_function
(2) Wave_packet
(3) Normalisable_wavefunction
(4) Boson
Fermion
(5) Casimir_effect#Vacuum_energy
(6) Nucleon#Models_of_the_nucleon
(7) qm_gallery
(8) Superposition and interferometers
(9) Ring lasers and Ring interferometers
(10) 2d images
(11) gravity
(12) zero-point-energy
(13) quantum harmonic oscillator
(14) gas-in-a-harmonic-trap
(15)planck-s-law-of-black-body-radiation
(16)WiensDisplacementLaw
(17) Learning by simulations
(18) A RECENT ALTERNATIVE VACUUM APPROACH TO GRAVITY
(19) Symmetrically Structured Spacetime
(20) The photon box
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Discussion now opened.
I cannot learn if I’m talking. So, if you don’t want me to publish the ranting and ravings of my ideas, …. Then …I’d like to hear from you. There are a lot of great tutorials on the web…. Use your favorite links for in depth discussion and reference.
Total gravity potential should be preserved. In this sense, MOND theory is strange. I think the light or emission bends gravity. Inside of the galaxy disk, the gravity is two dimensional.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
Hi! Iori Fujita!
I had seen your post somewhere else. I'm glad you put it here since it give an other possible alternative to dark Matter for the "math kids" to work with.
Thanks
jal
ps. we are discussing some of this in "Particles have mass, HOW?" under Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories. Come and visit.
I'd like to keep this thread as a summary.
Confused2... Your link just made # 20
jal
Hi! Confused2
I see that we are cross posting. I hope that what I'm saying does not conflict. (We'll work it out.)
C2… I’m not satisfied with the current explanations that I have found on the web which tries to explain “What is a Wave”. I read the New particle structure at http://www.non-newtonianphysics.com/particle1.htm. Reading farther into his theory, I do not get any explanation for the “gel”. However, the explanation of a possible structure of the photon was interesting. (I can’t pass judgment). It should be able to fit into what I'm about to propose. Perhaps we should examine a new way of looking at the problem.
Here is an outline of a possible new way.
There are many ways that I could explain the following diagrams. I’ll start with the following. It’s a new approach to “NEW PHYSICS”. We must first of all deal with the concept of expanding spacetime.
Since the speed of light is constant and has been measure at 300,000 km/sec, the first/top sphere/spacetime unit, is assume to be 300,000 km. This would mean that a photon would not be able to leave our universe or a spacetime unit of our universe. It would not have time to go anywhere else.
When the universe or spacetime unit, was smaller (remember… expanding universe), you can see that a photon, (don’t quibble on the word), if it had a path to follow, could go visiting other universes or (? Go into the unknown), before coming back and going to its destination in our universe. However, if the photon stayed in our universe then the observer would conclude that a photon was traveling faster than 300,000 km/sec (when the universe was smaller.) Somehow, I don’t think that this reasoning is correct with the observations but that is what the speed of light is telling us. Of course you could use a magic argument and say that the photon traveled more than once around the universe/spacetime unit.
http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/expandinguniverse.gif
In the second diagram, the present (old) light cone, only allows a photon to travel in our universe of 3d. This gives us magic and unexplained activities. The old light cone does not extend into the quantum world. Even though relativity is used in the calculations of particles. It is only a mathematical projection that limits all activities within the observed universe.
In the expanded (new) light cone, allowances are made to include traveling to a 4d, (to take care of gravity), or traveling to 12d, (to take care of Membranes). (I like an image that keeps everything inside our universe.)
Just like traveling at slow speeds, we do not need to consider GR and SR, we do not need all the dimensions to explain all or every unexplained activities that we presently observe in the lab.
However, at the quantum level, it is necessary to have a packing of the 12d in order to obtain connectivity and to be able to transfer information from one dimension to another dimension. We only need to use the dimensions that are necessary to explain what is going on in the experiments. For this to happen, the size of a spacetime unit must be smaller than the speed of light (Refer to the posted images.) and bigger than a photon.
To make things work, in my presentations, I proposed a size. “Particles expanded to approx. 10^-20 and a spacetime unit expanded to approx. 10^-18.” As a result, everything can stay within the new light cone and within our universe.
Therefore, no more magic…. No more unexplained activities.
No need, yq, to have any unexplained things coming into our universe.
jal
Hi! Confused2
I see that we are cross posting. I hope that what I'm saying does not conflict. (We'll work it out.)
C2… I’m not satisfied with the current explanations that I have found on the web which tries to explain “What is a Wave”. I read the New particle structure at http://www.non-newtonianphysics.com/particle1.htm. Reading farther into his theory, I do not get any explanation for the “gel”. However, the explanation of a possible structure of the photon was interesting. (I can’t pass judgment). It should be able to fit into what I'm about to propose. Perhaps we should examine a new way of looking at the problem.
Here is an outline of a possible new way.
There are many ways that I could explain the following diagrams. I’ll start with the following. It’s a new approach to “NEW PHYSICS”. We must first of all deal with the concept of expanding spacetime.
Since the speed of light is constant and has been measure at 300,000 km/sec, the first/top sphere/spacetime unit, is assume to be 300,000 km. This would mean that a photon would not be able to leave our universe or a spacetime unit of our universe. It would not have time to go anywhere else.
When the universe or spacetime unit, was smaller (remember… expanding universe), you can see that a photon, (don’t quibble on the word), if it had a path to follow, could go visiting other universes or (? Go into the unknown), before coming back and going to its destination in our universe. However, if the photon stayed in our universe then the observer would conclude that a photon was traveling faster than 300,000 km/sec (when the universe was smaller.) Somehow, I don’t think that this reasoning is correct with the observations but that is what the speed of light is telling us. Of course you could use a magic argument and say that the photon traveled more than once around the universe/spacetime unit.
http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/expandinguniverse.gif
In the second diagram, the present (old) light cone, only allows a photon to travel in our universe of 3d. This gives us magic and unexplained activities. The old light cone does not extend into the quantum world. Even though relativity is used in the calculations of particles. It is only a mathematical projection that limits all activities within the observed universe.
In the expanded (new) light cone, allowances are made to include traveling to a 4d, (to take care of gravity), or traveling to 12d, (to take care of Membranes). (I like an image that keeps everything inside our universe.)
Just like traveling at slow speeds, we do not need to consider GR and SR, we do not need all the dimensions to explain all or every unexplained activities that we presently observe in the lab.
However, at the quantum level, it is necessary to have a packing of the 12d in order to obtain connectivity and to be able to transfer information from one dimension to another dimension. We only need to use the dimensions that are necessary to explain what is going on in the experiments. For this to happen, the size of a spacetime unit must be smaller than the speed of light (Refer to the posted images.) and bigger than a photon.
To make things work, in my presentations, I proposed a size. “Particles expanded to approx. 10^-20 and a spacetime unit expanded to approx. 10^-18.” As a result, everything can stay within the new light cone and within our universe.
Therefore, no more magic…. No more unexplained activities.
No need, yq, to have any unexplained things coming into our universe. (Hope I stayed within the lines, not so good with crayons!)
This way things can go out of “sight” and can come back into “sight” without leaving our universe.
And Good Elf, you will have a mechanism and structure for your 11 dimensions. Everything is happening in our universe and they can be explained by the structure and by the connectivity.
The “math kids” should be able to convert “dimensions” to “structure” and be able to come up with a workable size for the “structure” that will get rid of the magic.
C2…. Maybe a new approach can yield an answer to what is a wave.
Maybe we could stop using the word “other dimensions” to hide unexplained observations and just use “structure”. It would force people to come up with explanations?
I think that this approach would have met the approval of Einstein. This is probably in line with Einstein’s thinking.
http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/newlightcone.gif
In all of my seeking, I have never seen a published paper that considered expanding the light cone to include their concepts of more dimensions. Nor, have I seen any references to an expanded light cone in any of the proposed theories on the web. The papers that I have read and could understand deal with the “old” light cone. Some, could have but I couldn’t understand. For example see: Workshop on Light-Cone QCD and Nonperturbative Hadron Physics 2005
As a sample, read the first paper on the use of instanton by Ariel_Zhitnitsky.pdf
or the last one by adam_szczepaniak.pdf
The implications of a new light cone that incorporates a “structure” needs to be examined to see how many of the unexplained experiments will yield their secrets and shed their magic.
Later, I’ll bring in two more points on the light cone which will affect the wave, and one on relativity. After, I will explain how gravity (one extra dimension) could be addressed in the “structure”.
I say, …. “Let the “math kids” have fun.” Let’s explore this approach to “THE NEW PHYSICS” before moving on to the energy wave itself.
Sorry. This post has been way too long.
Now I got to go and read what you said and look up your links.
jal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hello every one!
So we have done the first test on the balloon.
1. We got a better understanding of the light cone and concluded that it must be modified to include the seen and unseen structures of spacetime.
2. The test demonstrated that a unit of spacetime must have a specific size to allows enough time for a photon to do what it is suppose to do at 300,000 km/sec. No matter which path it uses in the structure. (seen or unseen)
3. If the structure of spacetime is too small then the starting point and the end point of a photon would reside outside of the structure of spacetime.
4. Until the structure (seen and unseen) of spacetime has been mapped out, which would determine the possible flow of information, we must leave open the possibility that the shortest distance between two points could be in the unseen structure. This would not violate the speed of light.
Are there any other observations that I forgot or did not notice?
Unfortunately, we are a long way of being able to experimentally determine if spacetime has a structure. Therefore, we will have to resign ourselves to continue using the tools that work and continue with the mysteries of double slit and Casmir. That would also include the point raised by yq …. vacuum energy.
There are enough speculations on the web. I do not need to add another that cannot be experimentally verified.
My knowledge is not sufficient to give any insight into what would happen to a complex wave. I was hoping to find out from someone else.
Therefore, without inputs, there is no need for everyone to listen to my speculations. I cannot learn if I’m talking.
Yq…. So, if you don’t mind… there is no need to go on with my balloon.
C2…. Your point about particle in a box. I would have wanted to know what would happen if the box was always expanding? Would the wave becomes chaotic and the nodes unstable? What would happen in an expanding universe if the structure of spacetime was composed of waves? Also, how does the expansion affect relativity calculations? You could answer in your new thread. I’m reading it and learning.
jal
Comments on these presentations are appreciated in the discussion threads.
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
and
Yin_yang of spacetime and matter
ps Some of the necessary math for packing has already been done at Asymptotic behavior of discrete holomorphic
I had seen your post somewhere else. I'm glad you put it here since it give an other possible alternative to dark Matter for the "math kids" to work with.
Thanks
jal
ps. we are discussing some of this in "Particles have mass, HOW?" under Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories. Come and visit.
I'd like to keep this thread as a summary.
Confused2... Your link just made # 20
QUOTE
That is, the confusion of quantum indeterminacies with experimental uncertainties.
jal
Hi! Confused2
I see that we are cross posting. I hope that what I'm saying does not conflict. (We'll work it out.)
C2… I’m not satisfied with the current explanations that I have found on the web which tries to explain “What is a Wave”. I read the New particle structure at http://www.non-newtonianphysics.com/particle1.htm. Reading farther into his theory, I do not get any explanation for the “gel”. However, the explanation of a possible structure of the photon was interesting. (I can’t pass judgment). It should be able to fit into what I'm about to propose. Perhaps we should examine a new way of looking at the problem.
Here is an outline of a possible new way.
There are many ways that I could explain the following diagrams. I’ll start with the following. It’s a new approach to “NEW PHYSICS”. We must first of all deal with the concept of expanding spacetime.
Since the speed of light is constant and has been measure at 300,000 km/sec, the first/top sphere/spacetime unit, is assume to be 300,000 km. This would mean that a photon would not be able to leave our universe or a spacetime unit of our universe. It would not have time to go anywhere else.
When the universe or spacetime unit, was smaller (remember… expanding universe), you can see that a photon, (don’t quibble on the word), if it had a path to follow, could go visiting other universes or (? Go into the unknown), before coming back and going to its destination in our universe. However, if the photon stayed in our universe then the observer would conclude that a photon was traveling faster than 300,000 km/sec (when the universe was smaller.) Somehow, I don’t think that this reasoning is correct with the observations but that is what the speed of light is telling us. Of course you could use a magic argument and say that the photon traveled more than once around the universe/spacetime unit.
http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/expandinguniverse.gif
In the second diagram, the present (old) light cone, only allows a photon to travel in our universe of 3d. This gives us magic and unexplained activities. The old light cone does not extend into the quantum world. Even though relativity is used in the calculations of particles. It is only a mathematical projection that limits all activities within the observed universe.
In the expanded (new) light cone, allowances are made to include traveling to a 4d, (to take care of gravity), or traveling to 12d, (to take care of Membranes). (I like an image that keeps everything inside our universe.)
Just like traveling at slow speeds, we do not need to consider GR and SR, we do not need all the dimensions to explain all or every unexplained activities that we presently observe in the lab.
However, at the quantum level, it is necessary to have a packing of the 12d in order to obtain connectivity and to be able to transfer information from one dimension to another dimension. We only need to use the dimensions that are necessary to explain what is going on in the experiments. For this to happen, the size of a spacetime unit must be smaller than the speed of light (Refer to the posted images.) and bigger than a photon.
To make things work, in my presentations, I proposed a size. “Particles expanded to approx. 10^-20 and a spacetime unit expanded to approx. 10^-18.” As a result, everything can stay within the new light cone and within our universe.
Therefore, no more magic…. No more unexplained activities.
No need, yq, to have any unexplained things coming into our universe.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is, the confusion of quantum indeterminacies with experimental uncertainties. |
jal
Hi! Confused2
I see that we are cross posting. I hope that what I'm saying does not conflict. (We'll work it out.)
C2… I’m not satisfied with the current explanations that I have found on the web which tries to explain “What is a Wave”. I read the New particle structure at http://www.non-newtonianphysics.com/particle1.htm. Reading farther into his theory, I do not get any explanation for the “gel”. However, the explanation of a possible structure of the photon was interesting. (I can’t pass judgment). It should be able to fit into what I'm about to propose. Perhaps we should examine a new way of looking at the problem.
Here is an outline of a possible new way.
There are many ways that I could explain the following diagrams. I’ll start with the following. It’s a new approach to “NEW PHYSICS”. We must first of all deal with the concept of expanding spacetime.
Since the speed of light is constant and has been measure at 300,000 km/sec, the first/top sphere/spacetime unit, is assume to be 300,000 km. This would mean that a photon would not be able to leave our universe or a spacetime unit of our universe. It would not have time to go anywhere else.
When the universe or spacetime unit, was smaller (remember… expanding universe), you can see that a photon, (don’t quibble on the word), if it had a path to follow, could go visiting other universes or (? Go into the unknown), before coming back and going to its destination in our universe. However, if the photon stayed in our universe then the observer would conclude that a photon was traveling faster than 300,000 km/sec (when the universe was smaller.) Somehow, I don’t think that this reasoning is correct with the observations but that is what the speed of light is telling us. Of course you could use a magic argument and say that the photon traveled more than once around the universe/spacetime unit.
http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/expandinguniverse.gif
In the second diagram, the present (old) light cone, only allows a photon to travel in our universe of 3d. This gives us magic and unexplained activities. The old light cone does not extend into the quantum world. Even though relativity is used in the calculations of particles. It is only a mathematical projection that limits all activities within the observed universe.
In the expanded (new) light cone, allowances are made to include traveling to a 4d, (to take care of gravity), or traveling to 12d, (to take care of Membranes). (I like an image that keeps everything inside our universe.)
Just like traveling at slow speeds, we do not need to consider GR and SR, we do not need all the dimensions to explain all or every unexplained activities that we presently observe in the lab.
However, at the quantum level, it is necessary to have a packing of the 12d in order to obtain connectivity and to be able to transfer information from one dimension to another dimension. We only need to use the dimensions that are necessary to explain what is going on in the experiments. For this to happen, the size of a spacetime unit must be smaller than the speed of light (Refer to the posted images.) and bigger than a photon.
To make things work, in my presentations, I proposed a size. “Particles expanded to approx. 10^-20 and a spacetime unit expanded to approx. 10^-18.” As a result, everything can stay within the new light cone and within our universe.
Therefore, no more magic…. No more unexplained activities.
No need, yq, to have any unexplained things coming into our universe. (Hope I stayed within the lines, not so good with crayons!)
This way things can go out of “sight” and can come back into “sight” without leaving our universe.
And Good Elf, you will have a mechanism and structure for your 11 dimensions. Everything is happening in our universe and they can be explained by the structure and by the connectivity.
The “math kids” should be able to convert “dimensions” to “structure” and be able to come up with a workable size for the “structure” that will get rid of the magic.
C2…. Maybe a new approach can yield an answer to what is a wave.
Maybe we could stop using the word “other dimensions” to hide unexplained observations and just use “structure”. It would force people to come up with explanations?
I think that this approach would have met the approval of Einstein. This is probably in line with Einstein’s thinking.
http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/newlightcone.gif
In all of my seeking, I have never seen a published paper that considered expanding the light cone to include their concepts of more dimensions. Nor, have I seen any references to an expanded light cone in any of the proposed theories on the web. The papers that I have read and could understand deal with the “old” light cone. Some, could have but I couldn’t understand. For example see: Workshop on Light-Cone QCD and Nonperturbative Hadron Physics 2005
As a sample, read the first paper on the use of instanton by Ariel_Zhitnitsky.pdf
or the last one by adam_szczepaniak.pdf
The implications of a new light cone that incorporates a “structure” needs to be examined to see how many of the unexplained experiments will yield their secrets and shed their magic.
Later, I’ll bring in two more points on the light cone which will affect the wave, and one on relativity. After, I will explain how gravity (one extra dimension) could be addressed in the “structure”.
I say, …. “Let the “math kids” have fun.” Let’s explore this approach to “THE NEW PHYSICS” before moving on to the energy wave itself.
Sorry. This post has been way too long.
Now I got to go and read what you said and look up your links.
jal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hello every one!
So we have done the first test on the balloon.
1. We got a better understanding of the light cone and concluded that it must be modified to include the seen and unseen structures of spacetime.
2. The test demonstrated that a unit of spacetime must have a specific size to allows enough time for a photon to do what it is suppose to do at 300,000 km/sec. No matter which path it uses in the structure. (seen or unseen)
3. If the structure of spacetime is too small then the starting point and the end point of a photon would reside outside of the structure of spacetime.
4. Until the structure (seen and unseen) of spacetime has been mapped out, which would determine the possible flow of information, we must leave open the possibility that the shortest distance between two points could be in the unseen structure. This would not violate the speed of light.
Are there any other observations that I forgot or did not notice?
Unfortunately, we are a long way of being able to experimentally determine if spacetime has a structure. Therefore, we will have to resign ourselves to continue using the tools that work and continue with the mysteries of double slit and Casmir. That would also include the point raised by yq …. vacuum energy.
There are enough speculations on the web. I do not need to add another that cannot be experimentally verified.
My knowledge is not sufficient to give any insight into what would happen to a complex wave. I was hoping to find out from someone else.
Therefore, without inputs, there is no need for everyone to listen to my speculations. I cannot learn if I’m talking.
Yq…. So, if you don’t mind… there is no need to go on with my balloon.
C2…. Your point about particle in a box. I would have wanted to know what would happen if the box was always expanding? Would the wave becomes chaotic and the nodes unstable? What would happen in an expanding universe if the structure of spacetime was composed of waves? Also, how does the expansion affect relativity calculations? You could answer in your new thread. I’m reading it and learning.
jal
Comments on these presentations are appreciated in the discussion threads.
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
and
Yin_yang of spacetime and matter
ps Some of the necessary math for packing has already been done at Asymptotic behavior of discrete holomorphic
Hello!
We can "see" because EMF signals are received ONLY at right angle. By rotating, we can deduct that the signals are arriving from a packed configuration.
See the simple image. THE WAVE IS IN THE CENTER.
To decode the EMF signal we need to use
Degeneracy
We may use an extension of our simple system to illustrate another important quantum mechanical result regarding energy levels. Suppose we allow the electron to move on the x-y plane rather than just along the x-axis. The motions along the x and y directions will be independent of one another and the total energy of the system will be given by the sum of the energy quantum for the motion along the x-axis plus the energy quantum for motion along the y-axis. Two quantum numbers will now be necessary, one to indicate the amount of energy along each coordinate.
The degeneracy of an energy level is equal to the number of distinct probability distribution for the system, all of which belong to this same energy level.
However, it must be stressed that a wave function itself has no physical reality. All physical properties are determined by the product of the wave function with itself.
When two or more of the lengths are the same (e.g. Lx = Ly), there are multiple wavefunctions corresponding to the same total energy. For example the wavefunction with nx = 2, ny = 1 has the same energy as the wavefunction with nx = 1, ny = 2. This situation is called degeneracy and for the case where exactly two degenerate wavefunctions have the same energy that energy level is said to be doubly degenerate. Degeneracy results from symmetry in the system. For the above case two of the lengths are equal so the system is symmetric with respect to a 90° rotation.
To compare/understand those signal we need to use GR and SR.
We are left with the problem of trying to understand how can we "see" gravity.
How can we interpret inertia?
How can we interpreter mass?
We want to find out what simple wave structure could be making a complex wave structure.
I could be referring to it as the particle, mass, energy, or wave.
It would be the same, since QM solves by using a complex wave approach. (A wave function is a map of probability )
Referring to the diagram,
Therefore, I am showing in the X plane, that there are 4 inputs, to the complex wave structure. F (forward), B (back), R (right), L (left).
At this point, we don’t know if the 4 inputs are the same.
Same thing if we change to Y plane with a 90 degree turn.
Again, the same thing if we make a 90 degree turn to the Z plane.
Therefore, we can say that there are 3 X 4 = 12 different possible combinations of inputs that could be making the complex wave structure. (Or, if you prefer the particle, the mass, or the energy).
Mathematically, degeneracy is being used to make all the inputs the same.
If we could do experimental measurements…. Would the inputs be the same? Maybe some experiments have been done and they have been identified by a name.
Help me! I’m struggling!
Let’s use the mass of the particles. We could divide those mass by 12 and find how much is being contributed from each of the inputs
We might find:
1) there is a simple wave/quantity coming from one input,
2) there is a complex amount from another input that would require explanation and simplification
3) and maybe some of the positions are not contributing an input
4) We might find out that all of the inputs have the same vibration and that we can use degeneracy.
Let’s assume that the inputs are being generated by a vibrating string.
The more vibration that the string makes, the larger the string have to be or they won’t be detectable in 2007.
By using one harmonic (vibration) the size could be detected in 2007. If we go to 4 harmonic then the possibility exist that we should have detected it already. Then, again, maybe the strings are not visible to EMF.
I want to leave room for my approach, packing, this would mean 12 X 4 = 48 possible combinations of inputs that could be making the complex wave structure.
There are 4 different distances from 12 different input source. The distance is equivalent as changing the input vibration. Just like changing the length of the guitar string.
Therefore, you would not be able to use degeneracy.
C2 gave me some rope and nobody has hung me from it yet. I should point out that I was waiting for someone to indicate that I was not considering the imaginary side of the wave function.
However, I did, I should remove the temptation and included it now …. Before C2 comes back to hangs me.
I still need help.
The imaginary side of the wave function is considered by rotating the X plane by 180 degrees. This would be equivalent to putting it on its back. From that –X position you would rotate by 90 degrees to the -Y plane then 90 degrees to the -Z plane.
Therefore, this would double possible options of combining the simple waves to 24.
In my approach that would double the options to 96.
I did not put the complex wave at the center (0) of x, y, z since it might mask the possibility of having to use relativity to consider the effects of the different distances that the simple waves need to travel. ( ie. W, Z, have mass)
The following quantum effect can be assumed/used for the string vibrations.
questions/light_dual.
To compare/understand those signal we need to use GR and SR.
We are left with the problem of trying to understand how can we "see" gravity.
How can we interpret inertia?
How can we interpreter mass?
We want to find out what simple wave structure could be making a complex wave structure.
I could be referring to it as the particle, mass, energy, or wave.
It would be the same, since QM solves by using a complex wave approach. (A wave function is a map of probability )
Referring to the diagram,
Therefore, I am showing in the X plane, that there are 4 inputs, to the complex wave structure. F (forward), B (back), R (right), L (left).
At this point, we don’t know if the 4 inputs are the same.
Same thing if we change to Y plane with a 90 degree turn.
Again, the same thing if we make a 90 degree turn to the Z plane.
Therefore, we can say that there are 3 X 4 = 12 different possible combinations of inputs that could be making the complex wave structure. (Or, if you prefer the particle, the mass, or the energy).
Mathematically, degeneracy is being used to make all the inputs the same.
If we could do experimental measurements…. Would the inputs be the same? Maybe some experiments have been done and they have been identified by a name.
Help me! I’m struggling!
Let’s use the mass of the particles. We could divide those mass by 12 and find how much is being contributed from each of the inputs
We might find:
1) there is a simple wave/quantity coming from one input,
2) there is a complex amount from another input that would require explanation and simplification
3) and maybe some of the positions are not contributing an input
4) We might find out that all of the inputs have the same vibration and that we can use degeneracy.
Let’s assume that the inputs are being generated by a vibrating string.
The more vibration that the string makes, the larger the string have to be or they won’t be detectable in 2007.
By using one harmonic (vibration) the size could be detected in 2007. If we go to 4 harmonic then the possibility exist that we should have detected it already. Then, again, maybe the strings are not visible to EMF.
I want to leave room for my approach, packing, this would mean 12 X 4 = 48 possible combinations of inputs that could be making the complex wave structure.
There are 4 different distances from 12 different input source. The distance is equivalent as changing the input vibration. Just like changing the length of the guitar string.
Therefore, you would not be able to use degeneracy.
C2 gave me some rope and nobody has hung me from it yet. I should point out that I was waiting for someone to indicate that I was not considering the imaginary side of the wave function.
However, I did, I should remove the temptation and included it now …. Before C2 comes back to hangs me.
I still need help.
The imaginary side of the wave function is considered by rotating the X plane by 180 degrees. This would be equivalent to putting it on its back. From that –X position you would rotate by 90 degrees to the -Y plane then 90 degrees to the -Z plane.
Therefore, this would double possible options of combining the simple waves to 24.
In my approach that would double the options to 96.
I did not put the complex wave at the center (0) of x, y, z since it might mask the possibility of having to use relativity to consider the effects of the different distances that the simple waves need to travel. ( ie. W, Z, have mass)
The following quantum effect can be assumed/used for the string vibrations.
questions/light_dual.
Young made a clear case by demonstrating that light interferes with itself. If you have two sources that are in synch (coherent), when the distance from the sources to the observation point differ by an integer number of wavelengths, then you will have a maximum, because the light from both sources is pointing in the same direction there (constructive interference). If, however, they differ by some integer number of wavelengths plus another half you will have a minimum, no light at the observation point (destructive interference).
That is another good explanation/reason for selection the string vibration to be one, two, or four.
Now to add a little something else to this conversation.
If we were to use Time as another dimension then we would need to have the plane rotate to another set of coordinates. If we only consider positive time then 4 planes X 4 input = 16 combinations vs 12 combinations. If we considered negative time then we would double to 32 combinations vs 24.
Of course my math logic could be wrong.
Heim just went 4^3 = 64 combinations.
He then said that 28 always remained empty which meant that only 36 combinations would produce an input to the complex wave. Further more, he said that there was an additional 12 inputs that were vanishing.
This remainder, 24, is the same as my combinations without considering time as another possible rotation.
Therefore, I conclude that Heim could have started his approach the same way that I did. He probably did not use degeneracy.
This would indicate to me that a rotation in the time plane is not needed. It could also mean that Heim was trying to conceal how he did derive the mass of the particles.
protosimplex summary
Good Day All!
Good Elf always seem to supply good links for me. At less I think that there is information in them that can be applied to what I have been saying.
I cannot agree with everything that was said in the following but there is a lot there that, as usual, has been thought of before I got to it.
Propagating Topological Singularities in the lightcone: the Photon
R. M. Kiehn, Professor Emeritus
Physics Department, University of Houston
I am only quoting some of the applicable highlights.
At times like this...I wish that I was "a math kid"
Jal
Comment would be appreciated at
My presentations
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
Yin_Yang of spacetime
Inverse Square Law
We can "see" because EMF signals are received ONLY at right angle. By rotating, we can deduct that the signals are arriving from a packed configuration.
See the simple image. THE WAVE IS IN THE CENTER.
To decode the EMF signal we need to use
QUOTE
Degeneracy
We may use an extension of our simple system to illustrate another important quantum mechanical result regarding energy levels. Suppose we allow the electron to move on the x-y plane rather than just along the x-axis. The motions along the x and y directions will be independent of one another and the total energy of the system will be given by the sum of the energy quantum for the motion along the x-axis plus the energy quantum for motion along the y-axis. Two quantum numbers will now be necessary, one to indicate the amount of energy along each coordinate.
The degeneracy of an energy level is equal to the number of distinct probability distribution for the system, all of which belong to this same energy level.
However, it must be stressed that a wave function itself has no physical reality. All physical properties are determined by the product of the wave function with itself.
When two or more of the lengths are the same (e.g. Lx = Ly), there are multiple wavefunctions corresponding to the same total energy. For example the wavefunction with nx = 2, ny = 1 has the same energy as the wavefunction with nx = 1, ny = 2. This situation is called degeneracy and for the case where exactly two degenerate wavefunctions have the same energy that energy level is said to be doubly degenerate. Degeneracy results from symmetry in the system. For the above case two of the lengths are equal so the system is symmetric with respect to a 90° rotation.
To compare/understand those signal we need to use GR and SR.
We are left with the problem of trying to understand how can we "see" gravity.
How can we interpret inertia?
How can we interpreter mass?
We want to find out what simple wave structure could be making a complex wave structure.
I could be referring to it as the particle, mass, energy, or wave.
It would be the same, since QM solves by using a complex wave approach. (A wave function is a map of probability )
Referring to the diagram,
Therefore, I am showing in the X plane, that there are 4 inputs, to the complex wave structure. F (forward), B (back), R (right), L (left).
At this point, we don’t know if the 4 inputs are the same.
Same thing if we change to Y plane with a 90 degree turn.
Again, the same thing if we make a 90 degree turn to the Z plane.
Therefore, we can say that there are 3 X 4 = 12 different possible combinations of inputs that could be making the complex wave structure. (Or, if you prefer the particle, the mass, or the energy).
Mathematically, degeneracy is being used to make all the inputs the same.
If we could do experimental measurements…. Would the inputs be the same? Maybe some experiments have been done and they have been identified by a name.
Help me! I’m struggling!
Let’s use the mass of the particles. We could divide those mass by 12 and find how much is being contributed from each of the inputs
We might find:
1) there is a simple wave/quantity coming from one input,
2) there is a complex amount from another input that would require explanation and simplification
3) and maybe some of the positions are not contributing an input
4) We might find out that all of the inputs have the same vibration and that we can use degeneracy.
Let’s assume that the inputs are being generated by a vibrating string.
The more vibration that the string makes, the larger the string have to be or they won’t be detectable in 2007.
By using one harmonic (vibration) the size could be detected in 2007. If we go to 4 harmonic then the possibility exist that we should have detected it already. Then, again, maybe the strings are not visible to EMF.
I want to leave room for my approach, packing, this would mean 12 X 4 = 48 possible combinations of inputs that could be making the complex wave structure.
There are 4 different distances from 12 different input source. The distance is equivalent as changing the input vibration. Just like changing the length of the guitar string.
Therefore, you would not be able to use degeneracy.
C2 gave me some rope and nobody has hung me from it yet. I should point out that I was waiting for someone to indicate that I was not considering the imaginary side of the wave function.
However, I did, I should remove the temptation and included it now …. Before C2 comes back to hangs me.
I still need help.
The imaginary side of the wave function is considered by rotating the X plane by 180 degrees. This would be equivalent to putting it on its back. From that –X position you would rotate by 90 degrees to the -Y plane then 90 degrees to the -Z plane.
Therefore, this would double possible options of combining the simple waves to 24.
In my approach that would double the options to 96.
I did not put the complex wave at the center (0) of x, y, z since it might mask the possibility of having to use relativity to consider the effects of the different distances that the simple waves need to travel. ( ie. W, Z, have mass)
The following quantum effect can be assumed/used for the string vibrations.
questions/light_dual.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Degeneracy We may use an extension of our simple system to illustrate another important quantum mechanical result regarding energy levels. Suppose we allow the electron to move on the x-y plane rather than just along the x-axis. The motions along the x and y directions will be independent of one another and the total energy of the system will be given by the sum of the energy quantum for the motion along the x-axis plus the energy quantum for motion along the y-axis. Two quantum numbers will now be necessary, one to indicate the amount of energy along each coordinate. The degeneracy of an energy level is equal to the number of distinct probability distribution for the system, all of which belong to this same energy level. However, it must be stressed that a wave function itself has no physical reality. All physical properties are determined by the product of the wave function with itself. When two or more of the lengths are the same (e.g. Lx = Ly), there are multiple wavefunctions corresponding to the same total energy. For example the wavefunction with nx = 2, ny = 1 has the same energy as the wavefunction with nx = 1, ny = 2. This situation is called degeneracy and for the case where exactly two degenerate wavefunctions have the same energy that energy level is said to be doubly degenerate. Degeneracy results from symmetry in the system. For the above case two of the lengths are equal so the system is symmetric with respect to a 90° rotation. |
To compare/understand those signal we need to use GR and SR.
We are left with the problem of trying to understand how can we "see" gravity.
How can we interpret inertia?
How can we interpreter mass?
We want to find out what simple wave structure could be making a complex wave structure.
I could be referring to it as the particle, mass, energy, or wave.
It would be the same, since QM solves by using a complex wave approach. (A wave function is a map of probability )
Referring to the diagram,
Therefore, I am showing in the X plane, that there are 4 inputs, to the complex wave structure. F (forward), B (back), R (right), L (left).
At this point, we don’t know if the 4 inputs are the same.
Same thing if we change to Y plane with a 90 degree turn.
Again, the same thing if we make a 90 degree turn to the Z plane.
Therefore, we can say that there are 3 X 4 = 12 different possible combinations of inputs that could be making the complex wave structure. (Or, if you prefer the particle, the mass, or the energy).
Mathematically, degeneracy is being used to make all the inputs the same.
If we could do experimental measurements…. Would the inputs be the same? Maybe some experiments have been done and they have been identified by a name.
Help me! I’m struggling!
Let’s use the mass of the particles. We could divide those mass by 12 and find how much is being contributed from each of the inputs
We might find:
1) there is a simple wave/quantity coming from one input,
2) there is a complex amount from another input that would require explanation and simplification
3) and maybe some of the positions are not contributing an input
4) We might find out that all of the inputs have the same vibration and that we can use degeneracy.
Let’s assume that the inputs are being generated by a vibrating string.
The more vibration that the string makes, the larger the string have to be or they won’t be detectable in 2007.
By using one harmonic (vibration) the size could be detected in 2007. If we go to 4 harmonic then the possibility exist that we should have detected it already. Then, again, maybe the strings are not visible to EMF.
I want to leave room for my approach, packing, this would mean 12 X 4 = 48 possible combinations of inputs that could be making the complex wave structure.
There are 4 different distances from 12 different input source. The distance is equivalent as changing the input vibration. Just like changing the length of the guitar string.
Therefore, you would not be able to use degeneracy.
C2 gave me some rope and nobody has hung me from it yet. I should point out that I was waiting for someone to indicate that I was not considering the imaginary side of the wave function.
However, I did, I should remove the temptation and included it now …. Before C2 comes back to hangs me.
I still need help.
The imaginary side of the wave function is considered by rotating the X plane by 180 degrees. This would be equivalent to putting it on its back. From that –X position you would rotate by 90 degrees to the -Y plane then 90 degrees to the -Z plane.
Therefore, this would double possible options of combining the simple waves to 24.
In my approach that would double the options to 96.
I did not put the complex wave at the center (0) of x, y, z since it might mask the possibility of having to use relativity to consider the effects of the different distances that the simple waves need to travel. ( ie. W, Z, have mass)
The following quantum effect can be assumed/used for the string vibrations.
questions/light_dual.
Young made a clear case by demonstrating that light interferes with itself. If you have two sources that are in synch (coherent), when the distance from the sources to the observation point differ by an integer number of wavelengths, then you will have a maximum, because the light from both sources is pointing in the same direction there (constructive interference). If, however, they differ by some integer number of wavelengths plus another half you will have a minimum, no light at the observation point (destructive interference).
That is another good explanation/reason for selection the string vibration to be one, two, or four.
Now to add a little something else to this conversation.
If we were to use Time as another dimension then we would need to have the plane rotate to another set of coordinates. If we only consider positive time then 4 planes X 4 input = 16 combinations vs 12 combinations. If we considered negative time then we would double to 32 combinations vs 24.
Of course my math logic could be wrong.
Heim just went 4^3 = 64 combinations.
He then said that 28 always remained empty which meant that only 36 combinations would produce an input to the complex wave. Further more, he said that there was an additional 12 inputs that were vanishing.
This remainder, 24, is the same as my combinations without considering time as another possible rotation.
Therefore, I conclude that Heim could have started his approach the same way that I did. He probably did not use degeneracy.
This would indicate to me that a rotation in the time plane is not needed. It could also mean that Heim was trying to conceal how he did derive the mass of the particles.
protosimplex summary
Good Day All!
Good Elf always seem to supply good links for me. At less I think that there is information in them that can be applied to what I have been saying.
I cannot agree with everything that was said in the following but there is a lot there that, as usual, has been thought of before I got to it.
Propagating Topological Singularities in the lightcone: the Photon
R. M. Kiehn, Professor Emeritus
Physics Department, University of Houston
I am only quoting some of the applicable highlights.
QUOTE
For those symmetry situations where the singular solutions are not 4 fold degenerate, then the propagation speeds of field discontinuties can be different for different polarizations and for different directions of propagation; i.e., the speed of light need not be the same in the outbound and inbound directions, say, in a rotating expanding plasma. Such results have been demonstrated in experiments with dual polarized ring lasers, and have been
demonstrated theoretically by exact singular solutions (Fresnel Kummer surfaces) to Maxwell’s equations.11
If more than 4 independent variables (geometric dimensions) are used, the new "coordinates" add new PDE’s that couple "new" field variables to the E and B field variables of the first four (Maxwell) equations, but do not alter the format of the first four PDE’s - the Maxwell Faraday equations - in any way!
3. The concept of Spinor singular solutions to Maxwell’s equations is a topological idea that does not depend upon microphysical scales. The impact of quantum mechanics, starting with Planck’s concept of the "quantized" oscillator energy enabling the thermodynamic deduction of the blackbody radiation distribution law, the Einstein model for explaining the photoelectric effect, the Bohr atom description of the emission of light carrying off integer units of angular momentum and rational amounts of energy, the Compton analysis of the relativisitic particle-like distribution peaks in the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by electrons, the deBroglie conjecture that energy and momentum were related to a "wave" analysis involving Planck’s constant, frequency and reciprocal wavelength, and Dirac’s description of the relativistic hydrogen atom, all have led to the idea that the "bundle" of energy and momentum now known as the Photon has a deep relationship to microphysics, and appears to be associated with what Cartan called spinors. Yet Spinors are not dependent upon scales, and should have physical importance in the macroscopic as well as the microscopic domain. The philosophical problem is that these bundles of energy and momentum, these photons, can have extent and coherent interactions that are many orders of magnitude greater than the dimensions of the excited atoms and molecules, from which they
supposedly originate. A fundamental question is how do the quantal properties of the Photon emerge from a topological perspective of electromagnetism? The bottom line is the result that propagating discontinuities as topological defects are independent from scale.
Maximal surfaces are 2D surfaces of zero mean curvatures that are generated by immersive maps from a two dimension space into a 3 dimensional space with a Lorentz metric.3
demonstrated theoretically by exact singular solutions (Fresnel Kummer surfaces) to Maxwell’s equations.11
If more than 4 independent variables (geometric dimensions) are used, the new "coordinates" add new PDE’s that couple "new" field variables to the E and B field variables of the first four (Maxwell) equations, but do not alter the format of the first four PDE’s - the Maxwell Faraday equations - in any way!
3. The concept of Spinor singular solutions to Maxwell’s equations is a topological idea that does not depend upon microphysical scales. The impact of quantum mechanics, starting with Planck’s concept of the "quantized" oscillator energy enabling the thermodynamic deduction of the blackbody radiation distribution law, the Einstein model for explaining the photoelectric effect, the Bohr atom description of the emission of light carrying off integer units of angular momentum and rational amounts of energy, the Compton analysis of the relativisitic particle-like distribution peaks in the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by electrons, the deBroglie conjecture that energy and momentum were related to a "wave" analysis involving Planck’s constant, frequency and reciprocal wavelength, and Dirac’s description of the relativistic hydrogen atom, all have led to the idea that the "bundle" of energy and momentum now known as the Photon has a deep relationship to microphysics, and appears to be associated with what Cartan called spinors. Yet Spinors are not dependent upon scales, and should have physical importance in the macroscopic as well as the microscopic domain. The philosophical problem is that these bundles of energy and momentum, these photons, can have extent and coherent interactions that are many orders of magnitude greater than the dimensions of the excited atoms and molecules, from which they
supposedly originate. A fundamental question is how do the quantal properties of the Photon emerge from a topological perspective of electromagnetism? The bottom line is the result that propagating discontinuities as topological defects are independent from scale.
Maximal surfaces are 2D surfaces of zero mean curvatures that are generated by immersive maps from a two dimension space into a 3 dimensional space with a Lorentz metric.3
At times like this...I wish that I was "a math kid"
Jal
Comment would be appreciated at
My presentations
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
Yin_Yang of spacetime
Inverse Square Law
Hi! Yquantum! & all!
Here is the result of all my studying. The first post will indicates the problems and the second post will propose a solution.
Problems with Quantum Box and Model Building
The solution and the cause of the problem….E=hf
1) Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
2) Quantum_mechanics
3) The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
We are sitting at a table.
On your side of the table you have a cube made up of small Planck size boxes (10^-33) or other dimensions. All of your boxes have something in them. On my side of the table I have a cube made up of boxes that contain the known quantum world (10^11). There are 10^ 80 of those boxes containing something but most of them are empty.
The table top is free of any objects that would interfere with what we are about to do.
1. As long as my boxes are together/touching, I can communicate anything from one box to another box without anything interrupting or scrambling the messages.
2. You want to put your boxes with my blue boxes so that what is in your boxes can communicate their content/information to every one of my boxes and you want all of my boxes to communicate with your boxes.
3. In order to have symmetry, it will be necessary that all of your boxes are surrounded by my boxes, which of course means that my boxes will be surrounded by your boxes.
Simple. Go ahead and do it.
4. Oppsss! All of your boxes contain huge amount of gravity. They are all stuck together and making a black hole. Therefore, what kind of force/energy will you use to separate a box from the cube?
5. Oppss! Since all your boxes have been radiating gravity for 14 B. years, haven’t you asked yourself where the reservoir happens to be? You could reduce the amount of energy by 6X because each of my boxes that have a particle are surrounded by 6 of your boxes. How did you manage to break the symmetry and have only those boxes transmit gravity to my boxes that contain only particles? What about all of my other empty boxes? WHAT! YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU WERE SUPPLYING 6X TOO MUCH ENERGY? YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU HAD TO CUT YOUR ENERGY OUTPUT BY 6X? CAN YOU FIX YOUR MODEL?
Do you have any other energy coming from the Planck size boxes? ( or curled up dimensions) The ones that are depending on having an existing reservoir of energy. The ones that obey 1/r^2 . Explain that too? Don’t forget virtual particles.
6. Oppss! All your boxes have a higher dimension that contain a complexity of interacting energy waves. How are you going to separate a box from the cube without distorting the complex interactions going on in the cube?
7. Now that you have answered/solved those problems, how are you going to get your boxes across the empty desert (the table top). I said that it was empty. However, if you want to litter the table to with boxes containing SS particles, then you will need to explain how you negotiate your boxes to my boxes/cube without encountering any interference from those new boxes which do not exist in the known quantum world (10^11).
8. Let’s say that you have answered (mathematically of course) those questions,
next, it will be necessary to explain how you have enhance and not confused or scrabbled my ability to communicate from one box to another box. It appears to me that you have forced all communication through your boxes. AND PLEASE REMEMBER NO COMMUNICATION OR MOVEMENT CAN EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
Must read.
The following is a representative of the 6X error that all models suffer.
The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
June 5, 2005 SLAC-PUB-7769
SU-ITP-98/13
Nima Arkani–Hamed∗, Savas Dimopoulos∗∗ and Gia Dvali†
∗ SLAC, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309, USA
∗∗ Physics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
† ICTP, Trieste, 34100, Italy
We propose a new framework for solving the hierarchy problem which does not rely on either supersymmetry or technicolor. In this framework, the gravitational and gauge interactions become united at the weak scale, which we take as the only fundamental short distance scale in nature. The observed weakness of gravity on distances gsim 1 mm is due to the existence of n ≥ 2 new compact spatial dimensions large compared to the weak scale. The Planck scale MPl ∼ GN-1/2 is not a fundamental scale; its enormity is simply a consequence of the large size of the new dimensions. While gravitons can freely propagate in the new dimensions, at sub-weak energies the Standard Model (SM) fields must be localized to a 4-dimensional manifold of weak scale "thickness" in the extra dimensions. This picture leads to a number of striking signals for accelerator and laboratory experiments. For the case of n=2 new dimensions, planned sub-millimeter measurements of gravity may observe the transition from 1/r2 → 1/r4 Newtonian gravitation. For any number of new dimensions, the LHC and NLC could observe strong quantum gravitational interactions. Furthermore, SM particles can be kicked off our 4 dimensional manifold into the new dimensions, carrying away energy, and leading to an abrupt decrease in events with high transverse momentum pT gsim TeV. For certain compact manifolds, such particles will keep circling in the extra dimensions, periodically returning, colliding with and depositing energy to our four dimensional vacuum with frequencies of ∼ 1012 Hz or larger. As a concrete illustration, we construct a model with SM fields localised on the 4-dimensional throat of a vortex in 6 dimensions, with a Pati-Salam gauge symmetry SU(4) × SU(2) × SU(2) in the bulk.
This is induced by not considering Packing. Secondly, they refer to higher dimensions when they should be referring to an imbedded 2 dimension.
Although I have not done anywhere as good a presentation, what I have presented has more merit and is simpler. I can be excused for my presentation...... I don’t have the background of the “math kids” …. I don't have a model.... all that I have is an applicable concept with indications that it could be turned into a working model.
I have found a lot of published material that has a lot less support than my presentation.
I have not found anything that contradicts my presentation.
The next post will be simple Jal’s solution.
As usual, use the discussion threads
jal
Here is the result of all my studying. The first post will indicates the problems and the second post will propose a solution.
Problems with Quantum Box and Model Building
The solution and the cause of the problem….E=hf
1) Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
2) Quantum_mechanics
3) The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
We are sitting at a table.
On your side of the table you have a cube made up of small Planck size boxes (10^-33) or other dimensions. All of your boxes have something in them. On my side of the table I have a cube made up of boxes that contain the known quantum world (10^11). There are 10^ 80 of those boxes containing something but most of them are empty.
The table top is free of any objects that would interfere with what we are about to do.
1. As long as my boxes are together/touching, I can communicate anything from one box to another box without anything interrupting or scrambling the messages.
2. You want to put your boxes with my blue boxes so that what is in your boxes can communicate their content/information to every one of my boxes and you want all of my boxes to communicate with your boxes.
3. In order to have symmetry, it will be necessary that all of your boxes are surrounded by my boxes, which of course means that my boxes will be surrounded by your boxes.
Simple. Go ahead and do it.
4. Oppsss! All of your boxes contain huge amount of gravity. They are all stuck together and making a black hole. Therefore, what kind of force/energy will you use to separate a box from the cube?
5. Oppss! Since all your boxes have been radiating gravity for 14 B. years, haven’t you asked yourself where the reservoir happens to be? You could reduce the amount of energy by 6X because each of my boxes that have a particle are surrounded by 6 of your boxes. How did you manage to break the symmetry and have only those boxes transmit gravity to my boxes that contain only particles? What about all of my other empty boxes? WHAT! YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU WERE SUPPLYING 6X TOO MUCH ENERGY? YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU HAD TO CUT YOUR ENERGY OUTPUT BY 6X? CAN YOU FIX YOUR MODEL?
Do you have any other energy coming from the Planck size boxes? ( or curled up dimensions) The ones that are depending on having an existing reservoir of energy. The ones that obey 1/r^2 . Explain that too? Don’t forget virtual particles.
6. Oppss! All your boxes have a higher dimension that contain a complexity of interacting energy waves. How are you going to separate a box from the cube without distorting the complex interactions going on in the cube?
7. Now that you have answered/solved those problems, how are you going to get your boxes across the empty desert (the table top). I said that it was empty. However, if you want to litter the table to with boxes containing SS particles, then you will need to explain how you negotiate your boxes to my boxes/cube without encountering any interference from those new boxes which do not exist in the known quantum world (10^11).
8. Let’s say that you have answered (mathematically of course) those questions,
next, it will be necessary to explain how you have enhance and not confused or scrabbled my ability to communicate from one box to another box. It appears to me that you have forced all communication through your boxes. AND PLEASE REMEMBER NO COMMUNICATION OR MOVEMENT CAN EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
Must read.
The following is a representative of the 6X error that all models suffer.
The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
June 5, 2005 SLAC-PUB-7769
SU-ITP-98/13
Nima Arkani–Hamed∗, Savas Dimopoulos∗∗ and Gia Dvali†
∗ SLAC, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309, USA
∗∗ Physics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
† ICTP, Trieste, 34100, Italy
QUOTE
We propose a new framework for solving the hierarchy problem which does not rely on either supersymmetry or technicolor. In this framework, the gravitational and gauge interactions become united at the weak scale, which we take as the only fundamental short distance scale in nature. The observed weakness of gravity on distances gsim 1 mm is due to the existence of n ≥ 2 new compact spatial dimensions large compared to the weak scale. The Planck scale MPl ∼ GN-1/2 is not a fundamental scale; its enormity is simply a consequence of the large size of the new dimensions. While gravitons can freely propagate in the new dimensions, at sub-weak energies the Standard Model (SM) fields must be localized to a 4-dimensional manifold of weak scale "thickness" in the extra dimensions. This picture leads to a number of striking signals for accelerator and laboratory experiments. For the case of n=2 new dimensions, planned sub-millimeter measurements of gravity may observe the transition from 1/r2 → 1/r4 Newtonian gravitation. For any number of new dimensions, the LHC and NLC could observe strong quantum gravitational interactions. Furthermore, SM particles can be kicked off our 4 dimensional manifold into the new dimensions, carrying away energy, and leading to an abrupt decrease in events with high transverse momentum pT gsim TeV. For certain compact manifolds, such particles will keep circling in the extra dimensions, periodically returning, colliding with and depositing energy to our four dimensional vacuum with frequencies of ∼ 1012 Hz or larger. As a concrete illustration, we construct a model with SM fields localised on the 4-dimensional throat of a vortex in 6 dimensions, with a Pati-Salam gauge symmetry SU(4) × SU(2) × SU(2) in the bulk.
This is induced by not considering Packing. Secondly, they refer to higher dimensions when they should be referring to an imbedded 2 dimension.
Although I have not done anywhere as good a presentation, what I have presented has more merit and is simpler. I can be excused for my presentation...... I don’t have the background of the “math kids” …. I don't have a model.... all that I have is an applicable concept with indications that it could be turned into a working model.
I have found a lot of published material that has a lot less support than my presentation.
I have not found anything that contradicts my presentation.
The next post will be simple Jal’s solution.
As usual, use the discussion threads
jal
Citation/References: (indications that I’m on the right track):
1) The hierarchy problem
The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
2) Solid sphere packing
3) A packing structure for energy (A structure for spacetime) Asymptotic behavior of discrete holomorphic maps zc and log(z)
4) Why the wave function (QM) works Degeneracy
5) An example when not using degeneracy Propagating Topological Singularities in the lightcone: the Photon
6) Finding particle mass in 12d protosimplex summary
7)Solving the hierarchy problem Randall-Sundrum theory
8) Why a new approach Grand Unification as a Bridge Between String Theory and Phenomenology
----------------------------------------------------------
JAL’S MODELING SOLUTION – WHERE TO PUT THE STRINGS!
After much reflection, you will realize that there is only one possible solution. It is simple. It avoids further problems, such as those mentioned. The universe is made up/filled up with (let’s be brave…lets called them strings) that are 10^-17 cm. with one harmonic. The more vibrations, the bigger the string have got to be. 1, 2 or 4 vibrations are possible for us to be able to see them in 2007.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed for the “big 4” so that we might be able to tap into it for a new source of energy. (Since The CERN laboratory in Geneva, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) won’t be familiar with my presentation, they will call it “k-k” particles or Higgs). As long as the strings are in quantum land everything should work out.
The strings are arranged as per my presentation and as per the rotation in 3d we get the 12 inputs to the complex wave. Due to the complex rotations (4 vibrating sources X 3d rotations = 12) we get the mass of the particles. Since it is required to have packing we therefore must consider that the wave can be “fabricated” from “strings” in 12 spheres. As a result, we could have 12 X 12 = 144 possible vibration combinations that could result in the configuration that would represent the particles.
These were inserted into all the boxes prior the alleged expansion. That is why we can use a complex wave function to do the calculations. The string vibrations are creating the complex waves. Models have the best chance of completing, extending and improving QM by incorporating my suggested 2D structure as the cause of the “waves”.
I expect that when all of the 12 inputs of the vibrationg strings are equally spaced from the center and equally spaced around the 12 spheres that make up the packing arrangement that we would get the spacetime structured formation. (ZPE, HIGGS). This formation would be a good reason why we would think that spacetime is nothing and that it cannot be detected.
Oh! ..Yes… The experimental proof…. In 2007 you’ll get 6X, more neutrinos, and more photons than expected.
For further inspiration, A Symmetrically Structured Spacetime-Summary of my Threads
You remember how simple was the Bohr model now look at what we got
You have seen my simple Bohr illustrations and now look at how complex it could end up looking!
Occam's Razor: He would be scandalized at the contortions being done to come up with working theories and working models.
I have tried to understand how the universe works.
I had to come up with some original thinking.
Before the WEB, I would have required years of schooling and more years to understand (which I am still continuing to do) and gather all the information that I got in few short months.
It is wonderfull how things have changed.
When the results come out from the 2007 experiments, don’t forget that I might be pointing towards the “NEW PHYSICS”.
There is still a lot of work to do to make this into a working model.
If you use this material to make a model, I would like it if you called it the “4 S MODEL” (Simple Symmetrically Structured Spacetime Model)
This inspirational material is subject to author approval prior to all publications or for any kind of publication. It is also subject to royalty negotiations between the author and all users. It is subject to a statement of gratitude, (to jal, of course), for bringing the problems and the solutions to your attention.
Getting my approval and avoiding the courts could be as simple as: “Yes, However, the beers on you and I want an autographed picture.”
(note: I don’t drink. This is an expression meant to convey the desire and expectations of getting together to share some happy times.)
(The author is Jal)
ps I you like what I have presented…Don’t trust the computer make yourself a copy from A Symmetrically Structured Spacetime-Summary of my Threads
1) The hierarchy problem
The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
2) Solid sphere packing
3) A packing structure for energy (A structure for spacetime) Asymptotic behavior of discrete holomorphic maps zc and log(z)
4) Why the wave function (QM) works Degeneracy
5) An example when not using degeneracy Propagating Topological Singularities in the lightcone: the Photon
6) Finding particle mass in 12d protosimplex summary
7)Solving the hierarchy problem Randall-Sundrum theory
8) Why a new approach Grand Unification as a Bridge Between String Theory and Phenomenology
----------------------------------------------------------
JAL’S MODELING SOLUTION – WHERE TO PUT THE STRINGS!
After much reflection, you will realize that there is only one possible solution. It is simple. It avoids further problems, such as those mentioned. The universe is made up/filled up with (let’s be brave…lets called them strings) that are 10^-17 cm. with one harmonic. The more vibrations, the bigger the string have got to be. 1, 2 or 4 vibrations are possible for us to be able to see them in 2007.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed for the “big 4” so that we might be able to tap into it for a new source of energy. (Since The CERN laboratory in Geneva, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) won’t be familiar with my presentation, they will call it “k-k” particles or Higgs). As long as the strings are in quantum land everything should work out.
The strings are arranged as per my presentation and as per the rotation in 3d we get the 12 inputs to the complex wave. Due to the complex rotations (4 vibrating sources X 3d rotations = 12) we get the mass of the particles. Since it is required to have packing we therefore must consider that the wave can be “fabricated” from “strings” in 12 spheres. As a result, we could have 12 X 12 = 144 possible vibration combinations that could result in the configuration that would represent the particles.
These were inserted into all the boxes prior the alleged expansion. That is why we can use a complex wave function to do the calculations. The string vibrations are creating the complex waves. Models have the best chance of completing, extending and improving QM by incorporating my suggested 2D structure as the cause of the “waves”.
I expect that when all of the 12 inputs of the vibrationg strings are equally spaced from the center and equally spaced around the 12 spheres that make up the packing arrangement that we would get the spacetime structured formation. (ZPE, HIGGS). This formation would be a good reason why we would think that spacetime is nothing and that it cannot be detected.
Oh! ..Yes… The experimental proof…. In 2007 you’ll get 6X, more neutrinos, and more photons than expected.
For further inspiration, A Symmetrically Structured Spacetime-Summary of my Threads
You remember how simple was the Bohr model now look at what we got
You have seen my simple Bohr illustrations and now look at how complex it could end up looking!
Occam's Razor: He would be scandalized at the contortions being done to come up with working theories and working models.
I have tried to understand how the universe works.
I had to come up with some original thinking.
Before the WEB, I would have required years of schooling and more years to understand (which I am still continuing to do) and gather all the information that I got in few short months.
It is wonderfull how things have changed.
When the results come out from the 2007 experiments, don’t forget that I might be pointing towards the “NEW PHYSICS”.
There is still a lot of work to do to make this into a working model.
If you use this material to make a model, I would like it if you called it the “4 S MODEL” (Simple Symmetrically Structured Spacetime Model)
This inspirational material is subject to author approval prior to all publications or for any kind of publication. It is also subject to royalty negotiations between the author and all users. It is subject to a statement of gratitude, (to jal, of course), for bringing the problems and the solutions to your attention.
Getting my approval and avoiding the courts could be as simple as: “Yes, However, the beers on you and I want an autographed picture.”
(note: I don’t drink. This is an expression meant to convey the desire and expectations of getting together to share some happy times.)
(The author is Jal)
ps I you like what I have presented…Don’t trust the computer make yourself a copy from A Symmetrically Structured Spacetime-Summary of my Threads
Hi Confused2!
I like your trolling.... I always get more than I give.
WHAT IS Kaluza-Klein?
IT’S A SPOT.
I think that my explanation is much more interesting that the Kaluza-Klein. As an added bonus, I have included a topology of the bulk that exists all around us as the 5th dimension. The importance of knowing the topology of the bulk will become apparent in 2007.
Kaluza-Klein
Radion
Radion
Radion, not to be confused with the element radon, is a scalar field in quantum field theory in spacetimes with additional dimensions. It can be interpreted as the length or size of the fifth dimension as a function of the usual four dimensions of spacetime.
See also dilaton, Kaluza-Klein theory, Randall-Sundrum models.
As a quantum field, the radion field has localized quantum excitations (i.e. particles) which is called the radion particle. Its mass depends upon the specific model in question. There are many mechanisms to give masses to the radion (which can be stated equivalently as stabilizing the radius of the extra dimension).
I like your trolling.... I always get more than I give.
WHAT IS Kaluza-Klein?
IT’S A SPOT. I think that my explanation is much more interesting that the Kaluza-Klein. As an added bonus, I have included a topology of the bulk that exists all around us as the 5th dimension. The importance of knowing the topology of the bulk will become apparent in 2007.
Kaluza-Klein
QUOTE
In modern geometry, the extra fifth dimension can be understood to be the circle group U(1), as electromagnetism can essentially be formulated as a gauge theory on a fiber bundle, the circle bundle, with gauge group U(1).
As an approach to the unification of the forces, it is straightforward to apply the Kaluza-Klein theory in an attempt to unify gravity with the strong and electroweak forces by using the symmetry group of the Standard Model, SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1). However, a naive attempt to convert this interesting geometrical construction into a bona-fide model of reality founders on a number of issues, including the fact that the fermions must be introduced in an artificial way (in nonsupersymmetric models). A less problematic approach to the unification of the forces is taken by modern string theory and M-theory. Nonetheless, KK remains an important touchstone in theoretical physics and is often embedded in more sophisticated theories.
A variety of predictions, with real experimental consequences, can be made (in the case of large extra dimensions/warped models). For example, on the simplest of principles, one might expect to have standing waves in the extra compactified dimension(s). If an extra dimension is of radius R, the energy of such a standing wave would (naively) be E = nhc / R with n an integer, h being Planck's constant and c the speed of light. This set of possible energy values is often called the Kaluza–Klein tower.
Since the energy-momentum tensor Tμν is normally understood to be due to concentrations of matter in four-dimensional space, the above result is interpreted as saying that four-dimensional matter is induced from geometry in five-dimensional space.
In particular, the soliton solutions of RAB = 0 can be shown to contain the Robertson-Walker metric in both matter-dominated (early universe) and radiation-dominated (present universe) forms. The general equations can be shown to be sufficiently consistent with classical tests of general relativity to be acceptable on physical principles, while still leaving considerable freedom to also provide interesting cosmological models.
As an approach to the unification of the forces, it is straightforward to apply the Kaluza-Klein theory in an attempt to unify gravity with the strong and electroweak forces by using the symmetry group of the Standard Model, SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1). However, a naive attempt to convert this interesting geometrical construction into a bona-fide model of reality founders on a number of issues, including the fact that the fermions must be introduced in an artificial way (in nonsupersymmetric models). A less problematic approach to the unification of the forces is taken by modern string theory and M-theory. Nonetheless, KK remains an important touchstone in theoretical physics and is often embedded in more sophisticated theories.
A variety of predictions, with real experimental consequences, can be made (in the case of large extra dimensions/warped models). For example, on the simplest of principles, one might expect to have standing waves in the extra compactified dimension(s). If an extra dimension is of radius R, the energy of such a standing wave would (naively) be E = nhc / R with n an integer, h being Planck's constant and c the speed of light. This set of possible energy values is often called the Kaluza–Klein tower.
Since the energy-momentum tensor Tμν is normally understood to be due to concentrations of matter in four-dimensional space, the above result is interpreted as saying that four-dimensional matter is induced from geometry in five-dimensional space.
In particular, the soliton solutions of RAB = 0 can be shown to contain the Robertson-Walker metric in both matter-dominated (early universe) and radiation-dominated (present universe) forms. The general equations can be shown to be sufficiently consistent with classical tests of general relativity to be acceptable on physical principles, while still leaving considerable freedom to also provide interesting cosmological models.
Radion
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In modern geometry, the extra fifth dimension can be understood to be the circle group U(1), as electromagnetism can essentially be formulated as a gauge theory on a fiber bundle, the circle bundle, with gauge group U(1). As an approach to the unification of the forces, it is straightforward to apply the Kaluza-Klein theory in an attempt to unify gravity with the strong and electroweak forces by using the symmetry group of the Standard Model, SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1). However, a naive attempt to convert this interesting geometrical construction into a bona-fide model of reality founders on a number of issues, including the fact that the fermions must be introduced in an artificial way (in nonsupersymmetric models). A less problematic approach to the unification of the forces is taken by modern string theory and M-theory. Nonetheless, KK remains an important touchstone in theoretical physics and is often embedded in more sophisticated theories. A variety of predictions, with real experimental consequences, can be made (in the case of large extra dimensions/warped models). For example, on the simplest of principles, one might expect to have standing waves in the extra compactified dimension(s). If an extra dimension is of radius R, the energy of such a standing wave would (naively) be E = nhc / R with n an integer, h being Planck's constant and c the speed of light. This set of possible energy values is often called the Kaluza–Klein tower. Since the energy-momentum tensor Tμν is normally understood to be due to concentrations of matter in four-dimensional space, the above result is interpreted as saying that four-dimensional matter is induced from geometry in five-dimensional space. In particular, the soliton solutions of RAB = 0 can be shown to contain the Robertson-Walker metric in both matter-dominated (early universe) and radiation-dominated (present universe) forms. The general equations can be shown to be sufficiently consistent with classical tests of general relativity to be acceptable on physical principles, while still leaving considerable freedom to also provide interesting cosmological models. |
Radion
Radion, not to be confused with the element radon, is a scalar field in quantum field theory in spacetimes with additional dimensions. It can be interpreted as the length or size of the fifth dimension as a function of the usual four dimensions of spacetime.
See also dilaton, Kaluza-Klein theory, Randall-Sundrum models.
As a quantum field, the radion field has localized quantum excitations (i.e. particles) which is called the radion particle. Its mass depends upon the specific model in question. There are many mechanisms to give masses to the radion (which can be stated equivalently as stabilizing the radius of the extra dimension).
Hi C2 and everyone!
It seems that I’m posting bigger and bigger posts every time that I want to pass on some information.
I hope that you can all help me with the following approach.
The big challenge, which is being undertaken by many on this forum, is to make “A DYNAMIC WORKING MODEL OF SPACETIME.”
My approach is to use a minimum size of a spacetime unit which I called a SPOT.
(see my presentation.)
By using a CUBIC PACKING AND a HEX PACKING of these SPOTS, in 3d, I end up with spheres which have a double hexagram void in the middle. This results in having 12 paths for information to flow from point A to point B.
Since we cannot detect spacetime then a presumption would be that the spots are arranged in a neutral configuration FOR DETERMINING A SYMMETRICALLY STRUCTURED SPACETIME.
How could the spots be arranged?
A balanced arrangement would work.
Here is a line of investigation that looks interesting.
MAGIC SQUARES, MAGIC HEX., MAGIC CUBES FOR DETERMINING A SYMMETRICALLY STRUCTURED SPACETIME.
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/mathcon.html
The Zen of Magics Squares, Circles, and Stars by Cliff Pickover
p. 1… S = N(N^2+1)/2 which gives the sum for each of the rows and columns for a magic square. (5 must be in the center for a 3 X 3 square)
p. 97 .... S = ½(N^4+N) which gives the sum for each row, columns and diagonal for a magic cube. ( 14 must be in the center for a 3 X 3 X 3 cube and S = 42.) There are 4 such cubes, not counting reflection and rotations.
There is no perfect cube of order 2, 3 or 4. The definition has been relaxed so that semi perfect magic cubes can be created for all orders higher than 2. These cubes have only row, columns and 4 space diagonals that are magic.
However, there are millions of perfect order-8 magic cubes and for powers of 8.
Doesn’t this make you realize that packing is important in understanding the universe?
The Heims people should investigate the relationship between the 8 dimensions used by Heim and the perfect order-8 magic cube. This could be more than coincidence. { S = ½(N^4+N) }.
They have already found the GOLDEN RATIO.
http://www.drking.plus.com/hexagons/magic/hexagram.html
Magic Hexagrams
The task is to arrange the numbers 1 to 12 in the triangles, so that each row (horizontal and diagonal) adds up to the same (magic) constant.
The following two solutions are unique (excluding reflections and rotations):-
They are complementary - i.e. swap 1 & 12, 2 & 11, 3 & 10, 4 & 9, 5 & 8, and 6 & 7 in either hexagram to get the other.
The magic constants (the sum of each of the 6 possible rows) are 33 and 32 respectively.
Could the cubic and the hex. configurations of the spots be represented by these two arrangements and thereby make a neutral configuration of spacetime?
Here are more approaches which might be correlated with the wave function of particles.
http://www.drking.plus.com/hexagons/magic/star.html
Magic Stars of David
There are 80 unique magic stars, excluding reflections and rotations. These can be arranged as a basic set of 20, where each one of these 20 can be transformed into 3 further stars eg by swapping the cells with the same colour here (eg swap the 2 red cells, the 2 yellow cells, etc):
This transformation can be repeated on the other 2 axes at 120 degrees to the one shown, giving us a total set of 4 stars.
You can easily see why this works: the top row of coloured cells all end up swapped with the bottom row, so both these rows are still magic; each diagonal row only experiences a change of position of the same cells - eg the 2 red cells still stay on the same row - and thus stay magic.
Here is a text file with all 80 magic stars
From Harry Langman, Ph.D., Play Mathematics, Hafner Publishing Co. 1962.
http://www.geocities.com/~harveyh/unusustr.htm
This star contains the consecutive numbers 1 to 12 arranged so that all six small triangles sum to 17. The complement of this star (each number subtracted from 13) has each triangle summing to 22.
There are two other such arrangements, with the triangles summing to 18 and 19.
Each of these has a complement, summing respectively, to 21 and 20.
Note that the star (17), as a whole, is not magic but that (26) is magic.
Would we need a Five-in-One star to represent how a spot creates a particle?
This pattern was constructed by a Mr. Morton about 1915. It appears as fig. 678 on page 348 of W. S. Andrews, Magic Squares and Cubes, Dover Publ. 1960
The innermost star (heavy red) is an upside-down Pattern 7A, and uses the consecutive numbers from 1 to 14 so is a pure magic star. It is an equivalent to basic solution number 71.
The blue star (S = 120) also has 4 numbers per line. It is also an upside down Pattern 7A.
The Violet star (S = 144) has 6 numbers per line and is an upside down pattern 7B.
The light red star (S = 340) has 10 numbers per line and is also a pattern 7B.
The Green outside star (S = 520) also has 10 numbers per line and is a pattern 7A.
The author used the numbers from 1 to 101 for this construction. Six of these numbers were not used and three of them were used twice.
WOULD THE MAGIC BOX/CUBE/HEX BE A VALID APPROACH TO FINDING HOW A SYMMETRICALLY STRUCTURED SPACETIME IS PUT TOGETHER?
DUE TO IT'S SYMMETRY, WE CANNOT DETECT IT.
JAL
PS
To get an idea of how old this kind of thinking is look at The Mysteries of Vedic Mathematics:Sacred Geometry Squares and the Golden Mean
(Don’t let the “claims and trappings” hide the underlying knowledge.)
Thank you for posting in the discussion threads.
It seems that I’m posting bigger and bigger posts every time that I want to pass on some information.
I hope that you can all help me with the following approach.
The big challenge, which is being undertaken by many on this forum, is to make “A DYNAMIC WORKING MODEL OF SPACETIME.”
My approach is to use a minimum size of a spacetime unit which I called a SPOT.
(see my presentation.)
By using a CUBIC PACKING AND a HEX PACKING of these SPOTS, in 3d, I end up with spheres which have a double hexagram void in the middle. This results in having 12 paths for information to flow from point A to point B.
Since we cannot detect spacetime then a presumption would be that the spots are arranged in a neutral configuration FOR DETERMINING A SYMMETRICALLY STRUCTURED SPACETIME.
How could the spots be arranged?
A balanced arrangement would work.
Here is a line of investigation that looks interesting.
MAGIC SQUARES, MAGIC HEX., MAGIC CUBES FOR DETERMINING A SYMMETRICALLY STRUCTURED SPACETIME.
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/mathcon.html
The Zen of Magics Squares, Circles, and Stars by Cliff Pickover
p. 1… S = N(N^2+1)/2 which gives the sum for each of the rows and columns for a magic square. (5 must be in the center for a 3 X 3 square)
p. 97 .... S = ½(N^4+N) which gives the sum for each row, columns and diagonal for a magic cube. ( 14 must be in the center for a 3 X 3 X 3 cube and S = 42.) There are 4 such cubes, not counting reflection and rotations.
There is no perfect cube of order 2, 3 or 4. The definition has been relaxed so that semi perfect magic cubes can be created for all orders higher than 2. These cubes have only row, columns and 4 space diagonals that are magic.
However, there are millions of perfect order-8 magic cubes and for powers of 8.
Doesn’t this make you realize that packing is important in understanding the universe?
The Heims people should investigate the relationship between the 8 dimensions used by Heim and the perfect order-8 magic cube. This could be more than coincidence. { S = ½(N^4+N) }.
They have already found the GOLDEN RATIO.
QUOTE
(TRoc @ Jul 28 2006, 02:15 PM)
I checked into the author of the file, it is from Olaf.
" Geometrische Konstanten xi geometrische Konstante (VI) 1.61803399E+00 "
From the Excel file " Heim Massenformel 0.52b ", under the Konstante tab. (2006)
Hi Troc,
I should have recalled - it looked familiar - it's just the golden ratio:
(sqrt(5) + 1 ) / 2 = 1.618033989
I checked into the author of the file, it is from Olaf.
" Geometrische Konstanten xi geometrische Konstante (VI) 1.61803399E+00 "
From the Excel file " Heim Massenformel 0.52b ", under the Konstante tab. (2006)
Hi Troc,
I should have recalled - it looked familiar - it's just the golden ratio:
(sqrt(5) + 1 ) / 2 = 1.618033989
http://www.drking.plus.com/hexagons/magic/hexagram.html
Magic Hexagrams
The task is to arrange the numbers 1 to 12 in the triangles, so that each row (horizontal and diagonal) adds up to the same (magic) constant.
The following two solutions are unique (excluding reflections and rotations):-
They are complementary - i.e. swap 1 & 12, 2 & 11, 3 & 10, 4 & 9, 5 & 8, and 6 & 7 in either hexagram to get the other.
The magic constants (the sum of each of the 6 possible rows) are 33 and 32 respectively.
Could the cubic and the hex. configurations of the spots be represented by these two arrangements and thereby make a neutral configuration of spacetime?
Here are more approaches which might be correlated with the wave function of particles.
http://www.drking.plus.com/hexagons/magic/star.html
Magic Stars of David
There are 80 unique magic stars, excluding reflections and rotations. These can be arranged as a basic set of 20, where each one of these 20 can be transformed into 3 further stars eg by swapping the cells with the same colour here (eg swap the 2 red cells, the 2 yellow cells, etc):
This transformation can be repeated on the other 2 axes at 120 degrees to the one shown, giving us a total set of 4 stars.
You can easily see why this works: the top row of coloured cells all end up swapped with the bottom row, so both these rows are still magic; each diagonal row only experiences a change of position of the same cells - eg the 2 red cells still stay on the same row - and thus stay magic.
Here is a text file with all 80 magic stars
From Harry Langman, Ph.D., Play Mathematics, Hafner Publishing Co. 1962.
http://www.geocities.com/~harveyh/unusustr.htm
This star contains the consecutive numbers 1 to 12 arranged so that all six small triangles sum to 17. The complement of this star (each number subtracted from 13) has each triangle summing to 22.
There are two other such arrangements, with the triangles summing to 18 and 19.
Each of these has a complement, summing respectively, to 21 and 20.
Note that the star (17), as a whole, is not magic but that (26) is magic.
Would we need a Five-in-One star to represent how a spot creates a particle?
This pattern was constructed by a Mr. Morton about 1915. It appears as fig. 678 on page 348 of W. S. Andrews, Magic Squares and Cubes, Dover Publ. 1960
The innermost star (heavy red) is an upside-down Pattern 7A, and uses the consecutive numbers from 1 to 14 so is a pure magic star. It is an equivalent to basic solution number 71.
The blue star (S = 120) also has 4 numbers per line. It is also an upside down Pattern 7A.
The Violet star (S = 144) has 6 numbers per line and is an upside down pattern 7B.
The light red star (S = 340) has 10 numbers per line and is also a pattern 7B.
The Green outside star (S = 520) also has 10 numbers per line and is a pattern 7A.
The author used the numbers from 1 to 101 for this construction. Six of these numbers were not used and three of them were used twice.
WOULD THE MAGIC BOX/CUBE/HEX BE A VALID APPROACH TO FINDING HOW A SYMMETRICALLY STRUCTURED SPACETIME IS PUT TOGETHER?
DUE TO IT'S SYMMETRY, WE CANNOT DETECT IT.
JAL
PS
To get an idea of how old this kind of thinking is look at The Mysteries of Vedic Mathematics:Sacred Geometry Squares and the Golden Mean
(Don’t let the “claims and trappings” hide the underlying knowledge.)
Thank you for posting in the discussion threads.
LATE EDIT:
Correction for saying “perfect order-8 magic cube” for Heim.
I should have said a semi perfect (order-4) magic cube?
I should have said a semi perfect (order-4) magic cube?
The definition has been relaxed so that semi perfect magic cubes can be created for all orders higher than 2. These cubes have only row, columns and 4 space diagonals that are magic.
It could also mean that Heim was trying to conceal the fact that he use the magic cube as a template to derive the mass of the particles.
Jal
Correction for saying “perfect order-8 magic cube” for Heim.
QUOTE
Posted: Jun 29 2006, 10:17 PM
Heim just went 4^3 = 64 combinations.
He then said that 28 always remained empty which meant that only 36 combinations would produce an input to the complex wave. Further more, he said that there was an additional 12 inputs that were vanishing.
This remainder, 24, is the same as my combinations without considering time as another possible rotation.
Therefore, I conclude that Heim could have started his approach the same way that I did. He probably did not use degeneracy.
This would indicate to me that a rotation in the time plane is not needed. It could also mean that Heim was trying to conceal how he did derive the mass of the particles.
http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/summary/summary.htm
Heim just went 4^3 = 64 combinations.
He then said that 28 always remained empty which meant that only 36 combinations would produce an input to the complex wave. Further more, he said that there was an additional 12 inputs that were vanishing.
This remainder, 24, is the same as my combinations without considering time as another possible rotation.
Therefore, I conclude that Heim could have started his approach the same way that I did. He probably did not use degeneracy.
This would indicate to me that a rotation in the time plane is not needed. It could also mean that Heim was trying to conceal how he did derive the mass of the particles.
http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/summary/summary.htm
I should have said a semi perfect (order-4) magic cube?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Posted: Jun 29 2006, 10:17 PM Heim just went 4^3 = 64 combinations. He then said that 28 always remained empty which meant that only 36 combinations would produce an input to the complex wave. Further more, he said that there was an additional 12 inputs that were vanishing. This remainder, 24, is the same as my combinations without considering time as another possible rotation. Therefore, I conclude that Heim could have started his approach the same way that I did. He probably did not use degeneracy. This would indicate to me that a rotation in the time plane is not needed. It could also mean that Heim was trying to conceal how he did derive the mass of the particles. http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/summary/summary.htm |
I should have said a semi perfect (order-4) magic cube?
The definition has been relaxed so that semi perfect magic cubes can be created for all orders higher than 2. These cubes have only row, columns and 4 space diagonals that are magic.
It could also mean that Heim was trying to conceal the fact that he use the magic cube as a template to derive the mass of the particles.
Jal
Hi!
So you accept that everything is made from a wave and that they start at PLANCK SIZE.
I HAVE DRAWN 3 WAVES COMING FROM PLANCK SIZE.
AS YOU CAN SEES THEY INTERACT AT ?
ADD ANOTHER 3 WAVES AND SHOW ME HOW I AM WRONG?
THE WAVES OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
HOW WOULD THE STRENGTH OF THE WAVE BE REDUCED BY 4 AT 2R?
The strength of one wave would be reduced by 4. However, there are 6 waves coming from planck size, next to each other.
Explain to me why there is not a 6X problem in your model.
JAL
So you accept that everything is made from a wave and that they start at PLANCK SIZE.
QUOTE
I wish some of our expert lurkers would enlighten me with some sound reason why we have to project down to the Planck scale and show what evidence that they have for their opinions.
I think that the evidence stops at 10^-18.
I think that the evidence stops at 10^-18.
I HAVE DRAWN 3 WAVES COMING FROM PLANCK SIZE.
AS YOU CAN SEES THEY INTERACT AT ?
ADD ANOTHER 3 WAVES AND SHOW ME HOW I AM WRONG?
THE WAVES OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
HOW WOULD THE STRENGTH OF THE WAVE BE REDUCED BY 4 AT 2R?
The strength of one wave would be reduced by 4. However, there are 6 waves coming from planck size, next to each other.
Explain to me why there is not a 6X problem in your model.
JAL
Good Day! .... Confused2...Why Not?...All!
Every little bit helps.
Where did reality stop?
Where did pretending start?
Where did pretending get out of hand and become science fiction?
Let’s start with the Compton wavelength for this post.
If there are no problems, I’ll continue with the Schwarzschild radius in the next post.
I will not reproduce the formulas. If you are interested you will look them up on the links supplied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius
The classical electron radius is built from the electron mass me, the speed of light c and the electron charge e.
The classical electron radius, also known as the Compton radius or the Thomson scattering length is based on a classical (i.e., non-quantum) relativistic model of the electron. Its value is calculated as
(see formula)
where e and m are the electric charge and the mass of the electron, c is the speed of light, and ε0 is the permittivity of free space. Using classical electrostatics, the amount of energy required to assemble a sphere of constant charge density, of radius re and charge e is approximately
(see formula)
.
If this is equated to the relativistic energy of the electron (E = mc2) and solved for re, the above result is obtained.
(Something to discuss with confused2 and Why not?)
In simple terms, the classical electron radius is roughly the size the electron would need to have for its mass to be completely due to its electrostatic potential energy-not taking quantum mechanics into account. We now know that quantum mechanics, indeed quantum field theory, is needed to understand the behavior of electrons at such short distance scales, thus the classical electron radius is no longer regarded as the actual size of an electron. In fact, modern particle physics experiments indicate that the electron is a point particle, i.e. it has no size and its radius is zero
(which means…. Let’s pretend that it is all at the center. THIS IS A MAJOR PRETEND).
Still, the classical electron radius is used in modern classical-limit theories involving the electron, such as non-relativistic Thomson scattering. Also, the classical electron radius is roughly the length scale at which renormalization becomes important in quantum electrodynamics.
(Which means, that if the pretending does not agree to then we will make it agree to the classical electron radius)
The classical electron radius is one of a trio of related units of length, the other two being the Bohr radius a0 and the Compton wavelength of the electron λe. The classical electron radius is built from the electron mass me, the speed of light c and the electron charge e. The Bohr radius is built from me, e and Planck's constant h. The Compton wavelength is built from me, h and c. Any one of these three lengths can be written in terms of any other using the fine structure constant α:
(see formula)
Extrapolating from the initial equation, any mass m0 can be imagined to have an 'electromagnetic radius' similar to the electron's classical radius.
(see formula)
where kC is Coulomb's constant, α is the fine structure constant and is Planck's constant. Such a radius does not exist as a physical entity but it is sometimes useful in theoretical calculations.
(which means…. Let’s pretend. ANOTHER MAJOR PRETEND.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_radius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_radius
the Bohr radius has a value of 5.291772108(18)×10−11 m
While the Bohr model does not correctly describe an atom, the Bohr radius keeps its physical meaning as a characteristic size of the electron cloud in a full quantum-mechanical description
The Bohr radius including the effect of reduced mass can be given by the following equation:
(see formula)
where,
is the Compton wavelength of the proton.
is the Compton wavelength of the electron.
is the fine structure constant.
In the above equation, the effect of the reduced mass is achieved by using the increased Compton wavelength, which is just the Compton wavelengths of the electron and the proton added together.
So fine….You can pretend…. But your pretending has got to be brought back to reality which is the classical electron radius. 2.817940325(28) X 10^-15m
You’ve got to be able to plug in the numbers.
If you want to push and go into science fiction then you got to bring your concepts/theory back to reality which is the classical electron radius. 2.817940325(28) X 10^-15m
That means that you’ve got to be able to plug in the numbers.
Any Comments?
Jal
ps the second half is still to come
Thanks for participating in the discussion thread
Every little bit helps.
Where did reality stop?
Where did pretending start?
Where did pretending get out of hand and become science fiction?
Let’s start with the Compton wavelength for this post.
If there are no problems, I’ll continue with the Schwarzschild radius in the next post.
I will not reproduce the formulas. If you are interested you will look them up on the links supplied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength
QUOTE
Quantum field theory says that associated to any mass there is a length called its Compton wavelength,
The Compton wavelength of the electron is approximately 2.4 × 10-12 meters.
The Compton wavelength is built from the electron mass me, Planck's constant h and the speed of light c.
The Bohr radius is built from me, h and the electron charge e.
The classical electron radius is built from me, c and e.
The Compton wavelength of the electron is approximately 2.4 × 10-12 meters.
The Compton wavelength is built from the electron mass me, Planck's constant h and the speed of light c.
The Bohr radius is built from me, h and the electron charge e.
The classical electron radius is built from me, c and e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quantum field theory says that associated to any mass there is a length called its Compton wavelength, The Compton wavelength of the electron is approximately 2.4 × 10-12 meters. The Compton wavelength is built from the electron mass me, Planck's constant h and the speed of light c. The Bohr radius is built from me, h and the electron charge e. The classical electron radius is built from me, c and e. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius
The classical electron radius is built from the electron mass me, the speed of light c and the electron charge e.
The classical electron radius, also known as the Compton radius or the Thomson scattering length is based on a classical (i.e., non-quantum) relativistic model of the electron. Its value is calculated as
(see formula)
where e and m are the electric charge and the mass of the electron, c is the speed of light, and ε0 is the permittivity of free space. Using classical electrostatics, the amount of energy required to assemble a sphere of constant charge density, of radius re and charge e is approximately
(see formula)
.
If this is equated to the relativistic energy of the electron (E = mc2) and solved for re, the above result is obtained.
(Something to discuss with confused2 and Why not?)
In simple terms, the classical electron radius is roughly the size the electron would need to have for its mass to be completely due to its electrostatic potential energy-not taking quantum mechanics into account. We now know that quantum mechanics, indeed quantum field theory, is needed to understand the behavior of electrons at such short distance scales, thus the classical electron radius is no longer regarded as the actual size of an electron. In fact, modern particle physics experiments indicate that the electron is a point particle, i.e. it has no size and its radius is zero
(which means…. Let’s pretend that it is all at the center. THIS IS A MAJOR PRETEND).
Still, the classical electron radius is used in modern classical-limit theories involving the electron, such as non-relativistic Thomson scattering. Also, the classical electron radius is roughly the length scale at which renormalization becomes important in quantum electrodynamics.
(Which means, that if the pretending does not agree to then we will make it agree to the classical electron radius)
The classical electron radius is one of a trio of related units of length, the other two being the Bohr radius a0 and the Compton wavelength of the electron λe. The classical electron radius is built from the electron mass me, the speed of light c and the electron charge e. The Bohr radius is built from me, e and Planck's constant h. The Compton wavelength is built from me, h and c. Any one of these three lengths can be written in terms of any other using the fine structure constant α:
(see formula)
Extrapolating from the initial equation, any mass m0 can be imagined to have an 'electromagnetic radius' similar to the electron's classical radius.
(see formula)
where kC is Coulomb's constant, α is the fine structure constant and is Planck's constant. Such a radius does not exist as a physical entity but it is sometimes useful in theoretical calculations.
(which means…. Let’s pretend. ANOTHER MAJOR PRETEND.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle
QUOTE
A point particle is an idealized particle heavily used in physics. Its distinguishing features are that it does not have any volume or surface area; it is zero dimensional. A point particle is often a good approximation of real particles and also more extended bodies. In Newtonian gravitation as well as general relativity and electromagnetism, the respective fields outside of a spherical object are identical to those of a point particle of equal charge/mass located at the center of the sphere.
(which means Let’s pretend, …. As if it was located at the center. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE MAJOR PRETENTIONS)
Particle physics suggests that fundamental particles (quarks, electrons and other leptons) may be point particles which can contain mass, charge, spin, and multipole moments without occupying any volume.
(which means Let’s pretend, …. As if it was located at the center. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE MAJOR PRETENTIONS)
Particle physics suggests that fundamental particles (quarks, electrons and other leptons) may be point particles which can contain mass, charge, spin, and multipole moments without occupying any volume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_radius
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A point particle is an idealized particle heavily used in physics. Its distinguishing features are that it does not have any volume or surface area; it is zero dimensional. A point particle is often a good approximation of real particles and also more extended bodies. In Newtonian gravitation as well as general relativity and electromagnetism, the respective fields outside of a spherical object are identical to those of a point particle of equal charge/mass located at the center of the sphere. (which means Let’s pretend, …. As if it was located at the center. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE MAJOR PRETENTIONS) Particle physics suggests that fundamental particles (quarks, electrons and other leptons) may be point particles which can contain mass, charge, spin, and multipole moments without occupying any volume. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_radius
the Bohr radius has a value of 5.291772108(18)×10−11 m
While the Bohr model does not correctly describe an atom, the Bohr radius keeps its physical meaning as a characteristic size of the electron cloud in a full quantum-mechanical description
The Bohr radius including the effect of reduced mass can be given by the following equation:
(see formula)
where,
is the Compton wavelength of the proton.
is the Compton wavelength of the electron.
is the fine structure constant.
In the above equation, the effect of the reduced mass is achieved by using the increased Compton wavelength, which is just the Compton wavelengths of the electron and the proton added together.
So fine….You can pretend…. But your pretending has got to be brought back to reality which is the classical electron radius. 2.817940325(28) X 10^-15m
You’ve got to be able to plug in the numbers.
If you want to push and go into science fiction then you got to bring your concepts/theory back to reality which is the classical electron radius. 2.817940325(28) X 10^-15m
That means that you’ve got to be able to plug in the numbers.
Any Comments?
Jal
ps the second half is still to come
Thanks for participating in the discussion thread
Good Day All!
part #2
However,When dealing with mass at the Plack scale The dimensions of G are important
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
According to the law of universal gravitation, the attractive force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
(see formula)
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN. The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_realism
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Heisenberg did not just use any arbitrary number to describe the minimum standard deviation between position and momentum of a particle. Heisenberg knew that particles behaved like waves and he knew that the energy of any wave is the frequency multiplied by Planck's constant. In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees, or 2π radians. Therefore, dividing h by 2π describes a constant that when multiplied by the frequency of a wave gives the energy of one radian. Heisenberg took ½ of as his standard deviation. This can be written as over 2 as above or it can be written as h/(4π). Normally one will see over 2 as this is simpler.
(see formula)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.
An adequate account of quantum indeterminacy requires a theory of measurement. Many theories have been proposed since the beginning of quantum mechanics and quantum measurement continues to be an active research area in both theoretical and experimental physics (Braginski and Khalili 1992.) Possibly the first systematic attempt at a mathematical theory was developed by John von Neumann. The kind of measurements he investigated are now called projective measurements. That theory was based in turn on the theory of projection-valued measures for self-adjoint operators which had been recently developed (by von Neumann and independently by Marshall Stone) and the Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics (attributed by von Neumann to Paul Dirac).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_measurement
The framework of quantum mechanics requires a careful definition of measurement, and a thorough discussion of its practical and philosophical implications.[b]
The case of a continuous spectrum is more involved, since, physically speaking, the basis has uncountably many eigenstates, but the general concept is the same. In the position representation, for instance, the eigenstates can be represented by the set of delta functions, indexed by all possible positions of the particle. In the experimental setting, the resolution of any given measurement is finite, and therefore the continuous space may be divided into discrete segments. Another solution is to approximate any lab experiments by a "box" potential (which bounds the volume in which the particle can be found, and thus ensures a discrete spectrum).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition...nal_analysis%29
…..ON AND ON AND ON…..
I have shown you were the waves are located and how they are arranged.
I shown that it is possible to make the link to REALITY.
ONLY IF YOU MAKE THE MEASUREMENTS/CALCULATIONS WHERE THE WAVES ARE LOCATED.
Therefore, can “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” change those distances?
My simple presentation ONCE AGAIN.
part #2
However,When dealing with mass at the Plack scale The dimensions of G are important
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
QUOTE
The dimensions assigned to the gravitational constant (length cubed, divided by mass and by time squared) are those needed to make gravitational equations 'come out right'. However, these dimensions have fundamental significance in terms of Planck units: when expressed in SI units, the gravitational constant is dimensionally and numerically equal to the CUBE of the Planck length divided by the Planck mass and by the square of Planck time.
The formula for the Schwarzschild radius can be found by setting the escape velocity to the speed of light, and is
(see formula)
where
rs is the Schwarzschild radius,
G is the gravitational constant,
m is the mass of the gravitating object, and
c is the speed of light.
The proportionality constant, 2G / c2, can be approximated as 1.48 × 10-27 m / kg.
This means that the equation can be approximately written as
(see formula)
with rs in meters and m in kilograms.
Note that although the result is correct, general relativity must be used to properly derive the Schwarzschild radius. Some consider it to be only a coincidence that Newtonian physics produces the same result, yet this may be an indication of a deeper underlining symmetry in Nature.
The formula for the Schwarzschild radius can be found by setting the escape velocity to the speed of light, and is
(see formula)
where
rs is the Schwarzschild radius,
G is the gravitational constant,
m is the mass of the gravitating object, and
c is the speed of light.
The proportionality constant, 2G / c2, can be approximated as 1.48 × 10-27 m / kg.
This means that the equation can be approximately written as
(see formula)
with rs in meters and m in kilograms.
Note that although the result is correct, general relativity must be used to properly derive the Schwarzschild radius. Some consider it to be only a coincidence that Newtonian physics produces the same result, yet this may be an indication of a deeper underlining symmetry in Nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The dimensions assigned to the gravitational constant (length cubed, divided by mass and by time squared) are those needed to make gravitational equations 'come out right'. However, these dimensions have fundamental significance in terms of Planck units: when expressed in SI units, the gravitational constant is dimensionally and numerically equal to the CUBE of the Planck length divided by the Planck mass and by the square of Planck time. The formula for the Schwarzschild radius can be found by setting the escape velocity to the speed of light, and is (see formula) where rs is the Schwarzschild radius, G is the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the gravitating object, and c is the speed of light. The proportionality constant, 2G / c2, can be approximated as 1.48 × 10-27 m / kg. This means that the equation can be approximately written as (see formula) with rs in meters and m in kilograms. Note that although the result is correct, general relativity must be used to properly derive the Schwarzschild radius. Some consider it to be only a coincidence that Newtonian physics produces the same result, yet this may be an indication of a deeper underlining symmetry in Nature. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
According to the law of universal gravitation, the attractive force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
(see formula)
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN. The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_realism
QUOTE
Locality is one of the axioms of relativistic quantum field theory, as required for causality. The formalization of locality in this case is as follows: if we have two observables, each localized within two distinct spacetime regions which happen to be at a spacelike separation from each other, the observables must commute. This interpretation of the word "locality" is closely related to the relativistic version of in physics. In physics a solution is local if the underlying equations are either Lorentz invariant or, more generally, generally covariant or locally Lorentz invariant.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Locality is one of the axioms of relativistic quantum field theory, as required for causality. The formalization of locality in this case is as follows: if we have two observables, each localized within two distinct spacetime regions which happen to be at a spacelike separation from each other, the observables must commute. This interpretation of the word "locality" is closely related to the relativistic version of in physics. In physics a solution is local if the underlying equations are either Lorentz invariant or, more generally, generally covariant or locally Lorentz invariant. |
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Heisenberg did not just use any arbitrary number to describe the minimum standard deviation between position and momentum of a particle. Heisenberg knew that particles behaved like waves and he knew that the energy of any wave is the frequency multiplied by Planck's constant. In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees, or 2π radians. Therefore, dividing h by 2π describes a constant that when multiplied by the frequency of a wave gives the energy of one radian. Heisenberg took ½ of as his standard deviation. This can be written as over 2 as above or it can be written as h/(4π). Normally one will see over 2 as this is simpler.
(see formula)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
QUOTE
In some formal mathematical settings, it is noted that the correct setting for pure states in quantum mechanics is projective Hilbert space endowed with the Fubini-Study metric. The product of two pure states is then given by the Segre embedding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In some formal mathematical settings, it is noted that the correct setting for pure states in quantum mechanics is projective Hilbert space endowed with the Fubini-Study metric. The product of two pure states is then given by the Segre embedding. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.
An adequate account of quantum indeterminacy requires a theory of measurement. Many theories have been proposed since the beginning of quantum mechanics and quantum measurement continues to be an active research area in both theoretical and experimental physics (Braginski and Khalili 1992.) Possibly the first systematic attempt at a mathematical theory was developed by John von Neumann. The kind of measurements he investigated are now called projective measurements. That theory was based in turn on the theory of projection-valued measures for self-adjoint operators which had been recently developed (by von Neumann and independently by Marshall Stone) and the Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics (attributed by von Neumann to Paul Dirac).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_measurement
The framework of quantum mechanics requires a careful definition of measurement, and a thorough discussion of its practical and philosophical implications.[b]
The case of a continuous spectrum is more involved, since, physically speaking, the basis has uncountably many eigenstates, but the general concept is the same. In the position representation, for instance, the eigenstates can be represented by the set of delta functions, indexed by all possible positions of the particle. In the experimental setting, the resolution of any given measurement is finite, and therefore the continuous space may be divided into discrete segments. Another solution is to approximate any lab experiments by a "box" potential (which bounds the volume in which the particle can be found, and thus ensures a discrete spectrum).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition...nal_analysis%29
…..ON AND ON AND ON…..
I have shown you were the waves are located and how they are arranged.
I shown that it is possible to make the link to REALITY.
ONLY IF YOU MAKE THE MEASUREMENTS/CALCULATIONS WHERE THE WAVES ARE LOCATED.
Therefore, can “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” change those distances?
My simple presentation ONCE AGAIN.
QUOTE
Therefore, What would be the minimum size of a Planck sphere?
A sphere with a radius of one Planck length will not have a surface area that would be suficient to make a sphere.
[b]A Planck Sphere must have a radius of 4 Planck length.
As a result the Planck length is not violated. By definition nothing can be smaller.
A simple wave of a Planck area can therefore orbit around the Planck sphere.
The wave must be contained within the 3 Planck length radius and the 4 Planck length radius.
REASON # 2
The wave must visit each of the 8 Planck length quadrant of the sphere within its allotted time of one Planck time. Other wise .... the wave will collapse. (The snake must eats its tail.)
The 2D surfaces are inserted/imbedded/in/into what we see as 3D.
Like J. Baez said, “The ’unimportant numerical factor' I mentioned above (2pi) might actually be very large, or very small.”
The only restriction is that the “SPOT” must be smaller than a hair.
I prefer 10^-18.
And …. Maybe …. It might have a thickness of one Planck length. (Which is probably not a problem with reality.)
Any comments?
jal
A sphere with a radius of one Planck length will not have a surface area that would be suficient to make a sphere.
[b]A Planck Sphere must have a radius of 4 Planck length.
As a result the Planck length is not violated. By definition nothing can be smaller.
A simple wave of a Planck area can therefore orbit around the Planck sphere.
The wave must be contained within the 3 Planck length radius and the 4 Planck length radius.
REASON # 2
The wave must visit each of the 8 Planck length quadrant of the sphere within its allotted time of one Planck time. Other wise .... the wave will collapse. (The snake must eats its tail.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Therefore, What would be the minimum size of a Planck sphere? A sphere with a radius of one Planck length will not have a surface area that would be suficient to make a sphere. [b]A Planck Sphere must have a radius of 4 Planck length. As a result the Planck length is not violated. By definition nothing can be smaller. A simple wave of a Planck area can therefore orbit around the Planck sphere. The wave must be contained within the 3 Planck length radius and the 4 Planck length radius. REASON # 2 The wave must visit each of the 8 Planck length quadrant of the sphere within its allotted time of one Planck time. Other wise .... the wave will collapse. (The snake must eats its tail.) In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length. Therefore, You must decide.....Is the Planck wave capable of traveling 8 X the speed of light? If it cannot then a Planck size wave is not possible inside a sphere. Can a 2D area cover the surface Area of a 3D sphere? When you lay it out flat….voila …. IT’S A 2D MEMBRANE!!!! When you fold it up …….VOILA…. A SPHERE. It is only at this scale that 2D is equal to 3D. There is nothing inside the 3D. It is an empty shell. Okay... what does the 2D membrane look like? 4 circles/spots is what I said... It is what Gerard t' Hooft said.....Therefore, we can easily transfer to a quantized 2D membrane and not violate the speed of light. We automatically get packing in 2D which is a membrane. It looks like what I have been saying all the time.  |
The 2D surfaces are inserted/imbedded/in/into what we see as 3D.
Like J. Baez said, “The ’unimportant numerical factor' I mentioned above (2pi) might actually be very large, or very small.”
The only restriction is that the “SPOT” must be smaller than a hair.
I prefer 10^-18.
And …. Maybe …. It might have a thickness of one Planck length. (Which is probably not a problem with reality.)
Any comments?
jal
Why Not?
I have been reading over and over the papers by James G. Gilson
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
I think that He has proven quite a few things.
I'm willing to accept that the smallest Planck scale sphere that can exist is when considering 6 x 2 dimensional waves.
It is also supported by the fact that r=3 V= 113.1 A= 113.1
does not work. The 3r should be considered as viewed from the exterior of the Planck sphere.
However, when it is scaled up by 2X we end up with 6r which would be the 6 points viewed from the exterior of the sphere. (as I indicated in my drawing)
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi). duhhh....is that right?
Also,
AND WE GOT 6 PLANCK AREA.
He does use a pretend to get to make the six waves at the six points. It works.
He stops short of going into the dynamics....but does mention it for future work.
Here is what I get when I combine his work with mine
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat”all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
James G. Gilson has worked the math that I needed to demonstrate 2D packing.
Of course it is ..... Lay out those six 2D waves on the flat
Which of course means that the universe is made from 2D waves.
No higher dimensions needed.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0307/0307174.pdf
AND WE GOT 6 PLANCK AREA.
He does use a pretend to get to make the six waves at the six points. It works.
He stops short of going into the dynamics....but does mention it for future work.
Here is what I get when I combine his work with mine
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat”all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
James G. Gilson has worked the math that I needed to demonstrate 2D packing.
Of course it is ..... Lay out those six 2D waves on the flat
Which of course means that the universe is made from 2D waves.
No higher dimensions needed.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0307/0307174.pdf
we take seriously the holographic claim in any number of dimensions, and our results are therefore evidence against the existence of extra dimensions.
IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT ^^^^^^
jal
---------------------------------------------------
Good Day All!
Doing the next scaling 2X means that the 6 Planck waves would also scale and that now we would have a manifestation in 12 positions. Again…. Doing the dynamics is in future development
Just as predicted in my 3D packing presentation. (The circle around the 12 sphere is suppose to be a sphere)
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? Ghee!!!! Thing sure are growing bigger and faster.
How far are we from 10^-18? We have definitely left Planck Scale.
Do you recall the word “congruence” from when you were learning geometry?
Look it up again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congruence
Therefore, what we do at the Planck scale can be scaled up in size to the 3D packing and every relationship will scale accordingly. There will still be nothing inside.
It will take someone with a lot more knowledge then me to use congruence from the 3D packing to the Compton wavelength and to work out the implications to the Standard Model.
Now! ……. that is a nightmare. Now! …… that is holography.
The real thing is projected and the attributes are scaled.
Where is the real thing?
It’s the 2D structure
So now ….. what have we got? ….NEW PHYSICS and The answer to a lot of questions.
Why the fine structure constant?
Why is there so much empty space?
Why is the structure the way it is?
Why have we got a wave?
What is the mechanism for uncertainty?
What is the structure for the 2D membrane?
What is a starting place for M-Theory?
What is the structure of quantum foam/ZeroPointEnergy?
On ……… and ………… on.
The challenge will be for the “math kids” to formalize and make a dynamic model of spacetime and rediscover what I’ve been saying.
So far….almost ….. everthing that I’ve been saying has been done by somebody else before me.
Yquantum….. Tell your friends, Gerard t' Hooft and Susskind, and others that I’ve dare to do the unthinkable….. They are smarter than me so they must have figured it out, that 2D was imbedded and packed into our 3D. They must be old enough and secure enough now, to publish their dusty papers, which they made when they were “math kids”, which are sitting in the back of their drawers.
I would call them, but they don’t take phone calls from unknowns and outsiders.
They, and a lot of other people owe me a beer.
jal
I have been reading over and over the papers by James G. Gilson
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
I think that He has proven quite a few things.
I'm willing to accept that the smallest Planck scale sphere that can exist is when considering 6 x 2 dimensional waves.
It is also supported by the fact that r=3 V= 113.1 A= 113.1
does not work. The 3r should be considered as viewed from the exterior of the Planck sphere.
However, when it is scaled up by 2X we end up with 6r which would be the 6 points viewed from the exterior of the sphere. (as I indicated in my drawing)
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi). duhhh....is that right?
Also,
QUOTE
The second assertion of the Holographic Principle is that the theory on the boundary of the region of space in question should contain at most one degree of freedom per Planck area.
AND WE GOT 6 PLANCK AREA.
He does use a pretend to get to make the six waves at the six points. It works.
He stops short of going into the dynamics....but does mention it for future work.
Here is what I get when I combine his work with mine
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat”all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
James G. Gilson has worked the math that I needed to demonstrate 2D packing.
Of course it is ..... Lay out those six 2D waves on the flat
Which of course means that the universe is made from 2D waves.
No higher dimensions needed.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0307/0307174.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The second assertion of the Holographic Principle is that the theory on the boundary of the region of space in question should contain at most one degree of freedom per Planck area. |
AND WE GOT 6 PLANCK AREA.
He does use a pretend to get to make the six waves at the six points. It works.
He stops short of going into the dynamics....but does mention it for future work.
Here is what I get when I combine his work with mine
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat”all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
James G. Gilson has worked the math that I needed to demonstrate 2D packing.
Of course it is ..... Lay out those six 2D waves on the flat
Which of course means that the universe is made from 2D waves.
No higher dimensions needed.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0307/0307174.pdf
we take seriously the holographic claim in any number of dimensions, and our results are therefore evidence against the existence of extra dimensions.
QUOTE
heheheh
Since my SPOT is a further development of the "holographic principle" I want to quote one of your links. It's going to come back to haunt you and give you nightmares.
Since my SPOT is a further development of the "holographic principle" I want to quote one of your links. It's going to come back to haunt you and give you nightmares.
IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT ^^^^^^
jal
---------------------------------------------------
Good Day All!
Doing the next scaling 2X means that the 6 Planck waves would also scale and that now we would have a manifestation in 12 positions. Again…. Doing the dynamics is in future development
Just as predicted in my 3D packing presentation. (The circle around the 12 sphere is suppose to be a sphere)
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? Ghee!!!! Thing sure are growing bigger and faster.
How far are we from 10^-18? We have definitely left Planck Scale.
Do you recall the word “congruence” from when you were learning geometry?
Look it up again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congruence
Therefore, what we do at the Planck scale can be scaled up in size to the 3D packing and every relationship will scale accordingly. There will still be nothing inside.
It will take someone with a lot more knowledge then me to use congruence from the 3D packing to the Compton wavelength and to work out the implications to the Standard Model.
Now! ……. that is a nightmare. Now! …… that is holography.
The real thing is projected and the attributes are scaled.
Where is the real thing?
It’s the 2D structure
So now ….. what have we got? ….NEW PHYSICS and The answer to a lot of questions.
Why the fine structure constant?
Why is there so much empty space?
Why is the structure the way it is?
Why have we got a wave?
What is the mechanism for uncertainty?
What is the structure for the 2D membrane?
What is a starting place for M-Theory?
What is the structure of quantum foam/ZeroPointEnergy?
On ……… and ………… on.
The challenge will be for the “math kids” to formalize and make a dynamic model of spacetime and rediscover what I’ve been saying.
So far….almost ….. everthing that I’ve been saying has been done by somebody else before me.
Yquantum….. Tell your friends, Gerard t' Hooft and Susskind, and others that I’ve dare to do the unthinkable….. They are smarter than me so they must have figured it out, that 2D was imbedded and packed into our 3D. They must be old enough and secure enough now, to publish their dusty papers, which they made when they were “math kids”, which are sitting in the back of their drawers.
I would call them, but they don’t take phone calls from unknowns and outsiders.
They, and a lot of other people owe me a beer.
jal
Good Day everyone!
This Planck scale journey has been very interesting.
Now that I have found a use for the math from the papers by James G. Gilson
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf and that it make my model, (a model has the math),
I can tell you that when all of the 12 waves are equally spaced from the center and equally spaced around the 12 spheres that make up the packing arrangement then this is the symmetry of spacetime without matter. It is too symmetrical to be detect. It would be oscillating between Cubic packing and Hex. packing.
See:
http://www.drking.plus.com/hexagons/magic/hexagram.html Magic Hexagrams/magic cube
There are hundreds of "math kids" who will love to work on this model.
The next steps will be to figure out the configuration of the particles to get mass (with the help of “math kids”).
Then I’ll figure out the configuration to get gravity (with the help of “math kids”).
Then the “math kids” will publish and get the Nobel prize.
Then I’ll die in peace and my body will get preserved in beer.
Simple jal
This Planck scale journey has been very interesting.
Now that I have found a use for the math from the papers by James G. Gilson
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf and that it make my model, (a model has the math),
I can tell you that when all of the 12 waves are equally spaced from the center and equally spaced around the 12 spheres that make up the packing arrangement then this is the symmetry of spacetime without matter. It is too symmetrical to be detect. It would be oscillating between Cubic packing and Hex. packing.
See:
http://www.drking.plus.com/hexagons/magic/hexagram.html Magic Hexagrams/magic cube
There are hundreds of "math kids" who will love to work on this model.
The next steps will be to figure out the configuration of the particles to get mass (with the help of “math kids”).
Then I’ll figure out the configuration to get gravity (with the help of “math kids”).
Then the “math kids” will publish and get the Nobel prize.
Then I’ll die in peace and my body will get preserved in beer.
Simple jal
fivedoughnut ….. Why Not? ….. Confused2 and “THEY” .....all!
What happened?…. Has everybody jumped ship?
Have the discoveries been too much?
The journey has just begun.
Yes! …. A working model will do that.
Yes! …. A working model will do that.
yquantum
Posted: Jul 7 2006, 04:07 AM
Here are some fundamental perspectives that all must have in dealing with what most have mentioned in the last few pages. Work your way up using the sound fundamental laws that have been well established.
There are already hundreds of “math kids” working on the “spot” approach.
However, they can use the help of having a good model to work on.
The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence.
You got to do a search for “Quantum Geometry” not Loop Quantum Geometry.
Here is a good starting place. “Quantum Geometry & New Concept of Space”
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/
Quantum geometry is a generalization of classical geometry. It incorporates various ideas and concepts of quantum physics, into the world of geometry. Quantum geometry deals with quantum spaces. In classical geometry spaces are always understandable as collections of points equipped with the appropriate additional structure. Quantum spaces are not viewable in this way. In general, quantum spaces have no points at all! They exhibit non-trivial quantum fluctuations of geometry at all scales. At the formal level, quantum spaces are described by certain non-commutative complex *-algebras. The elements of these algebras are interpretable as functions over the associated quantum spaces. Classical geometry is the commutative sector of quantum geometry. It is believed that quantum geometry could provide a consistent description of space-time at the level of ultra-small distances where classical concepts of the space-time continuum are not applicable. In principle, this could give the appropriate mathematical framework to formulate a coherent quantum theory of fundamental interactions.
“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
A very interesting potential application of quantum geometry in physics is to provide a mathematically coherent description of the physical space-time, at all scales---in particular at the level of ultra-small distances, characterized by the Planck length.
Non-commutative geometry has a great conceptual value for the study of classical spaces. In many situations, the proofs of the theorems of classical geometry become more elegant and transparent if performed at the quantum level. The language of local coordinates, open sets and points, characteristic for classical geometry, sometimes hides the true geometrical structure. On the other hand, in non-commutative geometry we are a priory forced to work with the global entities inherently connected with the existing geometrical structure.
fivedoughnut your model …. “bubbles” (and everyone else who uses “bubbles”) need to use “macro” geometry and quantum geometry to explain how the “bubbles” are put together.
By doing that…. your model might succeed or it might fail. You’ll certainly get a better understanding of the universe.
Nobody…. I repeat, … Nobody, has yet been able to make a moving/dynamic model. The poor little hydrogen atom is still out of reach of a detailed working model.
Without a mathematical analysis there is no way of knowing if a model with pretty pictures will work. Pretty pictures without the math will only confuse.
Poetic descriptions without the math will only be “a word salad”.
(IT’S ALL SCIENCE FICTION)
As a result, (yquantum motivating me), my quantum pictures and my “word salad” has been supported by the quantum formulas. My “spot” has become a model that can be improved and that can be tested.
The journey has just begun.
Is there anyone who wants to travel with me?
No other explorer/seeker have been equipped as well as us…. to do exploration into new territories.
I don’t want to stay in one little hole and keep spinning my wheels by doing science fiction.
Let’s find reality.
Let’s find out how the universe is made.
We got the WEB…. Let’s go.
jal
-------------------------------------------------------
.....all!What happened?…. Has everybody jumped ship?
Have the discoveries been too much?
The journey has just begun.
QUOTE
I'm not sure whether the idea is that you set up everything 'statically' and when you press the 'go' button it all springs into life and the laws of physics emerge naturally.. or 'something else'.
Yes! …. A working model will do that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not sure whether the idea is that you set up everything 'statically' and when you press the 'go' button it all springs into life and the laws of physics emerge naturally.. or 'something else'. |
Yes! …. A working model will do that.
yquantum
Posted: Jul 7 2006, 04:07 AM
Here are some fundamental perspectives that all must have in dealing with what most have mentioned in the last few pages. Work your way up using the sound fundamental laws that have been well established.
There are already hundreds of “math kids” working on the “spot” approach.
However, they can use the help of having a good model to work on.
The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence.
You got to do a search for “Quantum Geometry” not Loop Quantum Geometry.
Here is a good starting place. “Quantum Geometry & New Concept of Space”
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/
QUOTE
Quantum geometry is a generalization of classical geometry. It incorporates various ideas and concepts of quantum physics, into the world of geometry. Quantum geometry deals with quantum spaces. In classical geometry spaces are always understandable as collections of points equipped with the appropriate additional structure. Quantum spaces are not viewable in this way. In general, quantum spaces have no points at all! They exhibit non-trivial quantum fluctuations of geometry at all scales. At the formal level, quantum spaces are described by certain non-commutative complex *-algebras. The elements of these algebras are interpretable as functions over the associated quantum spaces. Classical geometry is the commutative sector of quantum geometry. It is believed that quantum geometry could provide a consistent description of space-time at the level of ultra-small distances where classical concepts of the space-time continuum are not applicable. In principle, this could give the appropriate mathematical framework to formulate a coherent quantum theory of fundamental interactions.
“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quantum geometry is a generalization of classical geometry. It incorporates various ideas and concepts of quantum physics, into the world of geometry. Quantum geometry deals with quantum spaces. In classical geometry spaces are always understandable as collections of points equipped with the appropriate additional structure. Quantum spaces are not viewable in this way. In general, quantum spaces have no points at all! They exhibit non-trivial quantum fluctuations of geometry at all scales. At the formal level, quantum spaces are described by certain non-commutative complex *-algebras. The elements of these algebras are interpretable as functions over the associated quantum spaces. Classical geometry is the commutative sector of quantum geometry. It is believed that quantum geometry could provide a consistent description of space-time at the level of ultra-small distances where classical concepts of the space-time continuum are not applicable. In principle, this could give the appropriate mathematical framework to formulate a coherent quantum theory of fundamental interactions. |
“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
A very interesting potential application of quantum geometry in physics is to provide a mathematically coherent description of the physical space-time, at all scales---in particular at the level of ultra-small distances, characterized by the Planck length.
Non-commutative geometry has a great conceptual value for the study of classical spaces. In many situations, the proofs of the theorems of classical geometry become more elegant and transparent if performed at the quantum level. The language of local coordinates, open sets and points, characteristic for classical geometry, sometimes hides the true geometrical structure. On the other hand, in non-commutative geometry we are a priory forced to work with the global entities inherently connected with the existing geometrical structure.
fivedoughnut your model …. “bubbles” (and everyone else who uses “bubbles”) need to use “macro” geometry and quantum geometry to explain how the “bubbles” are put together.
By doing that…. your model might succeed or it might fail. You’ll certainly get a better understanding of the universe.
Nobody…. I repeat, … Nobody, has yet been able to make a moving/dynamic model. The poor little hydrogen atom is still out of reach of a detailed working model.
Without a mathematical analysis there is no way of knowing if a model with pretty pictures will work. Pretty pictures without the math will only confuse.
Poetic descriptions without the math will only be “a word salad”.
(IT’S ALL SCIENCE FICTION)
As a result, (yquantum motivating me), my quantum pictures and my “word salad” has been supported by the quantum formulas. My “spot” has become a model that can be improved and that can be tested.
The journey has just begun.
Is there anyone who wants to travel with me?
No other explorer/seeker have been equipped as well as us…. to do exploration into new territories.
I don’t want to stay in one little hole and keep spinning my wheels by doing science fiction.
Let’s find reality.
Let’s find out how the universe is made.
We got the WEB…. Let’s go.
jal
-------------------------------------------------------
There is a starting point for any system. Take time for example. If it can slow down it must have a starting point to slow down from; a kind of fastest time.
Einstein wasn't willing to talk about it. He had too much invested in Relativity.
Einstein wasn't willing to talk about it. He had too much invested in Relativity.
Nick
USE THE DISCUSION THREADS
JAL
USE THE DISCUSION THREADS
JAL
QUOTE (jal+Sep 5 2006, 09:01 PM)
fivedoughnut ….. Why Not? ….. Confused2 and “THEY” .....all!
What happened?…. Has everybody jumped ship?
Have the discoveries been too much?
The journey has just begun.
Yes! …. A working model will do that.
fivedoughnut your model …. “bubbles” (and everyone else who uses “bubbles”) need to use “macro” geometry and quantum geometry to explain how the “bubbles” are put together.
By doing that…. your model might succeed or it might fail.
Jal,
Sorry for my absence..... Have been very busy putting a new bathroom together and sadly missed your last posts......congrat's on your epiphany!....truly significant.... Owe you a beer, perhaps one day we'll all get together
somewhere to discuss 'face to face', bits of paper, pens, lashings of beer an all.
Please give me time to fully digest your 'holographic' concept......for me branes are simply atemporally interactive wavefronts.....Would be great to integrate your modelling into my mechanism; I feel it's time to 'start afresh', by restructuring those previous concept's (that I still feel happy with) into something people might understand
And you're correct....." The journey has just begun"
.....all!What happened?…. Has everybody jumped ship?
Have the discoveries been too much?
The journey has just begun.
Yes! …. A working model will do that.
fivedoughnut your model …. “bubbles” (and everyone else who uses “bubbles”) need to use “macro” geometry and quantum geometry to explain how the “bubbles” are put together.
By doing that…. your model might succeed or it might fail.
Jal,
Sorry for my absence..... Have been very busy putting a new bathroom together and sadly missed your last posts......congrat's on your epiphany!....truly significant
.... Owe you a beer, perhaps one day we'll all get togethersomewhere to discuss 'face to face', bits of paper, pens, lashings of beer an all.
Please give me time to fully digest your 'holographic' concept......for me branes are simply atemporally interactive wavefronts.....Would be great to integrate your modelling into my mechanism; I feel it's time to 'start afresh', by restructuring those previous concept's (that I still feel happy with) into something people might understand
And you're correct....." The journey has just begun"
Thank yquantum
The earth was flat for 1,000 year.... the earth was the center of the universe for 300 years..... the Big Bang and inflation was around for 50 years.
The "math kids", with the WEB, should find my "spot"in less than 50 years and be able to decide if The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence. have any meaning at the planck scale.
A few phone calls by a "somebody" to their favorite "math kid"would probably expedite the process and give a publishing advantage.
50 years is a long time, I might not live that long.
Why Not?I have been following TRoc's "Omni-band Harmonic Matrix of Resonant Potentials".... Maybe he can see a starting place with what I have been saying.
How can a nobody do a peer review and be believed?
Besides…. I don’t have enough knowledge.
An analytical computation of
asymptotic Schwarzschild
quasinormal frequencies
Luboˇs Motl
Jefferson Physical Laboratory
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
motl@feynman.harvard.edu
24 Dec. 2003
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0212/0212096.pdf
I do believe that we have demonstrated that r=1 does not work.
I do believe that we have demonstrated that r=1 does not work.
Nevertheless the typical microstates of a horizon are dominated by links with the minimal possible value of J. If the links with higher values of J were absent altogether, the spectrum of the area operator (12) would become equally spaced.
If the relation between the area and the mass is preserved (which is however hardly the
case microscopically), the links with J > 1 are essential to keep the energy
spectrum as well as the spectrum of Hawking radiation continuous.
Assume that a new link with J(min) = 1 is absorbed by a black hole
horizon (or it is created there). Its area therefore increases by A0, which is
according to (12) and (15) equal to _A = A0 = 4 ln(3)GN. (16)
While it might sound like a very redundant choice, we think that the meaningful proposals of LQG can be generalized to any spacetime dimension, as long as we
allow the gauge theory configuration space to be bigger than the configuration space of pure gravity.
For example, the quantization of twodimensional areas in four spacetime dimension must generalize to the quantization of (d−2)-dimensional areas in d spacetime dimensions— which is directly implied e.g. by (47). The reason is simply that the
(d − 2)-dimensional areas determine the entropy.
I believe that we have established that we cannot get a wave at 3. IT SHOULD BE 6.
I wonder what his calculations will produce if he obeyed the Planck scale rules and uses 6 for a wave.
See..... I've demonstrated my ignorance.
He did something wrong .... what was it?
I believe that we have established that we cannot get a wave at 3. IT SHOULD BE 6.
I wonder what his calculations will produce if he obeyed the Planck scale rules and uses 6 for a wave.
See..... I've demonstrated my ignorance.
He did something wrong .... what was it?
I would have been really excited if I they had found 4pi 3Lp^2 instead of 4 ln(3)Lp^2 .
jal
------------------------------------------------
WE HAVE IGNITION! …..WE HAVE LIFT OFF!
WE HAVE A PLANCK SIZE BALLOON/SPHERE! !
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5203
LET THE JOURNEY BEGIN.
#1
Hello! I found a lot of great information on waves. The complexity is enough to blow your mind. What have you two got?
LET’S GO INTO THE 6 SIDED SANDBOX!
#2
I got some very simple stuff. Simple solitons.
NO! LET’S GO INTO THE 12 SIDED SANDBOX!
##3
Me!, I found out that we should also be looking at where the energy is NOT located. We should be looking at spacetime.
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE! #1
The earth was flat for 1,000 year.... the earth was the center of the universe for 300 years..... the Big Bang and inflation was around for 50 years.
The "math kids", with the WEB, should find my "spot"in less than 50 years and be able to decide if The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence. have any meaning at the planck scale.
A few phone calls by a "somebody" to their favorite "math kid"would probably expedite the process and give a publishing advantage.
50 years is a long time, I might not live that long.
Why Not?I have been following TRoc's "Omni-band Harmonic Matrix of Resonant Potentials".... Maybe he can see a starting place with what I have been saying.
How can a nobody do a peer review and be believed?
Besides…. I don’t have enough knowledge.
An analytical computation of
asymptotic Schwarzschild
quasinormal frequencies
Luboˇs Motl
Jefferson Physical Laboratory
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
motl@feynman.harvard.edu
24 Dec. 2003
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0212/0212096.pdf
QUOTE
These states are required to have purely outgoing boundary conditions both
at the horizon (r = 1) and in the asymptotic region (r = ∞):
at the horizon (r = 1) and in the asymptotic region (r = ∞):
I do believe that we have demonstrated that r=1 does not work.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| These states are required to have purely outgoing boundary conditions both at the horizon (r = 1) and in the asymptotic region (r = ∞): |
I do believe that we have demonstrated that r=1 does not work.
Nevertheless the typical microstates of a horizon are dominated by links with the minimal possible value of J. If the links with higher values of J were absent altogether, the spectrum of the area operator (12) would become equally spaced.
If the relation between the area and the mass is preserved (which is however hardly the
case microscopically), the links with J > 1 are essential to keep the energy
spectrum as well as the spectrum of Hawking radiation continuous.
Assume that a new link with J(min) = 1 is absorbed by a black hole
horizon (or it is created there). Its area therefore increases by A0, which is
according to (12) and (15) equal to _A = A0 = 4 ln(3)GN. (16)
While it might sound like a very redundant choice, we think that the meaningful proposals of LQG can be generalized to any spacetime dimension, as long as we
allow the gauge theory configuration space to be bigger than the configuration space of pure gravity.
For example, the quantization of twodimensional areas in four spacetime dimension must generalize to the quantization of (d−2)-dimensional areas in d spacetime dimensions— which is directly implied e.g. by (47). The reason is simply that the
(d − 2)-dimensional areas determine the entropy.
QUOTE
Instead, we calculated a result more similar to the half-integer
case, i.e. Fermi-Dirac statistics with the number 3 replacing the usual number 1;
case, i.e. Fermi-Dirac statistics with the number 3 replacing the usual number 1;
I believe that we have established that we cannot get a wave at 3. IT SHOULD BE 6.
I wonder what his calculations will produce if he obeyed the Planck scale rules and uses 6 for a wave.
See..... I've demonstrated my ignorance.
He did something wrong .... what was it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Instead, we calculated a result more similar to the half-integer case, i.e. Fermi-Dirac statistics with the number 3 replacing the usual number 1; |
I believe that we have established that we cannot get a wave at 3. IT SHOULD BE 6.
I wonder what his calculations will produce if he obeyed the Planck scale rules and uses 6 for a wave.
See..... I've demonstrated my ignorance.
He did something wrong .... what was it?
I would have been really excited if I they had found 4pi 3Lp^2 instead of 4 ln(3)Lp^2 .
jal
------------------------------------------------
WE HAVE IGNITION! …..WE HAVE LIFT OFF!
WE HAVE A PLANCK SIZE BALLOON/SPHERE! !
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5203
LET THE JOURNEY BEGIN.
#1
Hello! I found a lot of great information on waves. The complexity is enough to blow your mind. What have you two got?
LET’S GO INTO THE 6 SIDED SANDBOX!
#2
I got some very simple stuff. Simple solitons.
NO! LET’S GO INTO THE 12 SIDED SANDBOX!
##3
Me!, I found out that we should also be looking at where the energy is NOT located. We should be looking at spacetime.
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE! #1
Good day!
By now, it should have become obvious to the people promoting Heim, the metron, and protosimplex that Heim used a Quantum Geometry approach.
See:“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
Heim was aware that the Planck scale rules could not be violated.
I suspect that his approach led him to having the metron at “large dimensions”.
I suspect that he did not like what he got….. Large metrons.
The best that people would have said would have been that he had found a new way of getting the mass of the particles.
“A LOOKUP TABLE”.
That is not very sexy or very saleable. It makes for terrible science fiction.
The “math kids” at Heim should stop wasting time with science fiction and they should find and remove the “exponential?,… scaling?.... T-duality …or whatever?” that Heim inserted in his formulas.
For a start the Heim “math kids” should get familiar with the work by James G. Gilson on the fine structure constant at http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page2.html and his work on Stochastic Simulation of The Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum
At http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Quantum Geometry is a valid approach to the understanding of the universe.
If the Heim “math kids” do their work properly we should be able to see a spot/metron.
jal
-----------------------------------------------------
A better approach is the hydrino. However, they made a simple math error.
They violated the Planck scale rule.
The minimum size of a sphere at the Planck scale is when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/AtomicPhysics.pdf
( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentatio...2005%20Fuel.pdf
( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentatio...2005%20Fuel.pdf
In place of the Schrödinger boundary condition, Ψ —> 0 as r —> ∞; apply a new boundary condition derived from Maxwell’s equations:
(Planck scale must be obeyed…. ( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
The Minimum Radius corresponds to the gravitational
Radius which cannot be less than the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
If the “math kids” at Black Light Power Inc can clearly indicate that they can include the Planck scale rules and that their work stand up then they will have a link to “REALITY”. Their search would need to concentrate on how they have applied The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry which are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence.
The graphics from Black Light Power Inc. are great for understanding what I have been saying.
As a result, …. we could end up with a spot/hydrino/metro
jal
-------------------------------------------------------
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
#1
What have you learned from this thread?
1. What is the fine structure constant?
It is a formula that is derived from finding the location of 6 equally spaced waves on a sphere.
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page3.html
The Minimum Radius corresponds to the gravitational
Radius which cannot be less than the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
If the “math kids” at Black Light Power Inc can clearly indicate that they can include the Planck scale rules and that their work stand up then they will have a link to “REALITY”. Their search would need to concentrate on how they have applied The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry which are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence.
The graphics from Black Light Power Inc. are great for understanding what I have been saying.
As a result, …. we could end up with a spot/hydrino/metro
jal
-------------------------------------------------------
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
#1
What have you learned from this thread?
1. What is the fine structure constant?
It is a formula that is derived from finding the location of 6 equally spaced waves on a sphere.
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page3.html
Finally, the formula for the fine structure constant can be used to set up a scheme for the finite renormalization of Quantum Electrodynamics. This makes it possible to avoid the mathematical uncertainties associated with the manipulations of infinite quantities that have hitherto been necessary in the renormalization procedures.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
3. What is the smallest area in our universe?
It is a surface area having one Planck length and one Planck width and no thickness.
4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
It takes 6 Planck size waves to make a Planck size sphere.
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
5. What is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ?
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It is out of bound. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat” all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is equal to Planck's constant divided by 4π.
A fundamental consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that no physical phenomena can be (to arbitrary accuracy) described as a "classic point particle". (At the Planck scale it is impossible).
In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees, or 2π radians.
As can be seen in the above diagram, the calculations are done on where the waves are located. (The waves do not originate at r = 0.) Therefore, there is an uncertainty, (the green area) of where the waves are located.
6. What is a wave function?
Waves, Acoustics and Vibration, by J. B. Calvert,
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavefun.htm
3. What is the smallest area in our universe?
It is a surface area having one Planck length and one Planck width and no thickness.
4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
It takes 6 Planck size waves to make a Planck size sphere.
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
5. What is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ?
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It is out of bound. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat” all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is equal to Planck's constant divided by 4π.
A fundamental consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that no physical phenomena can be (to arbitrary accuracy) described as a "classic point particle". (At the Planck scale it is impossible).
In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees, or 2π radians.
As can be seen in the above diagram, the calculations are done on where the waves are located. (The waves do not originate at r = 0.) Therefore, there is an uncertainty, (the green area) of where the waves are located.
6. What is a wave function?
Waves, Acoustics and Vibration, by J. B. Calvert,
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavefun.htm
We have not had to say anything about the nature of the wave function, beyond the fact that knowing it allows all properties of the wave to be determined.
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavdynam.htm
THE ORIGIN HAS BEEN WRONGLY ASSIGNED AS ZERO IN QUANTUM CALCULATIONS. IT SHOULD BE ASSIGNED, “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
A point violates the distances allowed at the Planck scale.
R = 0 IS NOT ALLOWED.
7. What is a postulate?
THE ORIGIN HAS BEEN WRONGLY ASSIGNED AS ZERO IN QUANTUM CALCULATIONS. IT SHOULD BE ASSIGNED, “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
A point violates the distances allowed at the Planck scale.
R = 0 IS NOT ALLOWED.
7. What is a postulate?
In the language of geometry, it is a postulate, something not proved but assumed as the basis for argument. Euclid's postulates defined Euclidean space, in which all his later results lived. By a slight change to one postulate, we get geometry on the surface of a sphere, which differs in some respects (two parallel lines meet at two points instead of none, for example). The verification that space is actually Euclidean, or that a wave satisfies the wave equation, follows from experience, not proof. Starting from the postulate of the wave equation, a great number of mathematical results can be obtained by logical proof, and we know all are valid provided the postulate is true. By recognizing that a wave satisfies the wave equation, we immediately acquire a gigantic kit of tools and properties established by mathematical analysis over the past several centuries.
8. BECAUSE , the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED ITS TRUE VALUE (when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)) A WHOLE INDUSTRY OF SCIENCE FICTION HAS DEVELOPED.
IT IS EASIER TO SELL SCIENCE FICTION THAN TO SELL SCIENCE.
SCIENCE FICTION DOES NOT MAKE GOOD SCIENCE.
“Getting rid of the infinite density, infinite force of gravity, and infinite curvature of space around a point mass requires changes in known physics.
Quantum Geometry is a valid approach to the understanding of the universe.”
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
JAL
Message for TRoc:
I don’t want to litter your thread.
Your scale should hit “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi). Since G (gravity constant) is based upon r = 0 then G must be scaled and change to agree with “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
G should have two numbers: One for Newton physics and one for Quantum physics.
The Quantum G should be an Exp. Curve. It could start at the 2D packing (which is the Holographic principle) then it should cross at the 3D packing and should cross at Newton G which should be at approximately one mm.
The result: no more renormalization …. No more infinite density, ….. no more infinite force of gravity, and …. no more infinite curvature of space around a point mass.
Depending on the exp. Curve, there might not be any missing energy and therefore a need for neutrino or dark matter. (Prof. L. Randall should be good at choosing the right exp. Curve)
Because of scaling and congruence, there are no reason why the 3D packing could not be at 10^-18.
TRoc…. I would expect that your scale would follow the exponential curve for the Quantum G.
If you can make the scale fit the Quantum G. Exp. Curve….I’ll gladly owe you a beer.
Would this be another way of answering yquantum’s question? “What is mass?”
The dimensions assigned to the gravitational constant (length cubed, divided by mass and by time squared) are those needed to make gravitational equations 'come out right'. However, these dimensions have fundamental significance in terms of Planck units: when expressed in SI units, the gravitational constant is dimensionally and numerically equal to the cube of the Planck length divided by the Planck mass and by the square of Planck time.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2000/split/pnu482-1.htm
NOW!…… THAT WOULD BE NEW PHYSICS!
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
JAL
--------------------------------------
By now, it should have become obvious to the people promoting Heim, the metron, and protosimplex that Heim used a Quantum Geometry approach.
See:“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
Heim was aware that the Planck scale rules could not be violated.
I suspect that his approach led him to having the metron at “large dimensions”.
I suspect that he did not like what he got….. Large metrons.
The best that people would have said would have been that he had found a new way of getting the mass of the particles.
“A LOOKUP TABLE”.
That is not very sexy or very saleable. It makes for terrible science fiction.
The “math kids” at Heim should stop wasting time with science fiction and they should find and remove the “exponential?,… scaling?.... T-duality …or whatever?” that Heim inserted in his formulas.
For a start the Heim “math kids” should get familiar with the work by James G. Gilson on the fine structure constant at http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page2.html and his work on Stochastic Simulation of The Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum
At http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Quantum Geometry is a valid approach to the understanding of the universe.
If the Heim “math kids” do their work properly we should be able to see a spot/metron.
jal
-----------------------------------------------------
A better approach is the hydrino. However, they made a simple math error.
They violated the Planck scale rule.
The minimum size of a sphere at the Planck scale is when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/AtomicPhysics.pdf
QUOTE
• The limiting velocity c results in the contraction of spacetime
due to particle production. The contraction is given by r G
where is the gravitational radius of the particle.
due to particle production. The contraction is given by r G
where is the gravitational radius of the particle.
( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentatio...2005%20Fuel.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| • The limiting velocity c results in the contraction of spacetime due to particle production. The contraction is given by r G where is the gravitational radius of the particle. |
( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentatio...2005%20Fuel.pdf
In place of the Schrödinger boundary condition, Ψ —> 0 as r —> ∞; apply a new boundary condition derived from Maxwell’s equations:
(Planck scale must be obeyed…. ( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
QUOTE
….. Using a Maxwellian nonradiative boundary constraint to solve the wave equation, an exothermic reaction is predicted whereby certain atoms or ions serve as catalysts to release energy from hydrogen to produce an increased binding energy hydrogen atom called a hydrino having a binding energy of …… (see formula)
where p is an integer greater than 1 and < 137, designated as where is the radius of the hydrogen atom.
where p is an integer greater than 1 and < 137, designated as where is the radius of the hydrogen atom.
The Minimum Radius corresponds to the gravitational
Radius which cannot be less than the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
If the “math kids” at Black Light Power Inc can clearly indicate that they can include the Planck scale rules and that their work stand up then they will have a link to “REALITY”. Their search would need to concentrate on how they have applied The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry which are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence.
The graphics from Black Light Power Inc. are great for understanding what I have been saying.
As a result, …. we could end up with a spot/hydrino/metro
jal
-------------------------------------------------------
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
#1
What have you learned from this thread?
1. What is the fine structure constant?
It is a formula that is derived from finding the location of 6 equally spaced waves on a sphere.
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page3.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ….. Using a Maxwellian nonradiative boundary constraint to solve the wave equation, an exothermic reaction is predicted whereby certain atoms or ions serve as catalysts to release energy from hydrogen to produce an increased binding energy hydrogen atom called a hydrino having a binding energy of …… (see formula) where p is an integer greater than 1 and < 137, designated as where is the radius of the hydrogen atom. |
The Minimum Radius corresponds to the gravitational
Radius which cannot be less than the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).
If the “math kids” at Black Light Power Inc can clearly indicate that they can include the Planck scale rules and that their work stand up then they will have a link to “REALITY”. Their search would need to concentrate on how they have applied The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry which are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence.
The graphics from Black Light Power Inc. are great for understanding what I have been saying.
As a result, …. we could end up with a spot/hydrino/metro
jal
-------------------------------------------------------
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
#1
What have you learned from this thread?
1. What is the fine structure constant?
It is a formula that is derived from finding the location of 6 equally spaced waves on a sphere.
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page3.html
Finally, the formula for the fine structure constant can be used to set up a scheme for the finite renormalization of Quantum Electrodynamics. This makes it possible to avoid the mathematical uncertainties associated with the manipulations of infinite quantities that have hitherto been necessary in the renormalization procedures.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
QUOTE
In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length.
3. What is the smallest area in our universe?
It is a surface area having one Planck length and one Planck width and no thickness.
4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
It takes 6 Planck size waves to make a Planck size sphere.
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
5. What is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ?
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It is out of bound. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat” all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is equal to Planck's constant divided by 4π.
A fundamental consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that no physical phenomena can be (to arbitrary accuracy) described as a "classic point particle". (At the Planck scale it is impossible).
In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees, or 2π radians.
As can be seen in the above diagram, the calculations are done on where the waves are located. (The waves do not originate at r = 0.) Therefore, there is an uncertainty, (the green area) of where the waves are located.
6. What is a wave function?
Waves, Acoustics and Vibration, by J. B. Calvert,
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavefun.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length. |
3. What is the smallest area in our universe?
It is a surface area having one Planck length and one Planck width and no thickness.
4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
It takes 6 Planck size waves to make a Planck size sphere.
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
5. What is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ?
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It is out of bound. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat” all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is equal to Planck's constant divided by 4π.
A fundamental consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that no physical phenomena can be (to arbitrary accuracy) described as a "classic point particle". (At the Planck scale it is impossible).
In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees, or 2π radians.
As can be seen in the above diagram, the calculations are done on where the waves are located. (The waves do not originate at r = 0.) Therefore, there is an uncertainty, (the green area) of where the waves are located.
6. What is a wave function?
Waves, Acoustics and Vibration, by J. B. Calvert,
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavefun.htm
We have not had to say anything about the nature of the wave function, beyond the fact that knowing it allows all properties of the wave to be determined.
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavdynam.htm
QUOTE
This wave equation is just like the one-dimensional wave equation that holds for plane waves, except that the space variable is now r, and the quantity that satisfies the simple wave equation is the product of r and the velocity potential. The equations on the right show the reasoning. The equation of continuity, you will notice, is essentially the divergence theorem, where we express the flux out of a thin spherical shell in two different ways. The wave equation immediately gives the typical 1/r dependence of the wave amplitude that is necessary for conservation of energy. The general solution is rφ= f(ct - r) + F(ct + r), where f and F are two arbitrary functions, the first representing an outgoing wave, the second an incoming wave. Taking an outgoing wave only, the radial velocity is v = f'/r + f/r2. The first term predominates for large distances, the second for small distances, from the origin.
THE ORIGIN HAS BEEN WRONGLY ASSIGNED AS ZERO IN QUANTUM CALCULATIONS. IT SHOULD BE ASSIGNED, “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
A point violates the distances allowed at the Planck scale.
R = 0 IS NOT ALLOWED.
7. What is a postulate?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This wave equation is just like the one-dimensional wave equation that holds for plane waves, except that the space variable is now r, and the quantity that satisfies the simple wave equation is the product of r and the velocity potential. The equations on the right show the reasoning. The equation of continuity, you will notice, is essentially the divergence theorem, where we express the flux out of a thin spherical shell in two different ways. The wave equation immediately gives the typical 1/r dependence of the wave amplitude that is necessary for conservation of energy. The general solution is rφ= f(ct - r) + F(ct + r), where f and F are two arbitrary functions, the first representing an outgoing wave, the second an incoming wave. Taking an outgoing wave only, the radial velocity is v = f'/r + f/r2. The first term predominates for large distances, the second for small distances, from the origin. |
THE ORIGIN HAS BEEN WRONGLY ASSIGNED AS ZERO IN QUANTUM CALCULATIONS. IT SHOULD BE ASSIGNED, “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
A point violates the distances allowed at the Planck scale.
R = 0 IS NOT ALLOWED.
7. What is a postulate?
In the language of geometry, it is a postulate, something not proved but assumed as the basis for argument. Euclid's postulates defined Euclidean space, in which all his later results lived. By a slight change to one postulate, we get geometry on the surface of a sphere, which differs in some respects (two parallel lines meet at two points instead of none, for example). The verification that space is actually Euclidean, or that a wave satisfies the wave equation, follows from experience, not proof. Starting from the postulate of the wave equation, a great number of mathematical results can be obtained by logical proof, and we know all are valid provided the postulate is true. By recognizing that a wave satisfies the wave equation, we immediately acquire a gigantic kit of tools and properties established by mathematical analysis over the past several centuries.
8. BECAUSE , the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED ITS TRUE VALUE (when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)) A WHOLE INDUSTRY OF SCIENCE FICTION HAS DEVELOPED.
IT IS EASIER TO SELL SCIENCE FICTION THAN TO SELL SCIENCE.
SCIENCE FICTION DOES NOT MAKE GOOD SCIENCE.
“Getting rid of the infinite density, infinite force of gravity, and infinite curvature of space around a point mass requires changes in known physics.
Quantum Geometry is a valid approach to the understanding of the universe.”
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
JAL
Message for TRoc:
I don’t want to litter your thread.
Your scale should hit “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi). Since G (gravity constant) is based upon r = 0 then G must be scaled and change to agree with “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
G should have two numbers: One for Newton physics and one for Quantum physics.
The Quantum G should be an Exp. Curve. It could start at the 2D packing (which is the Holographic principle) then it should cross at the 3D packing and should cross at Newton G which should be at approximately one mm.
The result: no more renormalization …. No more infinite density, ….. no more infinite force of gravity, and …. no more infinite curvature of space around a point mass.
Depending on the exp. Curve, there might not be any missing energy and therefore a need for neutrino or dark matter. (Prof. L. Randall should be good at choosing the right exp. Curve)
Because of scaling and congruence, there are no reason why the 3D packing could not be at 10^-18.
TRoc…. I would expect that your scale would follow the exponential curve for the Quantum G.
If you can make the scale fit the Quantum G. Exp. Curve….I’ll gladly owe you a beer.
Would this be another way of answering yquantum’s question? “What is mass?”
The dimensions assigned to the gravitational constant (length cubed, divided by mass and by time squared) are those needed to make gravitational equations 'come out right'. However, these dimensions have fundamental significance in terms of Planck units: when expressed in SI units, the gravitational constant is dimensionally and numerically equal to the cube of the Planck length divided by the Planck mass and by the square of Planck time.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2000/split/pnu482-1.htm
QUOTE
Now a group at the University of Washington has reduced the uncertainty in the value of G by almost a factor of ten. Their preliminary value is G=6.67390 x 10-11 m3/kg/s2 with an uncertainty of 0.0014%. Combining this new value of G with measurements made with the Lageos satellite (which uses laser ranging to keep track of its orbital position to within a millimeter) permits the calculation of a brand new, highest precision mass for the earth: 5.97223 (+/- .00008) x 1024 kg. Similarly the new mass of the sun becomes 1.98843 (+/- .00003) x 1030 kg. Gundlach's (206-543-4080, jens@phys.washington.edu)
NOW!…… THAT WOULD BE NEW PHYSICS!
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
JAL
--------------------------------------
I have pointed out the problems.
Can you fix your theory?
COSTUME PARTY 31 OCT 2006
AT http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry122088
BRING YOUR
QUANTUM Gravity
SOLUTION
What will it be….. no link = science fiction
OR ….. a link to a fixed new theory = science.
jal
Can you fix your theory?
COSTUME PARTY 31 OCT 2006
AT http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry122088
BRING YOUR
QUANTUM Gravity
SOLUTION
What will it be….. no link = science fiction
OR ….. a link to a fixed new theory = science.
jal
FROM ATOMS TO QUARKS AND BEYOND:A HISTORICAL
PANORAMA
G. Rajasekaran
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Madras 600113.
e-mail: graj@imsc.ernet.in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0602...202006%20pdf%22
The above article summarizes where we are.
------------------------------------------------
We are all children of the WEB.
Those “old guys” are putting up information on the WEB with the hope that their knowledge will not be forgotten and that it will be understood by “seekers”.
They are unconsciously hoping that “amateurs” will get/write some insight that will further the quest for understanding that would result in “breakthroughs”.
Of course, the “old guy” must get an insight…. that the amateur/you had an insight… then the “old guys” will forget that his insight came from the insight of an amateur/your insight….. and he’ll publish/write a paper about his insight.
The end result…. A “breakthrough”.
So don’t feel bad if the “old guys” don’t acknowledge your existence….it’s not their fault …..it’s probably part of being “old guy”
Now, …. I’m sure that I must have read something to inspired me to write this….but I cannot remember where/who …. Maybe, …. I’m getting to be an “old guy”.
Oh well! …c’est la vie!
By the way …. In case you forgot … you still owe me a beer.
See you at the party.
jal
PANORAMA
G. Rajasekaran
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Madras 600113.
e-mail: graj@imsc.ernet.in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0602...202006%20pdf%22
QUOTE
Another Way Out
In the past three years, another revolutionary idea is being-tried – namely to bring down Planck scale from 1019 GeV to 103 GeV. This is the so called TeV scale gravity which uses large (sub-mm) extra dimensions. (If we cannot go up to the mountain top why not ask the mountain top to come down?) One version of this idea which is popular is due to Randall and Sundrum.
This is a very interesting field, with a bewildering variety of worlds that theorists can construct, as a scan of recent hep-net will show.
Is Nature so kind and considerate to us, that it would have brought down the Planck scale for our sake? Only Future can tell.
But, if this turns out to be correct, then Quantum Gravity and String Theory are not
some distant theories relevant at 1019 GeV, but they are immediately relevant at 103 − 105 GeV. So, it becomes even more urgent to understand String Theories and assimilate them into Physics!
Many preonic models have been proposed but none is as yet required by experimental data. Down to a distance scale of 10−17 cm, quarks and leptons behave like point particles.
Nevertheless, Nature might have already chosen one preonic model and future experiments might reveal it!
In the past three years, another revolutionary idea is being-tried – namely to bring down Planck scale from 1019 GeV to 103 GeV. This is the so called TeV scale gravity which uses large (sub-mm) extra dimensions. (If we cannot go up to the mountain top why not ask the mountain top to come down?) One version of this idea which is popular is due to Randall and Sundrum.
This is a very interesting field, with a bewildering variety of worlds that theorists can construct, as a scan of recent hep-net will show.
Is Nature so kind and considerate to us, that it would have brought down the Planck scale for our sake? Only Future can tell.
But, if this turns out to be correct, then Quantum Gravity and String Theory are not
some distant theories relevant at 1019 GeV, but they are immediately relevant at 103 − 105 GeV. So, it becomes even more urgent to understand String Theories and assimilate them into Physics!
Many preonic models have been proposed but none is as yet required by experimental data. Down to a distance scale of 10−17 cm, quarks and leptons behave like point particles.
Nevertheless, Nature might have already chosen one preonic model and future experiments might reveal it!
The above article summarizes where we are.
------------------------------------------------
We are all children of the WEB.
Those “old guys” are putting up information on the WEB with the hope that their knowledge will not be forgotten and that it will be understood by “seekers”.
They are unconsciously hoping that “amateurs” will get/write some insight that will further the quest for understanding that would result in “breakthroughs”.
Of course, the “old guy” must get an insight…. that the amateur/you had an insight… then the “old guys” will forget that his insight came from the insight of an amateur/your insight….. and he’ll publish/write a paper about his insight.
The end result…. A “breakthrough”.
So don’t feel bad if the “old guys” don’t acknowledge your existence….it’s not their fault …..it’s probably part of being “old guy”
Now, …. I’m sure that I must have read something to inspired me to write this….but I cannot remember where/who …. Maybe, …. I’m getting to be an “old guy”.
Oh well! …c’est la vie!
By the way …. In case you forgot … you still owe me a beer.
See you at the party.
jal
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0603/...202006%20pdf%22
Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown and Perspective of Higgs Mechanism21 March 2006
Do I smell neutrinos or quarks????
Do I smell neutrinos or quarks????
So, under the ew interaction, when weakons try to propagate, they interact with the scalar field in the vacuum and slow down, what we can interpret as the appearance of mass in them.
Did we just invent something new??? Weakons
between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0
Please explain why you can apply the uncertainty over an area that does not exist?
Susy does not work.
"The emperor has no clothes."
I have repeatedly asked for an explanation... to no avail....
Great logical thinkers abound to make a TOE yet no one can apply their logic to a simple problem.
No science....just science fiction.
"Can solve the universe, but cannot tie their shoe laces."
between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0
Please explain why you can apply the uncertainty over an area that does not exist?
Susy does not work.
"The emperor has no clothes."
I have repeatedly asked for an explanation... to no avail....
Great logical thinkers abound to make a TOE yet no one can apply their logic to a simple problem.
No science....just science fiction.
"Can solve the universe, but cannot tie their shoe laces."
The moral is: for a question like this, you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers.
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN.
The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN.
The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length.
4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? (Check my math/logic) I would expect more than one approach. Let’s see what you can do with Quantum_tunneling and SUSY.
Of course, I would expect that you would publish your work ….and of course remember to give me a beer.
We shall put your entries into the “bobbing for apples” category.
See you at the party.
Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown and Perspective of Higgs Mechanism21 March 2006
QUOTE
The mass generation through an interaction with a non-empty vacuum can be traced back to the σ-model by Schwinger with the postulation of a scalar field σ along with its potential [1]. The four scalar fields, σ and ϕi (i = 1, . . . , 3) in the σ-model lead to the appearance of three massive and one massless vector bosons,
Do I smell neutrinos or quarks????
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The mass generation through an interaction with a non-empty vacuum can be traced back to the σ-model by Schwinger with the postulation of a scalar field σ along with its potential [1]. The four scalar fields, σ and ϕi (i = 1, . . . , 3) in the σ-model lead to the appearance of three massive and one massless vector bosons, |
Do I smell neutrinos or quarks????
So, under the ew interaction, when weakons try to propagate, they interact with the scalar field in the vacuum and slow down, what we can interpret as the appearance of mass in them.
Did we just invent something new??? Weakons
QUOTE
The minimum of the energy is then given through the Higgs ground state value v 6= 0 in the following form:
u0 = u(φ0) = −3/2ｵ4 λ ≡ umin, φ(+) 0 = +r− 6ｵ2λ ei_ ≡ ˜v = vei_ 6= 0.
In a purely scalar case for φ, v is to be chosen between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0 . The ring of minima for the minimality condition of u is popularly called a “Mexican Hat”, and regions with different φ0-values are called “topological defects”, while with changing values φ = v ↔ −v are “interface domains”.
u0 = u(φ0) = −3/2ｵ4 λ ≡ umin, φ(+) 0 = +r− 6ｵ2λ ei_ ≡ ˜v = vei_ 6= 0.
In a purely scalar case for φ, v is to be chosen between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0 . The ring of minima for the minimality condition of u is popularly called a “Mexican Hat”, and regions with different φ0-values are called “topological defects”, while with changing values φ = v ↔ −v are “interface domains”.
between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0
Please explain why you can apply the uncertainty over an area that does not exist?
Susy does not work.
"The emperor has no clothes."
I have repeatedly asked for an explanation... to no avail....
Great logical thinkers abound to make a TOE yet no one can apply their logic to a simple problem.
No science....just science fiction.
"Can solve the universe, but cannot tie their shoe laces."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The minimum of the energy is then given through the Higgs ground state value v 6= 0 in the following form: u0 = u(φ0) = −3/2ｵ4 λ ≡ umin, φ(+) 0 = +r− 6ｵ2λ ei_ ≡ ˜v = vei_ 6= 0. In a purely scalar case for φ, v is to be chosen between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0 . The ring of minima for the minimality condition of u is popularly called a “Mexican Hat”, and regions with different φ0-values are called “topological defects”, while with changing values φ = v ↔ −v are “interface domains”. |
between the negative value φ(−)0 and the positive one φ(+) 0
Please explain why you can apply the uncertainty over an area that does not exist?
Susy does not work.
"The emperor has no clothes."
I have repeatedly asked for an explanation... to no avail....
Great logical thinkers abound to make a TOE yet no one can apply their logic to a simple problem.
No science....just science fiction.
"Can solve the universe, but cannot tie their shoe laces."
The moral is: for a question like this, you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers.
QUOTE
A point particle is an idealized particle[/b] heavily used in physics. Its distinguishing features are that it does not have any volume or surface area; it is zero dimensional. A point particle is often a good approximation of real particles and also more extended bodies. In Newtonian gravitation as well as general relativity and electromagnetism, the respective fields outside of a spherical object are identical to those of a point particle of equal charge/mass located at the center of the sphere.
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN.
The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A point particle is an idealized particle[/b] heavily used in physics. Its distinguishing features are that it does not have any volume or surface area; it is zero dimensional. A point particle is often a good approximation of real particles and also more extended bodies. In Newtonian gravitation as well as general relativity and electromagnetism, the respective fields outside of a spherical object are identical to those of a point particle of equal charge/mass located at the center of the sphere. |
YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT THE PLANCK LENGTH IS A POINT. THAT IS A MAJOR ERROR. THE PLANCK LENGTH IS 100% CERTAIN.
The Planck lengths must be conserved. Therefore, you can only use “Uncertainty Principle”, “entangled states”, “Quantum indeterminacy” , where the waves are located and there cannot be any waves less than the Planck length.
2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?
In physics, the Planck time (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length.
4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
QUOTE
It takes 6 Planck size waves to make a Planck size sphere.
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size.
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? (Check my math/logic) I would expect more than one approach. Let’s see what you can do with Quantum_tunneling and SUSY.
Of course, I would expect that you would publish your work ….and of course remember to give me a beer.
We shall put your entries into the “bobbing for apples” category.
See you at the party.
Good day!
Thank You for keeping the discussion in the ongoing thread...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...05&#entry131942
We are the first “CHILDREN OF THE WEB”. It would be a shame for the “professionals” not to take advantage of the growing numbers of “amateurs” to help them understand/figure out how the universe is made.
We, (the amateurs), are very well equipped to help the “professionals”.
We have the interest, the time to search the WEB and the computer models that have been developed by many amateurs.
Remember the fury that was caused by a geologist, (an amateur), who had the gall to say to the “professionals” that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a rock falling out of the sky.
Today, there is a huge amount of “specialized information” that is on the WEB and available to all the “amateurs”.
Which of these fields of specialized information would help us to understand the universe?
This is where the amateurs can help.
The “amateur” that ends up contributing the most insight could come from the most unexpected “discipline”. It could come from the creator of a XXX simulator or from a gamer.
The “professionals” of today have got to be open to getting their “insights” from any “amateur”.
What have “amateurs” been able to do?
Here is the summary of the “SPOT”?
units
We have identified a basic unit to work with …. A Planck size wave.
The holographic principle implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information.
structures
1. The structures of Hex. and Cubic arrangements, 2D packing and 3D packing has been identified as the basic structure.
2. As a result, we have 6 “waves” to work with in 2D and 12 “waves” to work with in 3D.
3. The Planck Scale Rules are applicable and cannot be violated. As a result it reveals more secrets of the structure.
4. There is a “Planck Volume” which is a void, and that void cannot be occupied for more than a Planck time.
5. The Planck distance imposes a minimum distance on a “Planck Volume” which is greater than a Plank Length.
6. The diameter of a 2D Planck Sphere is greater than one Planck Length.
7. The 3D Planck Sphere is a composite of 12 Planck waves in a dynamic configuration with a diameter equal to 2(3(2 pi )).
8. A solitary wave cannot “live”. Therefore, a “spot”, is a mathematical construct when considered by itself or in isolation. It cannot “live”.
9. The use of “a point” as the origin for gravity is not allowed because nothing is smaller than a Planck Length or a 2D Planck Sphere.
10. We cannot renormalize gravity from a 3D structure. That means that GRAVITY IS FROM A 2D STRUCTURE.
11. The use of “other dimensions” are only “mathematical constructs” to help in determining “dynamic processes”.
12. Scaling can bring the size of the 3D structure to 10^-18.
13. Quantum tunneling can be explained by the ”voids”.
14. Spacetime vacuum is full of these “voids”.
15. The spacetime structure is in equilibrium and presently undetectable. ("kT ln(2)")
16. The vacuum energy could be, ("kT ln(2)"). A Casimir force 'engine'.
17. Due to the “Carnot Cycle” of the 12 waves not being as efficient near “mass” (spacetime curvature) we would get a higher energy reading. Then this inefficiency could be what we call “Dark Matter”.
18. Uncertainty as a mathematical formula has been worked out and must be used on where the waves are located. This was worked out by ….. James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Stochastic Simulation of The Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum
19. The fine structure constant, * = cos(pi/N)/N. This formula gives the value of * to very great
accuracy when N is set equal to 137. * = cos(pi/137)/137 = 7.297351 10−3.
20. A Mathematical approach for using the “SPOT” has been suggested by …. Gerard ’t Hooft at
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
21. There are more “secrets” hidden in the structure. The “professionals should be able to make the relationship and get a different understanding of neutrinos, quarks, "virtual particles", Casimir force, ISL, Big Bang, Black Holes, and Dark Matter, CMBR, etc.
22. All of this “new physics” will have an implication on the understanding of how the universe evolved.
processes
Doing processes, at this stage, would help to reveal more of the other secrets of the structure.
The final dynamics/processes of the structure have not yet been worked out.
We should not discount the possibility that the harmony of those 12 “waves” are being reflected into our everyday experiences…. Such as music.
Are there some of possible models/theories that are being used by the “amateurs” that could help?
Find them…. Bring them to the party with an explanation.
Maybe we will have some fishermen/professionals who will be able to tell us if we have a a “red fish” or something promising for … PLAN “B”.
See you at the party.
Thank You for keeping the discussion in the ongoing thread...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...05&#entry131942
We are the first “CHILDREN OF THE WEB”. It would be a shame for the “professionals” not to take advantage of the growing numbers of “amateurs” to help them understand/figure out how the universe is made.
We, (the amateurs), are very well equipped to help the “professionals”.
We have the interest, the time to search the WEB and the computer models that have been developed by many amateurs.
Remember the fury that was caused by a geologist, (an amateur), who had the gall to say to the “professionals” that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a rock falling out of the sky.
Today, there is a huge amount of “specialized information” that is on the WEB and available to all the “amateurs”.
Which of these fields of specialized information would help us to understand the universe?
This is where the amateurs can help.
The “amateur” that ends up contributing the most insight could come from the most unexpected “discipline”. It could come from the creator of a XXX simulator or from a gamer.
The “professionals” of today have got to be open to getting their “insights” from any “amateur”.
QUOTE
Systems theory is the basis for modeling complex systems, which are broken down into three basic components: units, processes, and structures. Once these three components can be identified, a mathematical or game-theory derived model can be produced. This model is then run through a Simulation.
What have “amateurs” been able to do?
Here is the summary of the “SPOT”?
units
We have identified a basic unit to work with …. A Planck size wave.
The holographic principle implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information.
structures
1. The structures of Hex. and Cubic arrangements, 2D packing and 3D packing has been identified as the basic structure.
2. As a result, we have 6 “waves” to work with in 2D and 12 “waves” to work with in 3D.
3. The Planck Scale Rules are applicable and cannot be violated. As a result it reveals more secrets of the structure.
4. There is a “Planck Volume” which is a void, and that void cannot be occupied for more than a Planck time.
5. The Planck distance imposes a minimum distance on a “Planck Volume” which is greater than a Plank Length.
6. The diameter of a 2D Planck Sphere is greater than one Planck Length.
7. The 3D Planck Sphere is a composite of 12 Planck waves in a dynamic configuration with a diameter equal to 2(3(2 pi )).
8. A solitary wave cannot “live”. Therefore, a “spot”, is a mathematical construct when considered by itself or in isolation. It cannot “live”.
9. The use of “a point” as the origin for gravity is not allowed because nothing is smaller than a Planck Length or a 2D Planck Sphere.
10. We cannot renormalize gravity from a 3D structure. That means that GRAVITY IS FROM A 2D STRUCTURE.
11. The use of “other dimensions” are only “mathematical constructs” to help in determining “dynamic processes”.
12. Scaling can bring the size of the 3D structure to 10^-18.
13. Quantum tunneling can be explained by the ”voids”.
14. Spacetime vacuum is full of these “voids”.
15. The spacetime structure is in equilibrium and presently undetectable. ("kT ln(2)")
16. The vacuum energy could be, ("kT ln(2)"). A Casimir force 'engine'.
17. Due to the “Carnot Cycle” of the 12 waves not being as efficient near “mass” (spacetime curvature) we would get a higher energy reading. Then this inefficiency could be what we call “Dark Matter”.
18. Uncertainty as a mathematical formula has been worked out and must be used on where the waves are located. This was worked out by ….. James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
Stochastic Simulation of The Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum
19. The fine structure constant, * = cos(pi/N)/N. This formula gives the value of * to very great
accuracy when N is set equal to 137. * = cos(pi/137)/137 = 7.297351 10−3.
20. A Mathematical approach for using the “SPOT” has been suggested by …. Gerard ’t Hooft at
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
21. There are more “secrets” hidden in the structure. The “professionals should be able to make the relationship and get a different understanding of neutrinos, quarks, "virtual particles", Casimir force, ISL, Big Bang, Black Holes, and Dark Matter, CMBR, etc.
22. All of this “new physics” will have an implication on the understanding of how the universe evolved.
processes
Doing processes, at this stage, would help to reveal more of the other secrets of the structure.
The final dynamics/processes of the structure have not yet been worked out.
We should not discount the possibility that the harmony of those 12 “waves” are being reflected into our everyday experiences…. Such as music.
Are there some of possible models/theories that are being used by the “amateurs” that could help?
Find them…. Bring them to the party with an explanation.
Maybe we will have some fishermen/professionals who will be able to tell us if we have a a “red fish” or something promising for … PLAN “B”.
See you at the party.
Hi!
"Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions: The Case of a Closed Universe" by Steven Carlip is a gold mine.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
Do you recall….
James G. Gilson has worked the math that I needed to demonstrate 2D packing.
Of course it is ..... Lay out those six 2D waves on the flat
Which of course means that the universe is made from 2D waves.
No higher dimensions needed.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0307/0307174.pdf
I found another approach.
It uses the Planck scale void created by the six waves.
Unfortunately, for me, I cannot figure out if he has applied the Planck Scale rule.
If your math is good in that area then you can tell me.
If your math is that good then you can write a follow up on his paper and include the Planck Scale restriction.
Then it will be only a small step to go to double hyperbolic tetrahedron for 3D packing.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0305/0305113.pdf
6j SYMBOLS FOR Uq(sl2) AND NON-EUCLIDEAN TETRAHEDRA
YUKA U. TAYLOR AND CHRISTOPHER T. WOODWARD
13 May 2005
Jal
---------------------------------
More on the use of tetrahedron
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408079.pdf
Background independence in a nutshell: the dynamics of a tetrahedron
Daniele Colosi, Luisa Doplicher, Winston Fairbairn,
Leonardo Modesto, Karim Noui, Carlo Rovelli
May 19, 2006
-------------------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0301/0301113.pdf
Spin Foam Models for Quantum Gravity
Alejandro Perez
Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry,
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802, USA
and
Erwin Schr¨odinger International
Institute for Mathematical Physics
Boltzmanngasse 9,A-1090, Wien, Austria
May 19, 2006
-------------------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0301/0301113.pdf
Spin Foam Models for Quantum Gravity
Alejandro Perez
Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry,
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802, USA
and
Erwin Schr¨odinger International
Institute for Mathematical Physics
Boltzmanngasse 9,A-1090, Wien, Austria
May 19, 2006
Conclusion
The suggestion that quantum gravity should be described in terms of discrete combinatorial structures can be traced all the way back to Einstein
For all these models the common structure arising is given by spin foams: colored 2-complexes where the geometric degrees of freedom are encoded in a fully combinatorial manner. Spin foam models appear as a beautiful realization of Einstein’s idea. There are certainly many difficult open questions and we have tried to point out those which we judge the most important ones.
We hope that new ideas and hard work will continue to contribute to their resolution in he near future.
Confused2.. .but the search goes on.
jal
"Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions: The Case of a Closed Universe" by Steven Carlip is a gold mine.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?p...rticlesu15.html
Do you recall….
James G. Gilson has worked the math that I needed to demonstrate 2D packing.
Of course it is ..... Lay out those six 2D waves on the flat
Which of course means that the universe is made from 2D waves.
No higher dimensions needed.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0307/0307174.pdf
I found another approach.
It uses the Planck scale void created by the six waves.
Unfortunately, for me, I cannot figure out if he has applied the Planck Scale rule.
If your math is good in that area then you can tell me.
If your math is that good then you can write a follow up on his paper and include the Planck Scale restriction.
Then it will be only a small step to go to double hyperbolic tetrahedron for 3D packing.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0305/0305113.pdf
6j SYMBOLS FOR Uq(sl2) AND NON-EUCLIDEAN TETRAHEDRA
YUKA U. TAYLOR AND CHRISTOPHER T. WOODWARD
13 May 2005
Jal
---------------------------------
More on the use of tetrahedron
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408079.pdf
Background independence in a nutshell: the dynamics of a tetrahedron
Daniele Colosi, Luisa Doplicher, Winston Fairbairn,
Leonardo Modesto, Karim Noui, Carlo Rovelli
May 19, 2006
QUOTE
Abstract
We study how physical information can be extracted from a background independent quantum system. We use an extremely simple ‘minimalist’ system that models a finite region of 3d euclidean quantum spacetime with a single equilateral tetrahedron. We show that the physical information can be expressed as a boundary amplitude. We illustrate how the notions of “evolution”
in a boundary proper-time and “vacuum” can be extracted from the background independent dynamics.
Conclusion
The model has some notable specific features. For instance, energy is bounded from below as well as a from above. This fact was first noticed in 3d quantum gravity by ‘t Hooft [24]. The consequence is that the proper time T itself is quantized, as in loop quantum cosmology [25].
We think that this simple model illustrates how quantum field theory can be defined and consistently interpreted in the absence of a background spacetime. In particular, the formalism and its interpretation are well-defined without the need of selecting a time variable. The relation with an approximate notion of time evolution is also illustrated by this model. The application of these ideas
to full quantum general relativity in four dimensions is of course nontrivial, but this simple example indicates rather clearly a direction for defining observables and obtaining predictions in the general context.
We study how physical information can be extracted from a background independent quantum system. We use an extremely simple ‘minimalist’ system that models a finite region of 3d euclidean quantum spacetime with a single equilateral tetrahedron. We show that the physical information can be expressed as a boundary amplitude. We illustrate how the notions of “evolution”
in a boundary proper-time and “vacuum” can be extracted from the background independent dynamics.
Conclusion
The model has some notable specific features. For instance, energy is bounded from below as well as a from above. This fact was first noticed in 3d quantum gravity by ‘t Hooft [24]. The consequence is that the proper time T itself is quantized, as in loop quantum cosmology [25].
We think that this simple model illustrates how quantum field theory can be defined and consistently interpreted in the absence of a background spacetime. In particular, the formalism and its interpretation are well-defined without the need of selecting a time variable. The relation with an approximate notion of time evolution is also illustrated by this model. The application of these ideas
to full quantum general relativity in four dimensions is of course nontrivial, but this simple example indicates rather clearly a direction for defining observables and obtaining predictions in the general context.
-------------------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0301/0301113.pdf
Spin Foam Models for Quantum Gravity
Alejandro Perez
Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry,
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802, USA
and
Erwin Schr¨odinger International
Institute for Mathematical Physics
Boltzmanngasse 9,A-1090, Wien, Austria
May 19, 2006
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract We study how physical information can be extracted from a background independent quantum system. We use an extremely simple ‘minimalist’ system that models a finite region of 3d euclidean quantum spacetime with a single equilateral tetrahedron. We show that the physical information can be expressed as a boundary amplitude. We illustrate how the notions of “evolution” in a boundary proper-time and “vacuum” can be extracted from the background independent dynamics. Conclusion The model has some notable specific features. For instance, energy is bounded from below as well as a from above. This fact was first noticed in 3d quantum gravity by ‘t Hooft [24]. The consequence is that the proper time T itself is quantized, as in loop quantum cosmology [25]. We think that this simple model illustrates how quantum field theory can be defined and consistently interpreted in the absence of a background spacetime. In particular, the formalism and its interpretation are well-defined without the need of selecting a time variable. The relation with an approximate notion of time evolution is also illustrated by this model. The application of these ideas to full quantum general relativity in four dimensions is of course nontrivial, but this simple example indicates rather clearly a direction for defining observables and obtaining predictions in the general context. |
-------------------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0301/0301113.pdf
Spin Foam Models for Quantum Gravity
Alejandro Perez
Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry,
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802, USA
and
Erwin Schr¨odinger International
Institute for Mathematical Physics
Boltzmanngasse 9,A-1090, Wien, Austria
May 19, 2006
Conclusion
The suggestion that quantum gravity should be described in terms of discrete combinatorial structures can be traced all the way back to Einstein
For all these models the common structure arising is given by spin foams: colored 2-complexes where the geometric degrees of freedom are encoded in a fully combinatorial manner. Spin foam models appear as a beautiful realization of Einstein’s idea. There are certainly many difficult open questions and we have tried to point out those which we judge the most important ones.
We hope that new ideas and hard work will continue to contribute to their resolution in he near future.
Confused2.. .but the search goes on.
jal
Good Day!
For the late comers… Let’s go through the numbers one more time.
This time take a close look at the work done by the following 3 “professionals”.
You will soon spot the errors of their logic/calculations.
They should have applied simple quantum geometry at the Planck Scale.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0510/0510245.pdf
Self-consistency in Theories with a Minimal Length
S. Hossenfelder
Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9530, USA
E-mail: sabine@physics.ucsb.edu
21 Feb 2006
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9403/9403008.pdf
Quantum gravity and minimum length
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0305/0305019.pdf
Selected topics in Planck-scale physics
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0410/0410122.pdf
THE MINIMAL LENGTH AND LARGE EXTRA DIMENSIONS
All of the above mentioned papers have made one fatal error.
They could not figure out the minimum Planck sphere for 2D or for 3D.
They should have applied simple quantum geometry at the Planck Scale. .
I'm willing to accept that the smallest Planck scale sphere that can exist is when considering 6 waves in 2 dimensional waves.
It is also supported by the fact that in geometry r=3 V= 113.1 A= 113.1
does not work because the 6 waves are only point size on the surface of the volume.
It is necessary to scale the 2D sphere to the minimum size that can accept the area of 6 Planck size waves.
When it is scaled up by 2X we end up with 6r which would be the 6 points viewed from the exterior of the sphere and the waves are as a result the minimum Planck length. (as I indicated in my drawing)
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi). duhhh....is that right?
It takes 6 Planck size waves to make a Planck size sphere.
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
and
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0305/0305113.pdf
6j SYMBOLS FOR Uq(sl2) AND NON-EUCLIDEAN TETRAHEDRA
YUKA U. TAYLOR AND CHRISTOPHER T. WOODWARD
13 May 2005
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It is out of bound. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region. ( don’t forget the other two waves on the z axis which are not shown.)
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat” all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
In the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle the calculations are done on where the waves are located. (The waves do not originate at r = 0.) Therefore, there is an uncertainty, (the green area) of where the waves are located.
Lets see …..for 3D… would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? That would mean that it takes 12 waves to make a 3D sphere. Let’s review… 6 waves = 2D packing… 12 waves = 3D packing.
(check my calculations/logic)
Ghee!!!! Thing sure are growing bigger and faster.
How far are we from 10^-18? We have definitely left the Planck Scale.
Since science has not reached the stage of being able to do the dynamic of the waves in motion (time) then we must satisfy ourselves with “snapshots”.
Those snapshots result in the double tetrahedron.
The double tetrahedron is the “Planck void”.
The “waves” are the “outside foundation” of the “house”.
That is the reason that when we look around us that we see so many examples of the double tetrahedron. The “house” is following the shape of the “foundation”.
See you at the party.
JAL
For the late comers… Let’s go through the numbers one more time.
This time take a close look at the work done by the following 3 “professionals”.
You will soon spot the errors of their logic/calculations.
They should have applied simple quantum geometry at the Planck Scale.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0510/0510245.pdf
Self-consistency in Theories with a Minimal Length
S. Hossenfelder
Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9530, USA
E-mail: sabine@physics.ucsb.edu
21 Feb 2006
QUOTE
Abstract.
The aim of this paper is to clarify the relation between three different
approaches of theories with a minimal length scale: A modification of the Lorentz-
group in the ’Deformed Special Relativity’, theories with a ’Generalized Uncertainty
Principle’ and those with ’Modified Dispersion Relations’. It is shown that the first
two are equivalent, how they can be translated into each other, and how the third can
be obtained from them. An adequate theory with a minimal length scale requires all
three features to be present.
4. Conclusions
We have shown that theories with a Generalized Uncertainty Principle are equivalent to these with a Deformed Special Relativity and that they can be obtained from each other in a straightforward way. We have derived how both result in a modified version of the dispersion relation, which needs not necessarily imply a varying speed of light.
The explicit translations between the existing approaches have been given. Provided that all three modifications are made together, the framework is self-consistent and can be used to extend the Standard Model.
The aim of this paper is to clarify the relation between three different
approaches of theories with a minimal length scale: A modification of the Lorentz-
group in the ’Deformed Special Relativity’, theories with a ’Generalized Uncertainty
Principle’ and those with ’Modified Dispersion Relations’. It is shown that the first
two are equivalent, how they can be translated into each other, and how the third can
be obtained from them. An adequate theory with a minimal length scale requires all
three features to be present.
4. Conclusions
We have shown that theories with a Generalized Uncertainty Principle are equivalent to these with a Deformed Special Relativity and that they can be obtained from each other in a straightforward way. We have derived how both result in a modified version of the dispersion relation, which needs not necessarily imply a varying speed of light.
The explicit translations between the existing approaches have been given. Provided that all three modifications are made together, the framework is self-consistent and can be used to extend the Standard Model.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9403/9403008.pdf
Quantum gravity and minimum length
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0305/0305019.pdf
Selected topics in Planck-scale physics
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0410/0410122.pdf
THE MINIMAL LENGTH AND LARGE EXTRA DIMENSIONS
All of the above mentioned papers have made one fatal error.
They could not figure out the minimum Planck sphere for 2D or for 3D.
They should have applied simple quantum geometry at the Planck Scale. .
I'm willing to accept that the smallest Planck scale sphere that can exist is when considering 6 waves in 2 dimensional waves.
It is also supported by the fact that in geometry r=3 V= 113.1 A= 113.1
does not work because the 6 waves are only point size on the surface of the volume.
It is necessary to scale the 2D sphere to the minimum size that can accept the area of 6 Planck size waves.
When it is scaled up by 2X we end up with 6r which would be the 6 points viewed from the exterior of the sphere and the waves are as a result the minimum Planck length. (as I indicated in my drawing)
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi). duhhh....is that right?
It takes 6 Planck size waves to make a Planck size sphere.
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf
and
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0305/0305113.pdf
6j SYMBOLS FOR Uq(sl2) AND NON-EUCLIDEAN TETRAHEDRA
YUKA U. TAYLOR AND CHRISTOPHER T. WOODWARD
13 May 2005
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It is out of bound. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region. ( don’t forget the other two waves on the z axis which are not shown.)
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat” all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
In the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle the calculations are done on where the waves are located. (The waves do not originate at r = 0.) Therefore, there is an uncertainty, (the green area) of where the waves are located.
Lets see …..for 3D… would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? That would mean that it takes 12 waves to make a 3D sphere. Let’s review… 6 waves = 2D packing… 12 waves = 3D packing.
(check my calculations/logic)
Ghee!!!! Thing sure are growing bigger and faster.
How far are we from 10^-18? We have definitely left the Planck Scale.
Since science has not reached the stage of being able to do the dynamic of the waves in motion (time) then we must satisfy ourselves with “snapshots”.
Those snapshots result in the double tetrahedron.
The double tetrahedron is the “Planck void”.
The “waves” are the “outside foundation” of the “house”.
That is the reason that when we look around us that we see so many examples of the double tetrahedron. The “house” is following the shape of the “foundation”.
See you at the party.
JAL
Good Day!
Here is a new theory. Well... it's a new approach.
I would like to remind you that in my model that one 2D unit is 6 circles in a hex. or cubic pattern and that in 3D one unit is 12 spheres in a hex. or cubic pattern. Now….. here is a math approach that could be used on the “SPOT”.
I have already referred to ANYONS = SPOT.
Here is another paper about it.
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/2444/01/KITaop06.pdf
Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond
Alexei Kitaev
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, U.S.A.
e-mail: kitaev@iqi.caltech.edu
August 14, 2005
I’ve said it before …over and over…. If I thought of it someone else has probably thought of it before me.
I used a different approach …. The results are too similar to ignore. There are 112 pages to read.
Did Alexei Kitaev obey the Planck scale rule?
Perhaps the 4S model is the one that he needs.
(note: He is using a 2d bulk. He is making the calculation for “the snake must eat its tail”. In this “braiding” remember that this is not a spider leaving a silk trail behind himself. It still required to bring it to a 3D bulk which is sphere packing.
It’s a start.
There is more work to do ….one 2D unit is 6 circles in a hex. or cubic pattern. In 3D one unit is 12 spheres in a hex. or cubic pattern.
Perhaps what he needs is my model.)
Perhaps the authors will give us their opinions on the future of quantum geometry at the party.
See you at the party.
-----------------------------------------------
Good Day
(note: He is using a 2d bulk. He is making the calculation for “the snake must eat its tail”. In this “braiding” remember that this is not a spider leaving a silk trail behind himself. It still required to bring it to a 3D bulk which is sphere packing.
It’s a start.
There is more work to do ….one 2D unit is 6 circles in a hex. or cubic pattern. In 3D one unit is 12 spheres in a hex. or cubic pattern.
Perhaps what he needs is my model.)
Perhaps the authors will give us their opinions on the future of quantum geometry at the party.
See you at the party.
-----------------------------------------------
Good Day
An inspiring TYPO by yquantum
A theory must be tested in lavatories and physicist around the world to show valitiy.
This forum is the lavatories.
-------------------------
Have I managed by using Holography + 2D packing + the Planck Scale rule (the “void”) + scaling to produce a model which can accommodate the SM?
-----------------------------
You all had a numerous chances to go through the number ….
The “amateurs” and “professionals” of this forum have done a “peers review” of this work. Being an outsider…this is the only place for me to publish…
I extend my thanks to the hundreds that have done this review.
You are the best.
I want to extend a special thanks to all of the “authors” that have made their work available on the web.
-----------------------------------
I have been presenting links that demonstrate that the mathematical tool exist to help us understand the universe with my model and quantum geometry.
Have we got enough information (units, processes, and structures.) for the professionals to run a simulation in the laboratories?
------------------------------
We’ll soon know…. I feel that most of our unanswered questions (such as the path taken by a photon) can have an alternate and acceptable explanation within a quantum dynamic geometric model.
Therefore, let us continue…
If the dancer would just slow down….
We might be able to “catch and swing” the pretty girl as she goes by….
See you at the party.
JAL
Here is a new theory. Well... it's a new approach.
I would like to remind you that in my model that one 2D unit is 6 circles in a hex. or cubic pattern and that in 3D one unit is 12 spheres in a hex. or cubic pattern. Now….. here is a math approach that could be used on the “SPOT”.
I have already referred to ANYONS = SPOT.
Here is another paper about it.
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/2444/01/KITaop06.pdf
Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond
Alexei Kitaev
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, U.S.A.
e-mail: kitaev@iqi.caltech.edu
August 14, 2005
I’ve said it before …over and over…. If I thought of it someone else has probably thought of it before me.
I used a different approach …. The results are too similar to ignore. There are 112 pages to read.
Did Alexei Kitaev obey the Planck scale rule?
Perhaps the 4S model is the one that he needs.
QUOTE
… a stability consideration requires that ϕ be a rational multiple of 2π…
… when a charge q goes around a vortex v, it picks up the phase 2πqv, known as the Aharonov-Bohm phase…..
…. The most amazing thing about anyons is that they actually exist as excitations in some condensed matter systems….
…. The best studied example (both theoretically and experimentally) is the Laughlin state [8] in the fractional quantum Hall system at the filling factor ν = 1/3. It carries Abelian anyons with exchange phase ϕ = π/3 and electric charge ±1/3. It is the fractional value of the charge that was predicted in original Laughlin’s paper and confirmed by several methods, in particular by a shot noise measurement [9, 10]. The statistical phase is a subtler property which is deduced theoretically [11, 12]; a nontrivial experimental test has been performed recently using quasiparticle tunneling [13].
The notion of anyons assumes that the underlying state has an energy gap (at least for topologically nontrivial quasiparticles). Otherwise excitations are not localizable and braiding may not be defined. Note that if all excitations are gapped, then all equal-time correlators decay exponentially with distance
…Thus anyons carry some topological quantum numbers which make them stable:….
…. while in anyonic systems correlations decay exponentially due to the energy gap….
… But anyons, by virtue of their topological stability, must have some observable signatures….
…Thus, the hunt for anyons and topological order is a difficult endeavor. Why do we care?
First, because these are conceptually important phenomena, breaking some paradigms. In particular, consider these principles (which work well and provide important guidance in many cases):
1. Conservation laws come from symmetries (by Noether’s theorem or its quantum analogue);
2. Symmetries are initially present in the Hamiltonian (or Lagrangian), but may be spontaneously broken….
… A more practical reason to look for anyons is their potential use in quantum computing….
…Actually, the degeneracy is not absolute by very precise. It is lifted due to virtual particle tunneling across the torus, but this process is exponentially suppressed. Therefore the distance between ground energy levels is proportional to exp(−L/ξ), where L the linear size of the torus and ξ is some characteristic length, which is related to the gap in the excitation spectrum….
(note: torus = Planck size void created by Planck spheres.)
… In fact, a natural process that “distinguishes” them by multiplying by different factors is tunneling of a virtual ε-particle between the fixed σ-particles
(which is possible since σ × ε = σ). However, ε-particles are gapped, therefore this process is exponentially suppressed…
(note: the gap is the void in the Planck spheres.)
…. In order to implement a qubit, one needs four σ-particles. A logical |0i is represented by the quantum state |ξ1i that is obtained by creating the pairs (1, 2) and (3, 4) from the vacuum (see Fig. 2)….
… Indeed, the operators of counterclockwise exchange between two particles
(R-matrices) are related to the fusion rules by so-called hexagon equations and pentagon equation. We will see on concrete examples that these equations have only a finite number of solutions and therefore do not admit small deformations. In general, it is a nontrivial theorem known as Ocneanu rigidity….
… But for the meantime, finding and studying topological phases seems to be a very reasonable goal, also attractive from the fundamental science perspective….
…. The model has two phases (denoted by A and B ) which occur at different values of parameters. The exact solution is obtained by a reduction to free real fermions. Thus quasiparticles in the system may be characterized as fermions and Z2-vortices. Vortices and fermions interact by the Aharonov-Bohm factor equal to −1. In phase A the fermions have an energy gap, and the vortices are bosons that fall into two distinct superselection sectors. (Interestingly enough,
the two types of vortices have identical physical properties and are related to each other by a lattice translation.)…
(note: would this be cubic packing and hex. packing in my model)
p. 31 ….8.2 Unpaired Majorana modes
We now begin a rather lengthy derivation of the properties listed in Table 1, dealing only with anyons in the bulk….
… when a charge q goes around a vortex v, it picks up the phase 2πqv, known as the Aharonov-Bohm phase…..
…. The most amazing thing about anyons is that they actually exist as excitations in some condensed matter systems….
…. The best studied example (both theoretically and experimentally) is the Laughlin state [8] in the fractional quantum Hall system at the filling factor ν = 1/3. It carries Abelian anyons with exchange phase ϕ = π/3 and electric charge ±1/3. It is the fractional value of the charge that was predicted in original Laughlin’s paper and confirmed by several methods, in particular by a shot noise measurement [9, 10]. The statistical phase is a subtler property which is deduced theoretically [11, 12]; a nontrivial experimental test has been performed recently using quasiparticle tunneling [13].
The notion of anyons assumes that the underlying state has an energy gap (at least for topologically nontrivial quasiparticles). Otherwise excitations are not localizable and braiding may not be defined. Note that if all excitations are gapped, then all equal-time correlators decay exponentially with distance
…Thus anyons carry some topological quantum numbers which make them stable:….
…. while in anyonic systems correlations decay exponentially due to the energy gap….
… But anyons, by virtue of their topological stability, must have some observable signatures….
…Thus, the hunt for anyons and topological order is a difficult endeavor. Why do we care?
First, because these are conceptually important phenomena, breaking some paradigms. In particular, consider these principles (which work well and provide important guidance in many cases):
1. Conservation laws come from symmetries (by Noether’s theorem or its quantum analogue);
2. Symmetries are initially present in the Hamiltonian (or Lagrangian), but may be spontaneously broken….
… A more practical reason to look for anyons is their potential use in quantum computing….
…Actually, the degeneracy is not absolute by very precise. It is lifted due to virtual particle tunneling across the torus, but this process is exponentially suppressed. Therefore the distance between ground energy levels is proportional to exp(−L/ξ), where L the linear size of the torus and ξ is some characteristic length, which is related to the gap in the excitation spectrum….
(note: torus = Planck size void created by Planck spheres.)
… In fact, a natural process that “distinguishes” them by multiplying by different factors is tunneling of a virtual ε-particle between the fixed σ-particles
(which is possible since σ × ε = σ). However, ε-particles are gapped, therefore this process is exponentially suppressed…
(note: the gap is the void in the Planck spheres.)
…. In order to implement a qubit, one needs four σ-particles. A logical |0i is represented by the quantum state |ξ1i that is obtained by creating the pairs (1, 2) and (3, 4) from the vacuum (see Fig. 2)….
… Indeed, the operators of counterclockwise exchange between two particles
(R-matrices) are related to the fusion rules by so-called hexagon equations and pentagon equation. We will see on concrete examples that these equations have only a finite number of solutions and therefore do not admit small deformations. In general, it is a nontrivial theorem known as Ocneanu rigidity….
… But for the meantime, finding and studying topological phases seems to be a very reasonable goal, also attractive from the fundamental science perspective….
…. The model has two phases (denoted by A and B ) which occur at different values of parameters. The exact solution is obtained by a reduction to free real fermions. Thus quasiparticles in the system may be characterized as fermions and Z2-vortices. Vortices and fermions interact by the Aharonov-Bohm factor equal to −1. In phase A the fermions have an energy gap, and the vortices are bosons that fall into two distinct superselection sectors. (Interestingly enough,
the two types of vortices have identical physical properties and are related to each other by a lattice translation.)…
(note: would this be cubic packing and hex. packing in my model)
p. 31 ….8.2 Unpaired Majorana modes
We now begin a rather lengthy derivation of the properties listed in Table 1, dealing only with anyons in the bulk….
(note: He is using a 2d bulk. He is making the calculation for “the snake must eat its tail”. In this “braiding” remember that this is not a spider leaving a silk trail behind himself. It still required to bring it to a 3D bulk which is sphere packing.
It’s a start.
There is more work to do ….one 2D unit is 6 circles in a hex. or cubic pattern. In 3D one unit is 12 spheres in a hex. or cubic pattern.
Perhaps what he needs is my model.)
Perhaps the authors will give us their opinions on the future of quantum geometry at the party.
See you at the party.
-----------------------------------------------
Good Day
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| … a stability consideration requires that ϕ be a rational multiple of 2π… … when a charge q goes around a vortex v, it picks up the phase 2πqv, known as the Aharonov-Bohm phase….. …. The most amazing thing about anyons is that they actually exist as excitations in some condensed matter systems…. …. The best studied example (both theoretically and experimentally) is the Laughlin state [8] in the fractional quantum Hall system at the filling factor ν = 1/3. It carries Abelian anyons with exchange phase ϕ = π/3 and electric charge ±1/3. It is the fractional value of the charge that was predicted in original Laughlin’s paper and confirmed by several methods, in particular by a shot noise measurement [9, 10]. The statistical phase is a subtler property which is deduced theoretically [11, 12]; a nontrivial experimental test has been performed recently using quasiparticle tunneling [13]. The notion of anyons assumes that the underlying state has an energy gap (at least for topologically nontrivial quasiparticles). Otherwise excitations are not localizable and braiding may not be defined. Note that if all excitations are gapped, then all equal-time correlators decay exponentially with distance …Thus anyons carry some topological quantum numbers which make them stable:…. …. while in anyonic systems correlations decay exponentially due to the energy gap…. … But anyons, by virtue of their topological stability, must have some observable signatures…. …Thus, the hunt for anyons and topological order is a difficult endeavor. Why do we care? First, because these are conceptually important phenomena, breaking some paradigms. In particular, consider these principles (which work well and provide important guidance in many cases): 1. Conservation laws come from symmetries (by Noether’s theorem or its quantum analogue); 2. Symmetries are initially present in the Hamiltonian (or Lagrangian), but may be spontaneously broken…. … A more practical reason to look for anyons is their potential use in quantum computing…. …Actually, the degeneracy is not absolute by very precise. It is lifted due to virtual particle tunneling across the torus, but this process is exponentially suppressed. Therefore the distance between ground energy levels is proportional to exp(−L/ξ), where L the linear size of the torus and ξ is some characteristic length, which is related to the gap in the excitation spectrum…. (note: torus = Planck size void created by Planck spheres.) … In fact, a natural process that “distinguishes” them by multiplying by different factors is tunneling of a virtual ε-particle between the fixed σ-particles (which is possible since σ × ε = σ). However, ε-particles are gapped, therefore this process is exponentially suppressed… (note: the gap is the void in the Planck spheres.) …. In order to implement a qubit, one needs four σ-particles. A logical |0i is represented by the quantum state |ξ1i that is obtained by creating the pairs (1, 2) and (3, 4) from the vacuum (see Fig. 2)…. … Indeed, the operators of counterclockwise exchange between two particles (R-matrices) are related to the fusion rules by so-called hexagon equations and pentagon equation. We will see on concrete examples that these equations have only a finite number of solutions and therefore do not admit small deformations. In general, it is a nontrivial theorem known as Ocneanu rigidity…. … But for the meantime, finding and studying topological phases seems to be a very reasonable goal, also attractive from the fundamental science perspective…. …. The model has two phases (denoted by A and B ) which occur at different values of parameters. The exact solution is obtained by a reduction to free real fermions. Thus quasiparticles in the system may be characterized as fermions and Z2-vortices. Vortices and fermions interact by the Aharonov-Bohm factor equal to −1. In phase A the fermions have an energy gap, and the vortices are bosons that fall into two distinct superselection sectors. (Interestingly enough, the two types of vortices have identical physical properties and are related to each other by a lattice translation.)… (note: would this be cubic packing and hex. packing in my model) p. 31 ….8.2 Unpaired Majorana modes We now begin a rather lengthy derivation of the properties listed in Table 1, dealing only with anyons in the bulk…. |
(note: He is using a 2d bulk. He is making the calculation for “the snake must eat its tail”. In this “braiding” remember that this is not a spider leaving a silk trail behind himself. It still required to bring it to a 3D bulk which is sphere packing.
It’s a start.
There is more work to do ….one 2D unit is 6 circles in a hex. or cubic pattern. In 3D one unit is 12 spheres in a hex. or cubic pattern.
Perhaps what he needs is my model.)
Perhaps the authors will give us their opinions on the future of quantum geometry at the party.
See you at the party.
-----------------------------------------------
Good Day
An inspiring TYPO by yquantum
A theory must be tested in lavatories and physicist around the world to show valitiy.
This forum is the lavatories. -------------------------
Have I managed by using Holography + 2D packing + the Planck Scale rule (the “void”) + scaling to produce a model which can accommodate the SM?
-----------------------------
You all had a numerous chances to go through the number ….
The “amateurs” and “professionals” of this forum have done a “peers review” of this work. Being an outsider…this is the only place for me to publish…
I extend my thanks to the hundreds that have done this review.
You are the best.
I want to extend a special thanks to all of the “authors” that have made their work available on the web.
-----------------------------------
I have been presenting links that demonstrate that the mathematical tool exist to help us understand the universe with my model and quantum geometry.
Have we got enough information (units, processes, and structures.) for the professionals to run a simulation in the laboratories?
QUOTE
Systems theory is the basis for modeling complex systems, which are broken down into three basic components: units, processes, and structures. Once these three components can be identified, a mathematical or game-theory derived model can be produced. This model is then run through a Simulation.
------------------------------
We’ll soon know…. I feel that most of our unanswered questions (such as the path taken by a photon) can have an alternate and acceptable explanation within a quantum dynamic geometric model.
Therefore, let us continue…
If the dancer would just slow down….
We might be able to “catch and swing” the pretty girl as she goes by….
See you at the party.
JAL
Good Day!
If those obvious clues are there…. Could they have been noted and passed down to us by our forefathers?
Take a look at the following information and find the common thread that every ancient society have been able to pass down to us.
Remember that the “wise men” were the only ones capable of making up these stories and making sure that the “kernels of wisdom” was included in their stories.
Ask yourself …. “Were they able to deduct the PLANCK SCALE VOID?”
“What metaphors could they have used to represent the PLANCK SCALE VOID?”
Get ready for a mind blowing trip.
It’s time to meet some “amateurs”
The following links contain a lot of meta-physic, religions, occults, mystics and clues.
Don’t be taken in…. read with a grain of salt ….. look for the metaphors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-p...n-pentacle.html
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/tartarospyth.html
http://www.worldviewz.net/mathemagics_day2.html
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j8gonsowski.html
http://dcwilson1.tripod.com/magicsquares.htm
http://web.mac.com/paulmartynsmith/iWeb/IChingmath/Home.html
http://www.kalarhythms.com/theory/th.dimensions.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musica_universalis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_cosmology
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/planetarium/index.htm#15
http://picasaweb.google.com/mhussey/BylisAlbania
http://www.chinesefortunecalendar.com/yinyang.htm
http://www.crossroad.to/Books/symbols1.html
http://www.earthquest.co.uk/china/china.html
http://www.ignca.nic.in/ks_41019.htm
http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/kageyama.html
http://www.shakuhachi.com/K-9KChineseFlutes-Nature.html
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/index.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
HEH…DON’T FORGET TO COME BACK …
------------------------------------------
After that trip… you should be able to conclude that quantum geometry/the “SPOT” would find wide acceptance.
The ancestral memory and the symbols of the self dual/double imbedded tetrahedron/ stellated octahedron/, (PLANCK SCALE VOID) have been passed down by the wise men with metaphors.
Have we taken some of the ancient concepts/wisdom and re-named and re-defined them?
Yes…for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition
There are many people working on those problems and trying to find WHAT is the cause of those observations.
I believe that the answers to those questions are hidden in the DYNAMICS of a quantum geometric model and the SCALING formulas.
Only EMF can travel in the PLANCK SCALE VOID and they can stay there for only a Planck time and travel only a Planck distance before having “to touch base” with the geometric structure of spacetime.
In my opinion, the origin of the discovery of the interlocked tetrahedra goes back farther than the written history.
This shape was probably discovered by a CAVEMAN when he looked inside the packed balls of rabbit droppings and then figured out that there existed a space that could not be occupied.
THE PLANCK SCALE QUANTUM VOID.
The “wise men” wanted this “insight”, “symbol”, to be past on to future generations of “students”.
As a result there are records of this shape going back to early civilization.
When quantum physic finally proves the shape of the “quantum foundation” includes the 2D (merkabah) and the 3D interlocked tetrahedra there will be millions of ordinary people from around the world who will say, “I knew that!”
Remember …. : units, processes, and structures.
There were genius in every centuries.
The ancient genius did work on these problems and they did past on their insights/work to future genius.
It is up to us to try to apply our tools to the problems and to try to resolve them.
There are no Da Vinci Codes in their insights/work …
If those obvious clues are there…. Could they have been noted and passed down to us by our forefathers?
Take a look at the following information and find the common thread that every ancient society have been able to pass down to us.
Remember that the “wise men” were the only ones capable of making up these stories and making sure that the “kernels of wisdom” was included in their stories.
Ask yourself …. “Were they able to deduct the PLANCK SCALE VOID?”
“What metaphors could they have used to represent the PLANCK SCALE VOID?”
Get ready for a mind blowing trip.
It’s time to meet some “amateurs”
The following links contain a lot of meta-physic, religions, occults, mystics and clues.
Don’t be taken in…. read with a grain of salt ….. look for the metaphors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-p...n-pentacle.html
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/tartarospyth.html
http://www.worldviewz.net/mathemagics_day2.html
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j8gonsowski.html
http://dcwilson1.tripod.com/magicsquares.htm
http://web.mac.com/paulmartynsmith/iWeb/IChingmath/Home.html
http://www.kalarhythms.com/theory/th.dimensions.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musica_universalis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_cosmology
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/planetarium/index.htm#15
http://picasaweb.google.com/mhussey/BylisAlbania
http://www.chinesefortunecalendar.com/yinyang.htm
http://www.crossroad.to/Books/symbols1.html
http://www.earthquest.co.uk/china/china.html
http://www.ignca.nic.in/ks_41019.htm
http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/kageyama.html
http://www.shakuhachi.com/K-9KChineseFlutes-Nature.html
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/index.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
HEH…DON’T FORGET TO COME BACK …
------------------------------------------
After that trip… you should be able to conclude that quantum geometry/the “SPOT” would find wide acceptance.
The ancestral memory and the symbols of the self dual/double imbedded tetrahedron/ stellated octahedron/, (PLANCK SCALE VOID) have been passed down by the wise men with metaphors.
Have we taken some of the ancient concepts/wisdom and re-named and re-defined them?
Yes…for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition
There are many people working on those problems and trying to find WHAT is the cause of those observations.
I believe that the answers to those questions are hidden in the DYNAMICS of a quantum geometric model and the SCALING formulas.
Only EMF can travel in the PLANCK SCALE VOID and they can stay there for only a Planck time and travel only a Planck distance before having “to touch base” with the geometric structure of spacetime.
In my opinion, the origin of the discovery of the interlocked tetrahedra goes back farther than the written history.
This shape was probably discovered by a CAVEMAN when he looked inside the packed balls of rabbit droppings and then figured out that there existed a space that could not be occupied.
THE PLANCK SCALE QUANTUM VOID.
The “wise men” wanted this “insight”, “symbol”, to be past on to future generations of “students”.
As a result there are records of this shape going back to early civilization.
When quantum physic finally proves the shape of the “quantum foundation” includes the 2D (merkabah) and the 3D interlocked tetrahedra there will be millions of ordinary people from around the world who will say, “I knew that!”
Remember …. : units, processes, and structures.
There were genius in every centuries.
The ancient genius did work on these problems and they did past on their insights/work to future genius.
It is up to us to try to apply our tools to the problems and to try to resolve them.
There are no Da Vinci Codes in their insights/work …
Are the clues so much in our face, like our nose, that we no longer look at them?
The answer is ….YES.
The clues have been gather and published on the WEB by many “amateurs”.
-----------------------------------
I’ll have a tub of ice at the door for you to place the beer.
I like my beer to be cool.
See you at the party.
JAL
QUOTE
Are the clues so much in our face, like our nose, that we no longer look at them?
If those obvious clues are there…. Could they have been noted and passed down to us by our forefathers?
Take a look at the following information and find the common thread that every ancient society have been able to pass down to us.
Remember that the “wise men” were the only ones capable of making up these stories and making sure that the “kernels of wisdom” was included in their stories.
Ask yourself …. “Were they able to deduct the PLANCK SCALE VOID?”
“What metaphors could they have used to represent the PLANCK SCALE VOID?”
Get ready for a mind blowing trip.
It’s time to meet some “amateurs”
The following links contain a lot of meta-physic, religions, occults, mystics and clues.
Don’t be taken in…. read with a grain of salt ….. look for the metaphors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-p...n-pentacle.html
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/tartarospyth.html
http://www.worldviewz.net/mathemagics_day2.html
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j8gonsowski.html
http://dcwilson1.tripod.com/magicsquares.htm
http://web.mac.com/paulmartynsmith/iWeb/IChingmath/Home.html
http://www.kalarhythms.com/theory/th.dimensions.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musica_universalis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_cosmology
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/planetarium/index.htm#15
http://picasaweb.google.com/mhussey/BylisAlbania
http://www.chinesefortunecalendar.com/yinyang.htm
http://www.crossroad.to/Books/symbols1.html
http://www.earthquest.co.uk/china/china.html
http://www.ignca.nic.in/ks_41019.htm
http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/kageyama.html
http://www.shakuhachi.com/K-9KChineseFlutes-Nature.html
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/index.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
HEH…DON’T FORGET TO COME BACK …
------------------------------------------
After that trip… you should be able to conclude that quantum geometry/the “SPOT” would find wide acceptance.
The ancestral memory and the symbols of the self dual/double imbedded tetrahedron/ stellated octahedron/, (PLANCK SCALE VOID) have been passed down by the wise men with metaphors.
Have we taken some of the ancient concepts/wisdom and re-named and re-defined them?
Yes…for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition
There are many people working on those problems and trying to find WHAT is the cause of those observations.
I believe that the answers to those questions are hidden in the DYNAMICS of a quantum geometric model and the SCALING formulas.
Only EMF can travel in the PLANCK SCALE VOID and they can stay there for only a Planck time and travel only a Planck distance before having “to touch base” with the geometric structure of spacetime.
In my opinion, the origin of the discovery of the interlocked tetrahedra goes back farther than the written history.
This shape was probably discovered by a CAVEMAN when he looked inside the packed balls of rabbit droppings and then figured out that there existed a space that could not be occupied.
THE PLANCK SCALE QUANTUM VOID.
The “wise men” wanted this “insight”, “symbol”, to be past on to future generations of “students”.
As a result there are records of this shape going back to early civilization.
When quantum physic finally proves the shape of the “quantum foundation” includes the 2D (merkabah) and the 3D interlocked tetrahedra there will be millions of ordinary people from around the world who will say, “I knew that!”
Remember …. : units, processes, and structures.
There were genius in every centuries.
The ancient genius did work on these problems and they did past on their insights/work to future genius.
It is up to us to try to apply our tools to the problems and to try to resolve them.
There are no Da Vinci Codes in their insights/work …
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are the clues so much in our face, like our nose, that we no longer look at them? |
If those obvious clues are there…. Could they have been noted and passed down to us by our forefathers?
Take a look at the following information and find the common thread that every ancient society have been able to pass down to us.
Remember that the “wise men” were the only ones capable of making up these stories and making sure that the “kernels of wisdom” was included in their stories.
Ask yourself …. “Were they able to deduct the PLANCK SCALE VOID?”
“What metaphors could they have used to represent the PLANCK SCALE VOID?”
Get ready for a mind blowing trip.
It’s time to meet some “amateurs”
The following links contain a lot of meta-physic, religions, occults, mystics and clues.
Don’t be taken in…. read with a grain of salt ….. look for the metaphors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-p...n-pentacle.html
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/tartarospyth.html
http://www.worldviewz.net/mathemagics_day2.html
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j8gonsowski.html
http://dcwilson1.tripod.com/magicsquares.htm
http://web.mac.com/paulmartynsmith/iWeb/IChingmath/Home.html
http://www.kalarhythms.com/theory/th.dimensions.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musica_universalis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_cosmology
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/planetarium/index.htm#15
http://picasaweb.google.com/mhussey/BylisAlbania
http://www.chinesefortunecalendar.com/yinyang.htm
http://www.crossroad.to/Books/symbols1.html
http://www.earthquest.co.uk/china/china.html
http://www.ignca.nic.in/ks_41019.htm
http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/kageyama.html
http://www.shakuhachi.com/K-9KChineseFlutes-Nature.html
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/index.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
HEH…DON’T FORGET TO COME BACK …
------------------------------------------
After that trip… you should be able to conclude that quantum geometry/the “SPOT” would find wide acceptance.
The ancestral memory and the symbols of the self dual/double imbedded tetrahedron/ stellated octahedron/, (PLANCK SCALE VOID) have been passed down by the wise men with metaphors.
Have we taken some of the ancient concepts/wisdom and re-named and re-defined them?
Yes…for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition
There are many people working on those problems and trying to find WHAT is the cause of those observations.
I believe that the answers to those questions are hidden in the DYNAMICS of a quantum geometric model and the SCALING formulas.
Only EMF can travel in the PLANCK SCALE VOID and they can stay there for only a Planck time and travel only a Planck distance before having “to touch base” with the geometric structure of spacetime.
In my opinion, the origin of the discovery of the interlocked tetrahedra goes back farther than the written history.
This shape was probably discovered by a CAVEMAN when he looked inside the packed balls of rabbit droppings and then figured out that there existed a space that could not be occupied.
THE PLANCK SCALE QUANTUM VOID.
The “wise men” wanted this “insight”, “symbol”, to be past on to future generations of “students”.
As a result there are records of this shape going back to early civilization.
When quantum physic finally proves the shape of the “quantum foundation” includes the 2D (merkabah) and the 3D interlocked tetrahedra there will be millions of ordinary people from around the world who will say, “I knew that!”
Remember …. : units, processes, and structures.
There were genius in every centuries.
The ancient genius did work on these problems and they did past on their insights/work to future genius.
It is up to us to try to apply our tools to the problems and to try to resolve them.
There are no Da Vinci Codes in their insights/work …
Are the clues so much in our face, like our nose, that we no longer look at them?
The answer is ….YES.
The clues have been gather and published on the WEB by many “amateurs”.
-----------------------------------
I’ll have a tub of ice at the door for you to place the beer.
I like my beer to be cool.
See you at the party.
JAL
AFTER THE PARTY
……waves…. Planck void ….. quantum geometry …. 2 dimensions
Hamiltonian and physical Hilbert space in polymer quantum mechanics
Authors: Alejandro Corichi, Tatjana Vukasinac, Jose A. Zapata
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610072
------------------------------------------
A (4S model?) is supported by observations.
Numerical Model of the CMB anisotropies -Simplicial Quantum Geometry-
Dr. HORATA, Shinichi
30 Oct 2006
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/indico/contribu...65&confId=3
------------------------------------------
A (4S model?) is supported by observations.
Numerical Model of the CMB anisotropies -Simplicial Quantum Geometry-
Dr. HORATA, Shinichi
30 Oct 2006
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/indico/contribu...65&confId=3
p. 16
According to our model, numerical results suggest
# Accidental creation of a seed universe by quantum fuctuation,
# Random expansion of space by accumulations of elementary units.
--------------------------------
Discrete Space Formulation of Quantum Geometry
on R × Sd−1
Shinichi Horata and Tetsuyuki Yukawa
http://www.iop.org/EJ/S/0/29673/gQQ8wgA1Uu...2-6596/33/1/038
Abstract. A numerical formulation of d-dimensional quantum gravity on R × Sd-1 is developed based on the d-dimensional dynamical triangulation method. It provides tools to analyze space-time properties of the (d - 1)-dimensional space with sphere topology along the direction R, in which time coordinate can be defined naturally. As examples, we show numerical results of the 2-dimensional (R × S) model, and compare with the matrix model. Furthermore, we measure the 2-space point correlation function on the last scattering surface of 3-dimensional space S3, and compare it to the CMB anisotropy observation results of COBE and WMAP. The numerical simulation exhibits the inflation without any additional fields, and the quantized space-time possesses properties required from observations.
--------------------------------------
THE 4S MODEL IS IDEAL FOR DOING A DYNAMIC EVALUATION
The group field theory approach to quantum gravity
Daniele Oriti
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
Centre for Mathematical Sciences,
University of Cambridge
Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, England
d.oriti@damtp.cam.ac.uk
08 July 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607032.pdf
--------------------------------------
THE 4S MODEL IS IDEAL FOR DOING A DYNAMIC EVALUATION
The group field theory approach to quantum gravity
Daniele Oriti
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
Centre for Mathematical Sciences,
University of Cambridge
Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, England
d.oriti@damtp.cam.ac.uk
08 July 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607032.pdf
On the basis of the above kinematical structure, spacetime is viewed as emerging from the interaction of fundamental building blocks of space,
The (quadratic) kinetic term involves two fields each representing a given (D-1)-simplex seen from one of the two D-simplices (interaction vertices) sharing it, so that the choice of kinetic functions K specifies how the information and therefore the geometric degrees of freedom corresponding to their D (D-2)-faces are propagated from one vertex of interaction (fundamental spacetime event) to another.
We will detail this structure when describing the Feynman graphs and the quantum dynamics of the theory.
The degrees of freedom of matter fields should also be suitably coupled to those of geometry to reproduce, at the level of the spin foam amplitudes, the correct dynamical interaction of gravity and matter. The spin foam amplitudes describing this coupling in 3d, were introduced and studied in [38], and provided the key insight needed to devise an appropriate GFT reproducing them.
The kinematical structure of the new GFT is given [39] by two different types of fields: one is the usual _ of the Boulatov theory discussed above, and represents a triangle with no particle present, the other is a new field s(g1, g2, g3; u) : SU(2)⊗4 → C , on which we impose a
global SU(2) symmetry under the simultaneous right shift of its 4 arguments, and represents a tetrahedron with a single particle of spin s located at one of its vertices, whose degrees of freedom are encoded in the group variable u.
The mass appears dynamically in the interaction with gravity, i.e. with the geometric degrees of freedom.
in Feynman expansion, spacetime building blocks given by tetrahedral with a single particle propagating along two of its edges (third term) and by tetrahedra with three particles travelling
along three of its edges and interacting at one of its vertices (fourth term). Here even the pure propagation of matter degrees of freedom has been encoded in one of the GFT interaction terms because it involves an interaction with the geometric degrees of freedom, but it could be as well encoded in one of the GFT kinetic terms.
This is, again, a purely field-theoretic perspective, but that of a field theory of spacetime with matter, and not on spacetime. Accordingly, as said, the field represents at once the basic building blocks of space and matter and the theory, as presently understood, builds up as Feynman graphs in a perturbative expansion both the histories of space (possible spacetimes), i.e. of both its geometry and topology, and of matter (possible particle evolutions/interactions).
On the other hand, the straightforward extension of the above GFT model to 4D gives a fully
non-perturbative quantum description, in a discrete setting, of topological gravity (BF theory) coupled to topological strings, producing in perturbation expansion a sum over both simplicial spacetimes and discrete string worldsheets embedded in them [43], and with kinematical and dynamical structures consistent with the canonical analysis of such system performed in [44].
Let us summarise. The group field theory approach aims to describe the dynamics of both spacetime geometry and topology down to the Planck scale, in a background independent and non-perturbative way (even if at present almost only the perturbation expansion around the ‘complete vacuum’is well understood), using a field-theoretic formalism. In essence, as discussed, a group field theory is a field theory over a group manifold, as for the mathematical
formulation, and at the same time a field theory over a simplicial superspace (space of geometries), as for the physical interpretation. Thanks to the discrete description of geometry that the simplicial setting allows for, it corresponds to a local 3rd quantisation of gravity, in which the ‘quanta’being created and annihilated in the quantum evolution are not universes, as in the traditional approach, but appropriately defined chunks of space.
On the other hand, the overall picture of spacetime and of gravity that this approach is based on, despite the traditional nature of the language used to express it, is definitely radical and suggests the following. There exist fundamental building blocks or atoms of space, which can be combined in all sorts of ways and can give rise to all sorts of geometry and topology of space.
Spacetime information is thus necessarily encoded in structures that do not use per se a notion of spacetime. Finally, there would be a fundamental discreteness of spacetime and a key role played by causality, in the pre-geometric sense of ordering related to the notion of orientation (so that it would probably be better to talk about ‘pre-causality’).
-----------------------------
FOR A REVIEW OF HIS UPCOMING BOOK SEE
http://christinedantas.blogspot.com/2006/1...post-by_02.html
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Invited contribution: Daniele Oriti
-------------------------------
Let’s-make-mu-sic.-Gaze-deep-ly-in-to-the-crys-tal.
Ride-the-spi-ral.-Put-the-crys-tal-to-the-an-vil
List-en-to-the-tune-of-the-ham-mer-as-it-beats
Catch-the-ris-ing-rhy-thms-12-by-12-as-they-come
Breathe-in-the-me-lo-dy.-Let-the-har-mo-ny-sooth
List-en-to-tho-se-spot-s.-Let-the-shiv-ers-come
Feel-the-flush.-Ec-sta-sy-ri-ding-on-the-wa-ves
Ride-the-wa-ves.-En-light-en-ment-is-near-at-hand
Feel-the-flush-to-your-TOE.-Mak-ing-the-vi-sion-real
-------------------------------------------
The following papers from “Joint Meeting of Pacific Region Particle Physics Communities” from 29 October 2006 to 03 November 2006 in Hawaii should bring you up to date.
------------------------------------
BSM at LHC
Mihoko M. Nojiri
(KEK)
On the theories in the market and how LHC tackle them
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/indico/getFile....=0&confId=3
----------------------------------
Summary/Outlook
HALZEN, Francis
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/indico/contribu...nId=23&confId=3
slides
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/indico/getFile....&confId=3#1
-----------------------------------------
As usual …. Discussion at :
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...55&#entry139351
------------------------------
jal
……waves…. Planck void ….. quantum geometry …. 2 dimensions
Hamiltonian and physical Hilbert space in polymer quantum mechanics
Authors: Alejandro Corichi, Tatjana Vukasinac, Jose A. Zapata
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610072
QUOTE
The dynamics is constructed as a continuum limit of effective theories characterized by a scale, and requires a renormalization of the inner product. The result is a physical Hilbert space in which the continuum Hamiltonian can be represented and that is unitarily equivalent to the Schr¨odinger representation of quantum mechanics. As a concrete implementation of our formalism, the simple harmonic oscillator is fully developed.
------------------------------------------
A (4S model?) is supported by observations.
Numerical Model of the CMB anisotropies -Simplicial Quantum Geometry-
Dr. HORATA, Shinichi
30 Oct 2006
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/indico/contribu...65&confId=3
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The dynamics is constructed as a continuum limit of effective theories characterized by a scale, and requires a renormalization of the inner product. The result is a physical Hilbert space in which the continuum Hamiltonian can be represented and that is unitarily equivalent to the Schr¨odinger representation of quantum mechanics. As a concrete implementation of our formalism, the simple harmonic oscillator is fully developed. |
------------------------------------------
A (4S model?) is supported by observations.
Numerical Model of the CMB anisotropies -Simplicial Quantum Geometry-
Dr. HORATA, Shinichi
30 Oct 2006
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/indico/contribu...65&confId=3
p. 16
According to our model, numerical results suggest
# Accidental creation of a seed universe by quantum fuctuation,
# Random expansion of space by accumulations of elementary units.
--------------------------------
Discrete Space Formulation of Quantum Geometry
on R × Sd−1
Shinichi Horata and Tetsuyuki Yukawa
http://www.iop.org/EJ/S/0/29673/gQQ8wgA1Uu...2-6596/33/1/038
QUOTE
Abstract. A numerical formulation of d-dimensional quantum gravity on R × Sd-1 is developed based on the d-dimensional dynamical triangulation method. It provides tools to analyze space-time properties of the (d - 1)-dimensional space with sphere topology along the direction R, in which time coordinate can be defined naturally. As examples, we show numerical results of the 2-dimensional (R × S) model, and compare with the matrix model. Furthermore, we measure the 2-space point correlation function on the last scattering surface of 3-dimensional space S3, and compare it to the CMB anisotropy observation results of COBE and WMAP. The numerical simulation exhibits the inflation without any additional fields, and the quantized space-time possesses properties required from observations.
--------------------------------------
THE 4S MODEL IS IDEAL FOR DOING A DYNAMIC EVALUATION
The group field theory approach to quantum gravity
Daniele Oriti
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
Centre for Mathematical Sciences,
University of Cambridge
Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, England
d.oriti@damtp.cam.ac.uk
08 July 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607032.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Abstract. A numerical formulation of d-dimensional quantum gravity on R × Sd-1 is developed based on the d-dimensional dynamical triangulation method. It provides tools to analyze space-time properties of the (d - 1)-dimensional space with sphere topology along the direction R, in which time coordinate can be defined naturally. As examples, we show numerical results of the 2-dimensional (R × S) model, and compare with the matrix model. Furthermore, we measure the 2-space point correlation function on the last scattering surface of 3-dimensional space S3, and compare it to the CMB anisotropy observation results of COBE and WMAP. The numerical simulation exhibits the inflation without any additional fields, and the quantized space-time possesses properties required from observations. |
--------------------------------------
THE 4S MODEL IS IDEAL FOR DOING A DYNAMIC EVALUATION
The group field theory approach to quantum gravity
Daniele Oriti
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
Centre for Mathematical Sciences,
University of Cambridge
Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, England
d.oriti@damtp.cam.ac.uk
08 July 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607032.pdf
On the basis of the above kinematical structure, spacetime is viewed as emerging from the interaction of fundamental building blocks of space,
The (quadratic) kinetic term involves two fields each representing a given (D-1)-simplex seen from one of the two D-simplices (interaction vertices) sharing it, so that the choice of kinetic functions K specifies how the information and therefore the geometric degrees of freedom corresponding to their D (D-2)-faces are propagated from one vertex of interaction (fundamental spacetime event) to another.
We will detail this structure when describing the Feynman graphs and the quantum dynamics of the theory.
The degrees of freedom of matter fields should also be suitably coupled to those of geometry to reproduce, at the level of the spin foam amplitudes, the correct dynamical interaction of gravity and matter. The spin foam amplitudes describing this coupling in 3d, were introduced and studied in [38], and provided the key insight needed to devise an appropriate GFT reproducing them.
The kinematical structure of the new GFT is given [39] by two different types of fields: one is the usual _ of the Boulatov theory discussed above, and represents a triangle with no particle present, the other is a new field s(g1, g2, g3; u) : SU(2)⊗4 → C , on which we impose a
global SU(2) symmetry under the simultaneous right shift of its 4 arguments, and represents a tetrahedron with a single particle of spin s located at one of its vertices, whose degrees of freedom are encoded in the group variable u.
The mass appears dynamically in the interaction with gravity, i.e. with the geometric degrees of freedom.
in Feynman expansion, spacetime building blocks given by tetrahedral with a single particle propagating along two of its edges (third term) and by tetrahedra with three particles travelling
along three of its edges and interacting at one of its vertices (fourth term). Here even the pure propagation of matter degrees of freedom has been encoded in one of the GFT interaction terms because it involves an interaction with the geometric degrees of freedom, but it could be as well encoded in one of the GFT kinetic terms.
This is, again, a purely field-theoretic perspective, but that of a field theory of spacetime with matter, and not on spacetime. Accordingly, as said, the field represents at once the basic building blocks of space and matter and the theory, as presently understood, builds up as Feynman graphs in a perturbative expansion both the histories of space (possible spacetimes), i.e. of both its geometry and topology, and of matter (possible particle evolutions/interactions).
On the other hand, the straightforward extension of the above GFT model to 4D gives a fully
non-perturbative quantum description, in a discrete setting, of topological gravity (BF theory) coupled to topological strings, producing in perturbation expansion a sum over both simplicial spacetimes and discrete string worldsheets embedded in them [43], and with kinematical and dynamical structures consistent with the canonical analysis of such system performed in [44].
Let us summarise. The group field theory approach aims to describe the dynamics of both spacetime geometry and topology down to the Planck scale, in a background independent and non-perturbative way (even if at present almost only the perturbation expansion around the ‘complete vacuum’is well understood), using a field-theoretic formalism. In essence, as discussed, a group field theory is a field theory over a group manifold, as for the mathematical
formulation, and at the same time a field theory over a simplicial superspace (space of geometries), as for the physical interpretation. Thanks to the discrete description of geometry that the simplicial setting allows for, it corresponds to a local 3rd quantisation of gravity, in which the ‘quanta’being created and annihilated in the quantum evolution are not universes, as in the traditional approach, but appropriately defined chunks of space.
On the other hand, the overall picture of spacetime and of gravity that this approach is based on, despite the traditional nature of the language used to express it, is definitely radical and suggests the following. There exist fundamental building blocks or atoms of space, which can be combined in all sorts of ways and can give rise to all sorts of geometry and topology of space.
Spacetime information is thus necessarily encoded in structures that do not use per se a notion of spacetime. Finally, there would be a fundamental discreteness of spacetime and a key role played by causality, in the pre-geometric sense of ordering related to the notion of orientation (so that it would probably be better to talk about ‘pre-causality’).
-----------------------------
FOR A REVIEW OF HIS UPCOMING BOOK SEE
http://christinedantas.blogspot.com/2006/1...post-by_02.html
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Invited contribution: Daniele Oriti
-------------------------------
Let’s-make-mu-sic.-Gaze-deep-ly-in-to-the-crys-tal.
Ride-the-spi-ral.-Put-the-crys-tal-to-the-an-vil
List-en-to-the-tune-of-the-ham-mer-as-it-beats
Catch-the-ris-ing-rhy-thms-12-by-12-as-they-come
Breathe-in-the-me-lo-dy.-Let-the-har-mo-ny-sooth
List-en-to-tho-se-spot-s.-Let-the-shiv-ers-come
Feel-the-flush.-Ec-sta-sy-ri-ding-on-the-wa-ves
Ride-the-wa-ves.-En-light-en-ment-is-near-at-hand
Feel-the-flush-to-your-TOE.-Mak-ing-the-vi-sion-real
-------------------------------------------
The following papers from “Joint Meeting of Pacific Region Particle Physics Communities” from 29 October 2006 to 03 November 2006 in Hawaii should bring you up to date.
------------------------------------
BSM at LHC
Mihoko M. Nojiri
(KEK)
On the theories in the market and how LHC tackle them
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/indico/getFile....=0&confId=3
----------------------------------
Summary/Outlook
HALZEN, Francis
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/indico/contribu...nId=23&confId=3
slides
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/indico/getFile....&confId=3#1
-----------------------------------------
As usual …. Discussion at :
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...55&#entry139351
------------------------------
jal
the packing of space and time can be generated by curvatures of 360 pi until the
720pi during rotational systems generated by othochrous and antichrous lorentz transformations,that has covariance group cpt,and in the vacumm with rotational transformations of right-handed to left-handed and vice-versa through of eight-dimensionsal manifolds that connects all sphere S3 contained in d-8,connecting each into the others,generating variuos politopes.in the vaccum,occur the symmetry break,that permit the appearing of union of space-time through of sphere in 8-d if contorting of left-handed to right-handed,generating 360pi
to 720degrees renormalizing the breaks of symmetry.thence occur the structure of space-time with 360pi,to negative space-time manifold if transforming to positive space-time manifolds and vice-versa.each one if conneting at the other.then mirror world is real by full lorentz trnsformations,with the diagram of time of feynman-stuckelberg,then the non-locality and non-orietabily are two twisted in mobius strip with 360 pi to 720pi,that does real 2-worlds into of 4-mirror in 8-d that structure the STR through of antichrous and orthochrous lorentz transformations connected with the violation of pt reversion of space-time that
the rotating world into of other with the biquaternions being the background of rotations and boost of lorentz group.then the mirror world isreal by transformations
in the space-time,it is in the reversion of its,that renormalize the symmetry cpt.the
excitations of vacum go generating the connexuion of space and time through of instantons,that are derived of the asymmetry that there are in the vaccum,because
the time and energy,appearing not-conserved,it is the quantization,that are holes in the warps of the curvatures that infinities values,in each points,that are virtuals and real at the same time,because there are infinities values to curvatures of space-time that are continuos and transformations cannot be always continuos.then the structures of space-time is based in biquaternions that contain
both lorentz transformations and breakdown of pt,that trnsform the reverse space-time with real mirror world
720pi during rotational systems generated by othochrous and antichrous lorentz transformations,that has covariance group cpt,and in the vacumm with rotational transformations of right-handed to left-handed and vice-versa through of eight-dimensionsal manifolds that connects all sphere S3 contained in d-8,connecting each into the others,generating variuos politopes.in the vaccum,occur the symmetry break,that permit the appearing of union of space-time through of sphere in 8-d if contorting of left-handed to right-handed,generating 360pi
to 720degrees renormalizing the breaks of symmetry.thence occur the structure of space-time with 360pi,to negative space-time manifold if transforming to positive space-time manifolds and vice-versa.each one if conneting at the other.then mirror world is real by full lorentz trnsformations,with the diagram of time of feynman-stuckelberg,then the non-locality and non-orietabily are two twisted in mobius strip with 360 pi to 720pi,that does real 2-worlds into of 4-mirror in 8-d that structure the STR through of antichrous and orthochrous lorentz transformations connected with the violation of pt reversion of space-time that
the rotating world into of other with the biquaternions being the background of rotations and boost of lorentz group.then the mirror world isreal by transformations
in the space-time,it is in the reversion of its,that renormalize the symmetry cpt.the
excitations of vacum go generating the connexuion of space and time through of instantons,that are derived of the asymmetry that there are in the vaccum,because
the time and energy,appearing not-conserved,it is the quantization,that are holes in the warps of the curvatures that infinities values,in each points,that are virtuals and real at the same time,because there are infinities values to curvatures of space-time that are continuos and transformations cannot be always continuos.then the structures of space-time is based in biquaternions that contain
both lorentz transformations and breakdown of pt,that trnsform the reverse space-time with real mirror world
Hi jal
Don't know if you have seen this: http://www.cerglobal.org/graphics/Nikos1.pdf
I think there maybe a "spot" hidden in this proposal.
Don't know if you have seen this: http://www.cerglobal.org/graphics/Nikos1.pdf
I think there maybe a "spot" hidden in this proposal.
hi ! sorry about my english
I take the message about a diferent way n=12
My hypothesis is that 12 contans 10D of space and 2D of time
I really want to know the other way .
better version of my research is in :
http://www.wbabin.net
list of authors nikos alexandris
in my newest research these numbers is in fine structure
I take the message about a diferent way n=12
My hypothesis is that 12 contans 10D of space and 2D of time
I really want to know the other way .
better version of my research is in :
http://www.wbabin.net
list of authors nikos alexandris
in my newest research these numbers is in fine structure
Good day!
There is a “spot” hidden in the calculations
http://www.cerglobal.org/graphics/Nikos1.pdf
At the highest Planck temperature, the quantum number of the oscillation that is equivalent to the electric energy is the n1=10 quantum number, equal to the degrees of freedom of the thermal movement, so n1 expresses the size at the space. The quantum number of the oscillation with the thermal movement is n2=12 and is as much as the number of waves of λ oscillation that is equivalent to the electric.
The above relation (142)brings into agreement the GUT theory with the analysis of the
hypotheses, since for the derivation of equation (102)of the temperature all the basic
equations of the analysis of the hypotheses were used.
( OR WE COULD SAY THAT ONLY 10 OF THE 12 oscillation ARE INVOLVED)
also of interest
http://www.wbabin.net/science/alexandris2.pdf
The Connection Between the Fine Structure Constant and the Proton’s
Mass and Length with Gravity
Author : Nikos Alexandris , nalxhal@yahoo.gr
http://www.geocities.com/nalxhal/time
--------------------------------------
More importantly, look at the work by David Ritz Finkelstein. He makes understand of the math approaches easy to understand. (especially when keeping in mind the “spot”).
David Ritz Finkelstein analysis and approach has got applications and implications for the major discussions on this forum (Good Elf, Realitycheck, yqauntum etc. if you want to discuss then import the link to your threads.)
Homotopy approach to quantum gravity
David Ritz Finkelstein∗
August 21, 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0608/0608086.pdf
I construct a finite-dimensional quantum theory from general relativity by
a homotopy method. Its quantum history is made up of at least two levels of
fermionic elements. Its unitary group has the diffeomorphism group as singular
limit. Its gravitational metrical form is the algebraic square. Its spinors are
multivectors.
Finite Quantum Dynamics
David Ritz Finkelstein∗ Mohsen Shiri-Garakani†
May 26, 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0602/0602122.pdf
Finite Quantum Dynamics
David Ritz Finkelstein∗ Mohsen Shiri-Garakani†
May 26, 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0602/0602122.pdf
We general-quantize the dynamics of the quantum harmonic oscillator to obtain a covariant finite quantum dynamics in a finite quantum time. The usual central (“superselected”) time results from a self-organization. Unitarity necessarily fails, imperceptibly for middle times and grossly near the beginning and end of time. Time and energy interconvert during space-time decondensation or meltdown, at a rate governed by a constant like the Planck power.
------------------------------
jal
As usual …. Discussion at :
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...55&#entry139351
There is a “spot” hidden in the calculations
http://www.cerglobal.org/graphics/Nikos1.pdf
QUOTE
1 (unification point),T = (10/12)-3/2.N-3/2.1,085×1016. e / λPlanck ⇒ (141)
T = (10/12)-3/2.1,075×1032 K = 1,4137×1032 K ≈TPlanck , n1=10, n2=12 . (142)
T = (10/12)-3/2.1,075×1032 K = 1,4137×1032 K ≈TPlanck , n1=10, n2=12 . (142)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1 (unification point),T = (10/12)-3/2.N-3/2.1,085×1016. e / λPlanck ⇒ (141) T = (10/12)-3/2.1,075×1032 K = 1,4137×1032 K ≈TPlanck , n1=10, n2=12 . (142) |
At the highest Planck temperature, the quantum number of the oscillation that is equivalent to the electric energy is the n1=10 quantum number, equal to the degrees of freedom of the thermal movement, so n1 expresses the size at the space. The quantum number of the oscillation with the thermal movement is n2=12 and is as much as the number of waves of λ oscillation that is equivalent to the electric.
The above relation (142)brings into agreement the GUT theory with the analysis of the
hypotheses, since for the derivation of equation (102)of the temperature all the basic
equations of the analysis of the hypotheses were used.
( OR WE COULD SAY THAT ONLY 10 OF THE 12 oscillation ARE INVOLVED)
also of interest
http://www.wbabin.net/science/alexandris2.pdf
The Connection Between the Fine Structure Constant and the Proton’s
Mass and Length with Gravity
Author : Nikos Alexandris , nalxhal@yahoo.gr
http://www.geocities.com/nalxhal/time
--------------------------------------
More importantly, look at the work by David Ritz Finkelstein. He makes understand of the math approaches easy to understand. (especially when keeping in mind the “spot”).
David Ritz Finkelstein analysis and approach has got applications and implications for the major discussions on this forum (Good Elf, Realitycheck, yqauntum etc. if you want to discuss then import the link to your threads.)
Homotopy approach to quantum gravity
David Ritz Finkelstein∗
August 21, 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0608/0608086.pdf
QUOTE
I construct a finite-dimensional quantum theory from general relativity by
a homotopy method. Its quantum history is made up of at least two levels of
fermionic elements. Its unitary group has the diffeomorphism group as singular
limit. Its gravitational metrical form is the algebraic square. Its spinors are
multivectors.
Finite Quantum Dynamics
David Ritz Finkelstein∗ Mohsen Shiri-Garakani†
May 26, 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0602/0602122.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I construct a finite-dimensional quantum theory from general relativity by a homotopy method. Its quantum history is made up of at least two levels of fermionic elements. Its unitary group has the diffeomorphism group as singular limit. Its gravitational metrical form is the algebraic square. Its spinors are multivectors. |
Finite Quantum Dynamics
David Ritz Finkelstein∗ Mohsen Shiri-Garakani†
May 26, 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0602/0602122.pdf
We general-quantize the dynamics of the quantum harmonic oscillator to obtain a covariant finite quantum dynamics in a finite quantum time. The usual central (“superselected”) time results from a self-organization. Unitarity necessarily fails, imperceptibly for middle times and grossly near the beginning and end of time. Time and energy interconvert during space-time decondensation or meltdown, at a rate governed by a constant like the Planck power.
------------------------------
jal
As usual …. Discussion at :
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...55&#entry139351
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0611/0611042.pdf
Hidden Quantum Gravity in 4d Feynman diagrams:
Emergence of spin foams
Aristide Baratin1,2, Laurent Freidel1,2
03 Nov 2006
also, see
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week208.html
For clarity refer to my model.
jal
Hidden Quantum Gravity in 4d Feynman diagrams:
Emergence of spin foams
Aristide Baratin1,2, Laurent Freidel1,2
03 Nov 2006
QUOTE
Spin foam models give a well defined framework allowing to address the dynamical problem of quantizing gravity in a background independent manner, and provide a description of quantum space-times in a purely algebraic and combinatorial way [1]. The state of development is such that one can now propose, for Euclidean 4-dimensional pure gravity, well defined and finite quantum gravity transition amplitudes, which are independent of any triangulation or undesirable discrete structure [2].
So in summary, the spin foam hypothesis implies that usual Feynman graph can be expressed as the expectation value of certain observables in a topological spin foam model based on the Poincar´e group. The validity of such a statement is for us a non-trivial check in support of the spin foam hypothesis.
The check is fourfold:
first, spin foam should arise naturally in Feynman integrals;
second, the spin model should agree with the structure predicted by [7, 8];
third, it should confirm the idea that the limit GN → 0 is a limit where gravity becomes topological;
fourth the Feynman diagram observables should be understood as a Wilson lines (or more generally spin networks) expectation value in this spin foam model.
An analysis similar to the one done here has already been performed in 3d [12], where it has been shown that the corresponding spin foam model is constructed in terms of 6j symbols of the 3d Euclidean group for flat space.The deformation of this spin foam model using quantum group naturally leads to a formulation of Feynman diagram coupled to 3d quantum gravity amplitudes [10, 11]. This corresponds to a deformation of field theory carrying a deformed action of the Poincar´e group.
Indeed, in the formulation we have proposed, background geometry is dynamical and the dynamics is governed by a spin foam model.
Furthermore, this model is revealed to be topological, which confirms the idea that gravity becomes topological in the limit GN → 0.
The second interest of our results is that they provide a falsification test for any candidate for the quantum gravity amplitude; we indeed claim that it must reduce to the spin foam model (13) in a suitable semi-classical limit.
This requirement represents strong constraints on the physically viable proposals for quantum gravity models.
So in summary, the spin foam hypothesis implies that usual Feynman graph can be expressed as the expectation value of certain observables in a topological spin foam model based on the Poincar´e group. The validity of such a statement is for us a non-trivial check in support of the spin foam hypothesis.
The check is fourfold:
first, spin foam should arise naturally in Feynman integrals;
second, the spin model should agree with the structure predicted by [7, 8];
third, it should confirm the idea that the limit GN → 0 is a limit where gravity becomes topological;
fourth the Feynman diagram observables should be understood as a Wilson lines (or more generally spin networks) expectation value in this spin foam model.
An analysis similar to the one done here has already been performed in 3d [12], where it has been shown that the corresponding spin foam model is constructed in terms of 6j symbols of the 3d Euclidean group for flat space.The deformation of this spin foam model using quantum group naturally leads to a formulation of Feynman diagram coupled to 3d quantum gravity amplitudes [10, 11]. This corresponds to a deformation of field theory carrying a deformed action of the Poincar´e group.
Indeed, in the formulation we have proposed, background geometry is dynamical and the dynamics is governed by a spin foam model.
Furthermore, this model is revealed to be topological, which confirms the idea that gravity becomes topological in the limit GN → 0.
The second interest of our results is that they provide a falsification test for any candidate for the quantum gravity amplitude; we indeed claim that it must reduce to the spin foam model (13) in a suitable semi-classical limit.
This requirement represents strong constraints on the physically viable proposals for quantum gravity models.
also, see
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week208.html
For clarity refer to my model.
jal
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0604/0604212.pdf
Quantum Gravity, or
The Art of Building Spacetime
J. Ambjørn a,c J. Jurkiewicz b, and R. Loll c
28 April 2006
As usual …. Discussion at :
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...55&#entry139351
Quantum Gravity, or
The Art of Building Spacetime
J. Ambjørn a,c J. Jurkiewicz b, and R. Loll c
28 April 2006
QUOTE
A natural building block for a d-dimensional spacetime is a d-dimensional equilateral simplex
The problem – even in dimension two – is that there are many more geometries of complicated topology than there are of simple topology, with the consequence that any sum over geometries will be (i) completely dominated by these complicated topologies, and (ii) plainly divergent in a way which (until now) has made it impossible to define the theory non-perturbatively in an unambiguous and physically satisfactory manner.
In higher dimensions these problems are totally out of control.
We need another guiding principle for selecting Euclidean geometries in the path integral in order to obtain a continuum limit, and it is such a principle we turn to next.
They form two three-dimensional piecewise flat manifolds of topology _ and consist of purely spacelike tetrahedra. By construction, the sandwich interior contains no vertices, so that any one of the four-simplices shares k of its vertices with the initial spatial slice and 5 − k of them with the final spatial slice, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 4. To obtain extended spacetimes, one glues together sandwiches pairwise along their matching three-dimensional boundary geometries. We choose each four-simplex to have time-like links of length-squared a2 t and space-like links of length-squared a2 s , with all of the latter located in spatial slices of constant integer-t.
Each spatial tetrahedron at time t is therefore shared by two four-simplices ….
The problem – even in dimension two – is that there are many more geometries of complicated topology than there are of simple topology, with the consequence that any sum over geometries will be (i) completely dominated by these complicated topologies, and (ii) plainly divergent in a way which (until now) has made it impossible to define the theory non-perturbatively in an unambiguous and physically satisfactory manner.
In higher dimensions these problems are totally out of control.
We need another guiding principle for selecting Euclidean geometries in the path integral in order to obtain a continuum limit, and it is such a principle we turn to next.
They form two three-dimensional piecewise flat manifolds of topology _ and consist of purely spacelike tetrahedra. By construction, the sandwich interior contains no vertices, so that any one of the four-simplices shares k of its vertices with the initial spatial slice and 5 − k of them with the final spatial slice, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 4. To obtain extended spacetimes, one glues together sandwiches pairwise along their matching three-dimensional boundary geometries. We choose each four-simplex to have time-like links of length-squared a2 t and space-like links of length-squared a2 s , with all of the latter located in spatial slices of constant integer-t.
Each spatial tetrahedron at time t is therefore shared by two four-simplices ….
As usual …. Discussion at :
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...55&#entry139351
Considering that the speed of light, ©, imposes a minimum Planck size wave and a minimum Planck size sphere, ( 3(2 pi )) in 2D, and 2(3(2 pi )) in 3D, How would this restriction impact on the calculations?
The graphs seem to indicate that the degree of freedom is either 12 or 6 as I determined from my model.
BLACK HOLES
http://relativity.phys.lsu.edu/ilqgs/corichi111406.pdf
Quantum Isolated Horizons: The Planck Scale Regime
Alejandro Corichi
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0605/0605014.pdf
Quantum geometry and microscopic black hole entropy
Alejandro Corichi, Jacobo D´ıaz-Polo, and Enrique Fern´andez-Borja,
14 Aug 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0605/0605014.pdf
Black hole entropy quantization
Alejandro Corichi, Jacobo D´ıaz-Polo, and Enrique Fern´andez-Borja5,
26 Sept 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0605/0605014.pdf
Black hole entropy quantization
Alejandro Corichi, Jacobo D´ıaz-Polo, and Enrique Fern´andez-Borja5,
26 Sept 2006
The main features we have found here about the quantum horizon system, namely the existence of a pattern in the black hole spectrum with a periodicity that permeates to the entropy area relation, and the appearance of a new scale associated with this period, could in principle be ‘generic’.
That is, one might imagine that these features are common to many quantum systems with a finite number of degrees of freedom (one could think of the quantum horizon as made up of many ‘particle like’ degrees of freedom).
We then conclude that the non-triviality of the loop quantum gravity area spectrum (3) is what brings the new and unexpected features to the entropy vs area relation that we have reported in this letter, and is therefore responsible for black hole entropy quantization.
Again.... here is my presentation....
In physics, the Bekenstein bound imposes a limit on the information that can be contained within a three-dimensional region of a given surface area:
S<A/4 where S is the entropy and A is the two-dimensional area in units of the Planck area, .
(The bound was originally found by Jacob Bekenstein in the form S<2piEL, where L is the linear size of the region, and E is the energy of the contained matter as measured when the matter is moved to an infinite distance, i.e., accounting for binding force potential energies. Gerard t' Hooft later generalized it to the form involving A/4.)
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat”all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres
Doing the next scaling 2X means that the 6 Planck waves would also scale and that now we would have a manifestation in 12 positions. Again…. Doing the dynamics is in future development
Just as predicted in my 3D packing presentation. (The circle around the 12 sphere is suppose to be a sphere)
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? Ghee!!!! Thing sure are growing bigger and faster.
How far are we from 10^-18? We have definitely left Planck Scale.
As usual …. Discussion at :
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...55&#entry139351
The graphs seem to indicate that the degree of freedom is either 12 or 6 as I determined from my model.
BLACK HOLES
http://relativity.phys.lsu.edu/ilqgs/corichi111406.pdf
Quantum Isolated Horizons: The Planck Scale Regime
Alejandro Corichi
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0605/0605014.pdf
Quantum geometry and microscopic black hole entropy
Alejandro Corichi, Jacobo D´ıaz-Polo, and Enrique Fern´andez-Borja,
14 Aug 2006
QUOTE
Furthermore, the oscillations found in the entropy area relation certainly call for an explanation. For instance, it is important to determine whether there there is some area scale set by the oscillations found in the entropy area relation. To this effect, we have found the frequency that best approximates the oscillations, and the frequency in areas gives an area scale of δAosc = 2.407 ℓ2
Pl. It remains a challenge to find an explanation for this scale.
Pl. It remains a challenge to find an explanation for this scale.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0605/0605014.pdf
Black hole entropy quantization
Alejandro Corichi, Jacobo D´ıaz-Polo, and Enrique Fern´andez-Borja5,
26 Sept 2006
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Furthermore, the oscillations found in the entropy area relation certainly call for an explanation. For instance, it is important to determine whether there there is some area scale set by the oscillations found in the entropy area relation. To this effect, we have found the frequency that best approximates the oscillations, and the frequency in areas gives an area scale of δAosc = 2.407 ℓ2 Pl. It remains a challenge to find an explanation for this scale. |
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0605/0605014.pdf
Black hole entropy quantization
Alejandro Corichi, Jacobo D´ıaz-Polo, and Enrique Fern´andez-Borja5,
26 Sept 2006
The main features we have found here about the quantum horizon system, namely the existence of a pattern in the black hole spectrum with a periodicity that permeates to the entropy area relation, and the appearance of a new scale associated with this period, could in principle be ‘generic’.
That is, one might imagine that these features are common to many quantum systems with a finite number of degrees of freedom (one could think of the quantum horizon as made up of many ‘particle like’ degrees of freedom).
We then conclude that the non-triviality of the loop quantum gravity area spectrum (3) is what brings the new and unexpected features to the entropy vs area relation that we have reported in this letter, and is therefore responsible for black hole entropy quantization.
Again.... here is my presentation....
QUOTE
In physics, the Bekenstein bound imposes a limit on the information that can be contained within a three-dimensional region of a given surface area:
S<A/4 where S is the entropy and A is the two-dimensional area in units of the Planck area, .
(The bound was originally found by Jacob Bekenstein in the form S<2piEL, where L is the linear size of the region, and E is the energy of the contained matter as measured when the matter is moved to an infinite distance, i.e., accounting for binding force potential energies. Gerard t' Hooft later generalized it to the form involving A/4.)
Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat”all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres
Doing the next scaling 2X means that the 6 Planck waves would also scale and that now we would have a manifestation in 12 positions. Again…. Doing the dynamics is in future development
Just as predicted in my 3D packing presentation. (The circle around the 12 sphere is suppose to be a sphere)
Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? Ghee!!!! Thing sure are growing bigger and faster.
How far are we from 10^-18? We have definitely left Planck Scale.
As usual …. Discussion at :
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...55&#entry139351
TRoc!
It’s a gem!! You came late for the party but you are making it real!
I’m going to enter it into the discussion and summary.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0207/0207116.pdf
Work functions, ionization potentials, and in-between:
Scaling relations based on the image charge model
Kin Wong, Sascha Vongehr, and Vitaly V. Kresin
Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0484, USA
(Dated: July 28, 2006)
By generalizing, this work has application to the TOE project.
By generalizing, this work has application to the TOE project.
A significant number of first-principles calculations have been performed for work functions of metallic systems6,7,8. In addition, simple models based on semi-empirical approaches combined with classical electrostatics have been rather successful at reproducing WF trends and values9. This suggests that some features of the desired scaling law may be found by employing such a model.
In a similar spirit, let us now consider the image-force expression for the energy required to remove an electron from an isolated finite metal particle, modelled as a conducting sphere of radius R. The particle is assumed initially neutral, i.e., after the removal of the electron it acquires an unit positive charge.
It’s a gem!! You came late for the party but you are making it real!
I’m going to enter it into the discussion and summary.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0207/0207116.pdf
Work functions, ionization potentials, and in-between:
Scaling relations based on the image charge model
Kin Wong, Sascha Vongehr, and Vitaly V. Kresin
Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0484, USA
(Dated: July 28, 2006)
QUOTE
1. Cubeoctahedron
The cubeoctahedron is a shape with small surface area which can be cut out of an fcc crystal. The number of hard spheres as a function of the number of shells k is given by65
N = (10/3)k3 − 5k2 + (11/3)k − 1. The outer radius R is given by R = (2k − 1)r0. For
large k this becomes R ≈ 2kr0 ≈ 2(3/10)1/3r0N1/3 ≈ 1.339r0N1/3. The same expression can be derived by evaluating the volume of the circumscribing sphere relative to the sum of the volumes of the small hard spheres67.
4. Icosahedron
The icosahedron has the highest symmetry of all discrete point groups. Although due to it’s five-fold symmetry, the icosahedron does not form bulk crystals, it can be considered as a slightly distorted fcc crystal. The icosahedron structure has been observed for small clusters of inert-gas clusters, Ca, and Mg clusters (see references in 65). The relationship between the number of hard spheres and the number of shells is the same as for the cube-octahedron65: N = (10/3)k3 − 5k2 + (11/3)k − 1. The radius is also given by the same expression as for the cube-octahedron R = (2k − 1)r0. The resulting expression for the cluster radius is therefore the same as for the cube-octahedron. For large k the radius is:
R ≈ 2kr0 ≈ 2(3/10)1/3r0N1/3 ≈ 1.339r0N1/3.
VI. SUMMARY
The main results of this work can be summarized as follows.
(1) Starting with an expression for the electron removal energy in terms of the image charge potential for an isolated spherical particle and a surface cutoff parameter [Eq. 3], we explored how this model may be consistently applied to metallic systems ranging from bulk surfaces to finite clusters and down to individual atoms.
(2) We showed that this approach provides a transparent physical explanation for the empirical fact that the atomic ionization potentials and polycrystalline work functions of the metallic elements exhibit an almost constant ratio of ∼ 2 over the periodic table [Eqs.
(1, 10)].
(3) We found that for most elements there is a remarkably close numerical correlation between the values of the nearest-neighbor distance in a crystal, the cube root of the atomic polarizability, and the image force cutoff parameter. This correlation may be rationalized qualitatively, but appears worthy of further study.
(4) Taking advantage of this correlation, we formulated simple expressions for the cut-off distance [Eq. (7)] and the atomic and cluster radii [Eqs. (11,14,15)]. They yield good estimates for the work function, the ionization potential, and the cluster electron removal energies by using only a single input parameter, the atomic polarizability. No extra adjustable parameters are required.
(5) Generalizing the scaling argument to the case of binary alloys, we found that it can simulate the shape of the concentration dependence of work functions of continuous bulk solutions [Eq. (12)].
(6) We also provided an analytical derivation of the connection between the geometric structure of a cluster of close-packed spheres and its outer radius. It is described by an equation of the type (13), but the precise numerical coefficient is shown to depend on the packing structure.
The cubeoctahedron is a shape with small surface area which can be cut out of an fcc crystal. The number of hard spheres as a function of the number of shells k is given by65
N = (10/3)k3 − 5k2 + (11/3)k − 1. The outer radius R is given by R = (2k − 1)r0. For
large k this becomes R ≈ 2kr0 ≈ 2(3/10)1/3r0N1/3 ≈ 1.339r0N1/3. The same expression can be derived by evaluating the volume of the circumscribing sphere relative to the sum of the volumes of the small hard spheres67.
4. Icosahedron
The icosahedron has the highest symmetry of all discrete point groups. Although due to it’s five-fold symmetry, the icosahedron does not form bulk crystals, it can be considered as a slightly distorted fcc crystal. The icosahedron structure has been observed for small clusters of inert-gas clusters, Ca, and Mg clusters (see references in 65). The relationship between the number of hard spheres and the number of shells is the same as for the cube-octahedron65: N = (10/3)k3 − 5k2 + (11/3)k − 1. The radius is also given by the same expression as for the cube-octahedron R = (2k − 1)r0. The resulting expression for the cluster radius is therefore the same as for the cube-octahedron. For large k the radius is:
R ≈ 2kr0 ≈ 2(3/10)1/3r0N1/3 ≈ 1.339r0N1/3.
VI. SUMMARY
The main results of this work can be summarized as follows.
(1) Starting with an expression for the electron removal energy in terms of the image charge potential for an isolated spherical particle and a surface cutoff parameter [Eq. 3], we explored how this model may be consistently applied to metallic systems ranging from bulk surfaces to finite clusters and down to individual atoms.
(2) We showed that this approach provides a transparent physical explanation for the empirical fact that the atomic ionization potentials and polycrystalline work functions of the metallic elements exhibit an almost constant ratio of ∼ 2 over the periodic table [Eqs.
(1, 10)].
(3) We found that for most elements there is a remarkably close numerical correlation between the values of the nearest-neighbor distance in a crystal, the cube root of the atomic polarizability, and the image force cutoff parameter. This correlation may be rationalized qualitatively, but appears worthy of further study.
(4) Taking advantage of this correlation, we formulated simple expressions for the cut-off distance [Eq. (7)] and the atomic and cluster radii [Eqs. (11,14,15)]. They yield good estimates for the work function, the ionization potential, and the cluster electron removal energies by using only a single input parameter, the atomic polarizability. No extra adjustable parameters are required.
(5) Generalizing the scaling argument to the case of binary alloys, we found that it can simulate the shape of the concentration dependence of work functions of continuous bulk solutions [Eq. (12)].
(6) We also provided an analytical derivation of the connection between the geometric structure of a cluster of close-packed spheres and its outer radius. It is described by an equation of the type (13), but the precise numerical coefficient is shown to depend on the packing structure.
By generalizing, this work has application to the TOE project.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. Cubeoctahedron The cubeoctahedron is a shape with small surface area which can be cut out of an fcc crystal. The number of hard spheres as a function of the number of shells k is given by65 N = (10/3)k3 − 5k2 + (11/3)k − 1. The outer radius R is given by R = (2k − 1)r0. For large k this becomes R ≈ 2kr0 ≈ 2(3/10)1/3r0N1/3 ≈ 1.339r0N1/3. The same expression can be derived by evaluating the volume of the circumscribing sphere relative to the sum of the volumes of the small hard spheres67. 4. Icosahedron The icosahedron has the highest symmetry of all discrete point groups. Although due to it’s five-fold symmetry, the icosahedron does not form bulk crystals, it can be considered as a slightly distorted fcc crystal. The icosahedron structure has been observed for small clusters of inert-gas clusters, Ca, and Mg clusters (see references in 65). The relationship between the number of hard spheres and the number of shells is the same as for the cube-octahedron65: N = (10/3)k3 − 5k2 + (11/3)k − 1. The radius is also given by the same expression as for the cube-octahedron R = (2k − 1)r0. The resulting expression for the cluster radius is therefore the same as for the cube-octahedron. For large k the radius is: R ≈ 2kr0 ≈ 2(3/10)1/3r0N1/3 ≈ 1.339r0N1/3. VI. SUMMARY The main results of this work can be summarized as follows. (1) Starting with an expression for the electron removal energy in terms of the image charge potential for an isolated spherical particle and a surface cutoff parameter [Eq. 3], we explored how this model may be consistently applied to metallic systems ranging from bulk surfaces to finite clusters and down to individual atoms. (2) We showed that this approach provides a transparent physical explanation for the empirical fact that the atomic ionization potentials and polycrystalline work functions of the metallic elements exhibit an almost constant ratio of ∼ 2 over the periodic table [Eqs. (1, 10)]. (3) We found that for most elements there is a remarkably close numerical correlation between the values of the nearest-neighbor distance in a crystal, the cube root of the atomic polarizability, and the image force cutoff parameter. This correlation may be rationalized qualitatively, but appears worthy of further study. (4) Taking advantage of this correlation, we formulated simple expressions for the cut-off distance [Eq. (7)] and the atomic and cluster radii [Eqs. (11,14,15)]. They yield good estimates for the work function, the ionization potential, and the cluster electron removal energies by using only a single input parameter, the atomic polarizability. No extra adjustable parameters are required. (5) Generalizing the scaling argument to the case of binary alloys, we found that it can simulate the shape of the concentration dependence of work functions of continuous bulk solutions [Eq. (12)]. (6) We also provided an analytical derivation of the connection between the geometric structure of a cluster of close-packed spheres and its outer radius. It is described by an equation of the type (13), but the precise numerical coefficient is shown to depend on the packing structure. |
By generalizing, this work has application to the TOE project.
A significant number of first-principles calculations have been performed for work functions of metallic systems6,7,8. In addition, simple models based on semi-empirical approaches combined with classical electrostatics have been rather successful at reproducing WF trends and values9. This suggests that some features of the desired scaling law may be found by employing such a model.
In a similar spirit, let us now consider the image-force expression for the energy required to remove an electron from an isolated finite metal particle, modelled as a conducting sphere of radius R. The particle is assumed initially neutral, i.e., after the removal of the electron it acquires an unit positive charge.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/nucl-th/papers/0309/0309035.pdf
The double tetrahedron structure of the nucleus
Jozsef Garai
Department of Earth Sciences Florida International University University Park,
E-mail: jozsef.garai@fiu.edu
4 Oct 2003
http://www.npaci.edu/successes/2001_tetra.html
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/08.16/06-atomic.html
http://www.npaci.edu/enVision/v17.3/students.html#chemical
http://www.npaci.edu/successes/2001_tetra.html
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/08.16/06-atomic.html
http://www.npaci.edu/enVision/v17.3/students.html#chemical
Chan used a variation of a well-known mathematical technique to discover a novel arrangement of atoms missed by other scientists. He found that 78 neutral atoms could theoretically settle into the shape of a particular double icosahedron.
Leary and his colleagues use a variety of modeling techniques to examine how 10 to more than 100 neutral atoms arrange themselves into the lowest energy states possible. Their method works like an explorer scanning new countryside. An algorithm hops from one possible energetic state to another, each of which corresponds to a different cluster geometry, looking for the one with the deepest valley.
"This new double-icosahedral structure has a lower potential energy than the other structure," said Chan. This means that his structure, not the single icosahedral structure previously reported, may represent the actual 3-D structure of 78-atom clusters in nature.
--------------------------------------
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s06/p2200.html
R. Buckminster Fuller
624.03 Both the positive and negative tetrahedra can locally accommodate the 45 different energy exchange couplings and message contents, making 90 such accommodations all told. These accommodations would produce 30 different "apparent" tetrahedron position shifts, whose successive movements would always involve an angular change of direction producing a helical trajectory.
------------------------------
There is a thread in all of those approaches. It leads to the "SPOT".
Jal
The double tetrahedron structure of the nucleus
Jozsef Garai
Department of Earth Sciences Florida International University University Park,
E-mail: jozsef.garai@fiu.edu
4 Oct 2003
QUOTE
Expanding a double tetrahedron formation of equal spheres arranged in fcc structure correlation between the positions of the nucleons and quantum numbers has been detected. The number of protons in the structure is not simply consistent with all the corresponding quantum numbers but also bears the same physical meaning as in quantum mechanics. The detected correlations between lattice positions of the protons and quantum numbers raise the possibility the solid nuclear structure might be able to provide an explanation for the single particle properties of the nuclei.
Other nuclear properties supporting a double tetrahedron nuclear structure are the followings.
These correlations are consistent with the physical meaning of the quantum description; therefore, a random coincidence should be excluded. The detected correlations raised the possibility that the double tetrahedron crystalline model might provide the first comprehensive description of the nuclei by combining the individual particle, collective, and clustering characteristics of the nuclei.
Other nuclear properties supporting a double tetrahedron nuclear structure are the followings.
These correlations are consistent with the physical meaning of the quantum description; therefore, a random coincidence should be excluded. The detected correlations raised the possibility that the double tetrahedron crystalline model might provide the first comprehensive description of the nuclei by combining the individual particle, collective, and clustering characteristics of the nuclei.
http://www.npaci.edu/successes/2001_tetra.html
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/08.16/06-atomic.html
http://www.npaci.edu/enVision/v17.3/students.html#chemical
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Expanding a double tetrahedron formation of equal spheres arranged in fcc structure correlation between the positions of the nucleons and quantum numbers has been detected. The number of protons in the structure is not simply consistent with all the corresponding quantum numbers but also bears the same physical meaning as in quantum mechanics. The detected correlations between lattice positions of the protons and quantum numbers raise the possibility the solid nuclear structure might be able to provide an explanation for the single particle properties of the nuclei. Other nuclear properties supporting a double tetrahedron nuclear structure are the followings. These correlations are consistent with the physical meaning of the quantum description; therefore, a random coincidence should be excluded. The detected correlations raised the possibility that the double tetrahedron crystalline model might provide the first comprehensive description of the nuclei by combining the individual particle, collective, and clustering characteristics of the nuclei. |
http://www.npaci.edu/successes/2001_tetra.html
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/08.16/06-atomic.html
http://www.npaci.edu/enVision/v17.3/students.html#chemical
Chan used a variation of a well-known mathematical technique to discover a novel arrangement of atoms missed by other scientists. He found that 78 neutral atoms could theoretically settle into the shape of a particular double icosahedron.
Leary and his colleagues use a variety of modeling techniques to examine how 10 to more than 100 neutral atoms arrange themselves into the lowest energy states possible. Their method works like an explorer scanning new countryside. An algorithm hops from one possible energetic state to another, each of which corresponds to a different cluster geometry, looking for the one with the deepest valley.
"This new double-icosahedral structure has a lower potential energy than the other structure," said Chan. This means that his structure, not the single icosahedral structure previously reported, may represent the actual 3-D structure of 78-atom clusters in nature.
--------------------------------------
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s06/p2200.html
R. Buckminster Fuller
624.03 Both the positive and negative tetrahedra can locally accommodate the 45 different energy exchange couplings and message contents, making 90 such accommodations all told. These accommodations would produce 30 different "apparent" tetrahedron position shifts, whose successive movements would always involve an angular change of direction producing a helical trajectory.
------------------------------
There is a thread in all of those approaches.
It leads to the "SPOT". Jal
DYNAMIC MODEL double tetrahedron structure
Maybe someone can adapt this to the 4S model. I never suspected that the spacetime structure would reveal itself in the nucleus of the atoms
http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/NVSIndex.html
by Norman D. Cook
The Nuclear Visualization Software
A novel aspect of the NVS program is the emphasis drawn to the FCC/SCP lattice representations of nuclei. While the features and practical uses of these models have been discussed in the physics literature, it is a quite remarkable, but not widely appreciated fact that the entire systematics of the quantum numbers assigned to nucleons (which is a direct consequence of the Schrödinger wave equation) is reproduced in an intuitive, geometrical manner within the FCC lattice
(or, alternatively, within the 50%-occupied SCP lattice). In other words, there is an unambiguous and precise one-to-one mapping between the known symmetries of “ nuclear quantum space” and the geometry of the FCC lattice. Whether or not real nuclei maintain this geometry (in some dynamic
and probabilistic fashion) is controversial, but the identity between the lattice symmetries and the n-, j-, m-, i- and s-quantum number symmetries of the Schrödinger equation is real and clearly illustrated within the NVS program. It is for this reason that the seemingly-contradictory character of the established models of nuclear structure theory might find unification within the (at-first-glance
counter-intuitive) FCC model – maintaining the principal strengths of independent-particle model (the entire eigenvalue description of nucleons, with the implied shell substructure of the nucleus) and those of the liquid-drop model (the constant-density nuclear core, binding energies and radii dependent on the number of nucleons, etc.). As an added bonus, various features of the cluster,
boson and quark models are implied by the lattice structure, as is the nuclear skin thickness and asymmetrical fission of the actinides.
Whether or not unification of the various nuclear structure models are at hand, there are many aspects of nuclear structure and dynamics that are more easily understood when the visual mode of thinking is also employed. This is not to say that pictures can replace analytical thinking, but every other branch of natural science has had the benefits of visualization and the intuitive help that visual
images bring. Particularly in light of the fact that several outstanding questions at the level of nuclear structure theory remain unanswered (What is the phase-state of nuclear matter? What is the nature and range of the nuclear force? How do nucleons aggregate in the nuclear interior?), the use of visualization techniques that are fully consistent with the quantum mechanical description of nucleon
states is worth exploring.
A-3: Installation Notes
The NVS program will run on the appropriate computers provided that the hardware system is set-up with support for OpenGL software. Newer Linux, Macintosh and Windows systems include the OpenGL graphics libraries with the operating system software, and no further preparation is needed to run the NVS software. Older hardware systems can often be configured with newer
operating system software and/or the OpenGL software libraries, such that the NVS program will run, but there are limits on the backward compatibility. Specifically, the NVS program will not run on the older Macintoshes (pre-PowerPC machines) or Windows and Linux systems that cannot
handle the OpenGL routines.
Source code for the NVS program is available on the enclosed CD. The entire code runs to 5,000 lines and can be recommended only to the experienced OpenGL/C programmer with a taste for spaghetti. There are, however, relatively clear-cut sections within the code where the nuclear model calculations are done. They should be of interest to physicists interested in adding new features to the NVS program. The code, written in ANSI-C (no C++), is provided as “ Open
Source” software.
The OpenGL libraries necessary for running computer graphics applications are available at no cost over the internet (http://www.opengl.org). With an appropriate C compiler, the source code with minor adjustments to the various hardware systems can be compiled and run as it is.
The glut32.dll file is provided with some computers as part of the operating system. If your computer doesn't have it, you need to download it from the Web
(for example, at
http://www.xmission.com/~nate/glut.html
Keyboard Shortcuts
http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/N...rdShortcuts.pdf
-----------------------------
jal
Maybe someone can adapt this to the 4S model. I never suspected that the spacetime structure would reveal itself in the nucleus of the atoms
http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/NVSIndex.html
by Norman D. Cook
The Nuclear Visualization Software
A novel aspect of the NVS program is the emphasis drawn to the FCC/SCP lattice representations of nuclei. While the features and practical uses of these models have been discussed in the physics literature, it is a quite remarkable, but not widely appreciated fact that the entire systematics of the quantum numbers assigned to nucleons (which is a direct consequence of the Schrödinger wave equation) is reproduced in an intuitive, geometrical manner within the FCC lattice
(or, alternatively, within the 50%-occupied SCP lattice). In other words, there is an unambiguous and precise one-to-one mapping between the known symmetries of “ nuclear quantum space” and the geometry of the FCC lattice. Whether or not real nuclei maintain this geometry (in some dynamic
and probabilistic fashion) is controversial, but the identity between the lattice symmetries and the n-, j-, m-, i- and s-quantum number symmetries of the Schrödinger equation is real and clearly illustrated within the NVS program. It is for this reason that the seemingly-contradictory character of the established models of nuclear structure theory might find unification within the (at-first-glance
counter-intuitive) FCC model – maintaining the principal strengths of independent-particle model (the entire eigenvalue description of nucleons, with the implied shell substructure of the nucleus) and those of the liquid-drop model (the constant-density nuclear core, binding energies and radii dependent on the number of nucleons, etc.). As an added bonus, various features of the cluster,
boson and quark models are implied by the lattice structure, as is the nuclear skin thickness and asymmetrical fission of the actinides.
Whether or not unification of the various nuclear structure models are at hand, there are many aspects of nuclear structure and dynamics that are more easily understood when the visual mode of thinking is also employed. This is not to say that pictures can replace analytical thinking, but every other branch of natural science has had the benefits of visualization and the intuitive help that visual
images bring. Particularly in light of the fact that several outstanding questions at the level of nuclear structure theory remain unanswered (What is the phase-state of nuclear matter? What is the nature and range of the nuclear force? How do nucleons aggregate in the nuclear interior?), the use of visualization techniques that are fully consistent with the quantum mechanical description of nucleon
states is worth exploring.
A-3: Installation Notes
The NVS program will run on the appropriate computers provided that the hardware system is set-up with support for OpenGL software. Newer Linux, Macintosh and Windows systems include the OpenGL graphics libraries with the operating system software, and no further preparation is needed to run the NVS software. Older hardware systems can often be configured with newer
operating system software and/or the OpenGL software libraries, such that the NVS program will run, but there are limits on the backward compatibility. Specifically, the NVS program will not run on the older Macintoshes (pre-PowerPC machines) or Windows and Linux systems that cannot
handle the OpenGL routines.
Source code for the NVS program is available on the enclosed CD. The entire code runs to 5,000 lines and can be recommended only to the experienced OpenGL/C programmer with a taste for spaghetti. There are, however, relatively clear-cut sections within the code where the nuclear model calculations are done. They should be of interest to physicists interested in adding new features to the NVS program. The code, written in ANSI-C (no C++), is provided as “ Open
Source” software.
The OpenGL libraries necessary for running computer graphics applications are available at no cost over the internet (http://www.opengl.org). With an appropriate C compiler, the source code with minor adjustments to the various hardware systems can be compiled and run as it is.
The glut32.dll file is provided with some computers as part of the operating system. If your computer doesn't have it, you need to download it from the Web
(for example, at
http://www.xmission.com/~nate/glut.html
Keyboard Shortcuts
http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/N...rdShortcuts.pdf
-----------------------------
jal
Hi jal,
I hope it's OK to transfer this from another thread to here..
Quantum entanglement ..
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/bbo_photo.htm
I don't understand this either. Can you help us to focus on this?
Best wishes,
-C2.
I hope it's OK to transfer this from another thread to here..
Quantum entanglement ..
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/bbo_photo.htm
I don't understand this either. Can you help us to focus on this?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2!
Yes... it's fits in my presentation.
From http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/bbo_photo.htm
We see The first photographs of downconversion light from a Beta Barium Borate (BBO) parametric downconversion crystal were take in the Innsbruck laboratory of the Institut für Experimantalphysik by Michael Reck and Paul Kwiat [Reck 1996].
What you are looking at are two photons (expanding bubbles) and where they crossed and entangled.
Where are the 6 intersecting points?
In order to achieve the “picture” they must go to great length to make sure that the equipment is set up just right so that the photons will produce only 2 entangled points at the right place in TIME and in SPACE.
The rest of the story is where we are not looking.
Insert: .
It took 10^6 photons to make that picture.
Here is another picture.
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/entangled.htm
Entangled photon pairs from this source were used to demonstrate a violation of the Bell inequality by over 100 standard deviations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_Theorem
This source is presently used in the Innsbruck Quantum Optics Laboratory for experiments in quantum information coding.
It shows 6 entangle photons.
--------------------------
In the following experiment they go to great length to make sure to set up the equipment so that they obtain the expected “interferences” and get the right “picture”, Which is the one that you have been using in the discussion.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0109/0109005.pdf
Measurement of the photonic de Broglie wavelength of biphotons generated by
spontaneous parametric down-conversion
A less exaggerated picture is at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../imgpho/sinslit
Here is my picture. It shows the first doubling of the radius of 3 photon which are side by side. You got to be able to imagine where are the 6 entangled points. ( X Y Z AXIS)
If you want, you can speculate on how my model would explain the energy being located at those points in space and time AND in the pictures.
(I've got to keep some info up my sleeve.)
jal
Yes... it's fits in my presentation.
From http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/bbo_photo.htm
We see The first photographs of downconversion light from a Beta Barium Borate (BBO) parametric downconversion crystal were take in the Innsbruck laboratory of the Institut für Experimantalphysik by Michael Reck and Paul Kwiat [Reck 1996].
What you are looking at are two photons (expanding bubbles) and where they crossed and entangled.
Where are the 6 intersecting points?
In order to achieve the “picture” they must go to great length to make sure that the equipment is set up just right so that the photons will produce only 2 entangled points at the right place in TIME and in SPACE.
The rest of the story is where we are not looking.
Insert: .
QUOTE
In the parametric down-conversion process one out of 10^6 ultraviolet photons converts into two photons.
It took 10^6 photons to make that picture.
Here is another picture.
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/entangled.htm
Entangled photon pairs from this source were used to demonstrate a violation of the Bell inequality by over 100 standard deviations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_Theorem
This source is presently used in the Innsbruck Quantum Optics Laboratory for experiments in quantum information coding.
It shows 6 entangle photons.
--------------------------
In the following experiment they go to great length to make sure to set up the equipment so that they obtain the expected “interferences” and get the right “picture”, Which is the one that you have been using in the discussion.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0109/0109005.pdf
Measurement of the photonic de Broglie wavelength of biphotons generated by
spontaneous parametric down-conversion
A less exaggerated picture is at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../imgpho/sinslit
Here is my picture. It shows the first doubling of the radius of 3 photon which are side by side. You got to be able to imagine where are the 6 entangled points. ( X Y Z AXIS)
If you want, you can speculate on how my model would explain the energy being located at those points in space and time AND in the pictures.
(I've got to keep some info up my sleeve.)
jal
The discussion is happening at
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6587&st=825
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6587&st=825
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later
….. continuing from
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...55&#entry158230
Before reading the following you should have an understanding of my model.
As a result you will be able to see that what is refered as “the bounce” is actually the threshold to the 2 dimensional configuration.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0605/0605078.pdf
The Issue of the Beginning in Quantum Gravity
Abhay Ashtekar
14 july 2006
( NO singularities in the BLACK HOLES)
( NO singularities in the BLACK HOLES)
P.14 … Returning to the issue of the Beginning, the big-bang in particular appears to be an artifact of the assumption that the continuum, classical space-time of general relativity should hold at all scales. LQC strongly suggests that this approximation breaks down when the matter reaches Planck density. One might have at first thought that, since this is a tiny portion of space-time, whatever quantum effects there may be, they would have negligible effect on global properties of space-time and hence almost no bearing on the issue of The
Beginning. However, detailed LQC calculations have shown that this intuition may be too naive. The ‘tiny portion’ may actually be a bridge to another large universe.
the larger universe IS the 2 dimensional configuration of my model
MY MODEL
Initial conditions
When entropy is at 0.0% potential energy is at 100.0%. THIS WOULD BE A SOLID. This requires that there not be any freedom of movement. All dimensions are either unreacheable or occupied.
With the reverse situation, entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%, all dimensions are empty and reachable. THIS IS A VOID.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY in 2 D ? It went from 100% to 90.69%. What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY in 3D? It went from 100% to 74.05%. This is the maximum packing density.
Conclusion
The horizon of a Black Hole is as I have described it. It is the 2D surface. It is supported by this paper. The interpretation of the math is wrong. It is not a “bounce”.
Eventually, the “math kids” will get to a “full” math description of my model.
A Black Hole made up 10^-18 units of a 2 dimensional spherical surface at the horizon is sounding better all the time.
A universe in which the start was similar to a Black hole and expanded, with nothing in it would be a “holographic universe” with our 3d universe existing at the expanded event horizon. However, this would imply that there is center to the universe and that there is an outside edge with nothing in it. Black holes would be “feeding” the expansion.
I don’t think that we have been able to detect a center or an outside edge to the universe.
jal
-------------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0612/0612147.pdf
Spectral Analysis of the Volume Operator in
Loop Quantum Gravity
J. Brunnemann_ and D. Rideout
22 Dec 2006
MY MODEL
Initial conditions
When entropy is at 0.0% potential energy is at 100.0%. THIS WOULD BE A SOLID. This requires that there not be any freedom of movement. All dimensions are either unreacheable or occupied.
With the reverse situation, entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%, all dimensions are empty and reachable. THIS IS A VOID.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY in 2 D ? It went from 100% to 90.69%. What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY in 3D? It went from 100% to 74.05%. This is the maximum packing density.
Conclusion
The horizon of a Black Hole is as I have described it. It is the 2D surface. It is supported by this paper. The interpretation of the math is wrong. It is not a “bounce”.
Eventually, the “math kids” will get to a “full” math description of my model.
A Black Hole made up 10^-18 units of a 2 dimensional spherical surface at the horizon is sounding better all the time.
A universe in which the start was similar to a Black hole and expanded, with nothing in it would be a “holographic universe” with our 3d universe existing at the expanded event horizon. However, this would imply that there is center to the universe and that there is an outside edge with nothing in it. Black holes would be “feeding” the expansion.
I don’t think that we have been able to detect a center or an outside edge to the universe.
jal
-------------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0612/0612147.pdf
Spectral Analysis of the Volume Operator in
Loop Quantum Gravity
J. Brunnemann_ and D. Rideout
22 Dec 2006
Abstract
We describe preliminary results of a detailed numerical analysis of
the volume operator as formulated by Ashtekar and Lewandowski [2].
Due to a simplified explicit expression for its matrix elements[3], it is
possible for the first time to treat generic vertices of valence greater
than four. It is found that the vertex geometry characterizes the
volume spectrum.
If you have my model in front of you then you will understand what he is doing.
Eventually, they will be able to do a numerical analysis of my model.
In case duality and yquantum came over to peek at what I had to say … I looked at http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/pdfs/20060...o_new_world.pdf and will add that the only supersymmetry that will make sense will be the one arising/generated from my model/the SPOT/quantum geometry.
jal
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...55&#entry158230
Before reading the following you should have an understanding of my model.
As a result you will be able to see that what is refered as “the bounce” is actually the threshold to the 2 dimensional configuration.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0605/0605078.pdf
The Issue of the Beginning in Quantum Gravity
Abhay Ashtekar
14 july 2006
QUOTE
We need a theory that incorporates not only the dynamical nature of geometry but also the ramifications of quantum physics. Does the ‘correct’ or ‘true’
physics stop at the big-bang also in quantum gravity? Or, is there yet another paradigm shift waiting in the wings?
In particular, the quantum space-time may be much larger than what general
relativity has us believe, whence the big bang may not, after all, be the Beginning.
Now, quantum geometry tells us that the area operator has a minimum non-zero eigenvalue, _, and in the quantum theory it is natural to shrink the loop only till it attains this minimum.
p. 12 ….which is about 0.82 times the Planck density. However, then it bounces.
p.13 …. A qualitative picture that emerges is that the non-perturbative quantum geometry corrections are ‘repulsive’. While they are negligible under normal conditions, they dominate when curvature approaches the Planck scale and halt the collapse that would classically have lead to a singularity.
The suggestion from LQC is that, a new repulsive force associated with the quantum nature of geometry may come into play near Planck density, strong enough to prevent the formation of singularities irrespective of how large the mass is. Since this force is negligible until one enters the Planck regime, predictions of classical relativity on the formation of trapped surfaces, dynamical and isolated horizons would still hold.
physics stop at the big-bang also in quantum gravity? Or, is there yet another paradigm shift waiting in the wings?
In particular, the quantum space-time may be much larger than what general
relativity has us believe, whence the big bang may not, after all, be the Beginning.
Now, quantum geometry tells us that the area operator has a minimum non-zero eigenvalue, _, and in the quantum theory it is natural to shrink the loop only till it attains this minimum.
p. 12 ….which is about 0.82 times the Planck density. However, then it bounces.
p.13 …. A qualitative picture that emerges is that the non-perturbative quantum geometry corrections are ‘repulsive’. While they are negligible under normal conditions, they dominate when curvature approaches the Planck scale and halt the collapse that would classically have lead to a singularity.
The suggestion from LQC is that, a new repulsive force associated with the quantum nature of geometry may come into play near Planck density, strong enough to prevent the formation of singularities irrespective of how large the mass is. Since this force is negligible until one enters the Planck regime, predictions of classical relativity on the formation of trapped surfaces, dynamical and isolated horizons would still hold.
( NO singularities in the BLACK HOLES)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We need a theory that incorporates not only the dynamical nature of geometry but also the ramifications of quantum physics. Does the ‘correct’ or ‘true’ physics stop at the big-bang also in quantum gravity? Or, is there yet another paradigm shift waiting in the wings? In particular, the quantum space-time may be much larger than what general relativity has us believe, whence the big bang may not, after all, be the Beginning. Now, quantum geometry tells us that the area operator has a minimum non-zero eigenvalue, _, and in the quantum theory it is natural to shrink the loop only till it attains this minimum. p. 12 ….which is about 0.82 times the Planck density. However, then it bounces. p.13 …. A qualitative picture that emerges is that the non-perturbative quantum geometry corrections are ‘repulsive’. While they are negligible under normal conditions, they dominate when curvature approaches the Planck scale and halt the collapse that would classically have lead to a singularity. The suggestion from LQC is that, a new repulsive force associated with the quantum nature of geometry may come into play near Planck density, strong enough to prevent the formation of singularities irrespective of how large the mass is. Since this force is negligible until one enters the Planck regime, predictions of classical relativity on the formation of trapped surfaces, dynamical and isolated horizons would still hold. |
( NO singularities in the BLACK HOLES)
P.14 … Returning to the issue of the Beginning, the big-bang in particular appears to be an artifact of the assumption that the continuum, classical space-time of general relativity should hold at all scales. LQC strongly suggests that this approximation breaks down when the matter reaches Planck density. One might have at first thought that, since this is a tiny portion of space-time, whatever quantum effects there may be, they would have negligible effect on global properties of space-time and hence almost no bearing on the issue of The
Beginning. However, detailed LQC calculations have shown that this intuition may be too naive. The ‘tiny portion’ may actually be a bridge to another large universe.
the larger universe IS the 2 dimensional configuration of my model
QUOTE
The physical, quantum space-time of could be significantly larger than what general relativity had us believe. The outstanding open issue is whether this scenario persists when inhomogeneities are adequately incorporated in the analysis.
MY MODEL
Initial conditions
When entropy is at 0.0% potential energy is at 100.0%. THIS WOULD BE A SOLID. This requires that there not be any freedom of movement. All dimensions are either unreacheable or occupied.
With the reverse situation, entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%, all dimensions are empty and reachable. THIS IS A VOID.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY in 2 D ? It went from 100% to 90.69%. What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY in 3D? It went from 100% to 74.05%. This is the maximum packing density.
Conclusion
The horizon of a Black Hole is as I have described it. It is the 2D surface. It is supported by this paper. The interpretation of the math is wrong. It is not a “bounce”.
Eventually, the “math kids” will get to a “full” math description of my model.
A Black Hole made up 10^-18 units of a 2 dimensional spherical surface at the horizon is sounding better all the time.
A universe in which the start was similar to a Black hole and expanded, with nothing in it would be a “holographic universe” with our 3d universe existing at the expanded event horizon. However, this would imply that there is center to the universe and that there is an outside edge with nothing in it. Black holes would be “feeding” the expansion.
I don’t think that we have been able to detect a center or an outside edge to the universe.
jal
-------------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0612/0612147.pdf
Spectral Analysis of the Volume Operator in
Loop Quantum Gravity
J. Brunnemann_ and D. Rideout
22 Dec 2006
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The physical, quantum space-time of could be significantly larger than what general relativity had us believe. The outstanding open issue is whether this scenario persists when inhomogeneities are adequately incorporated in the analysis. |
MY MODEL
Initial conditions
When entropy is at 0.0% potential energy is at 100.0%. THIS WOULD BE A SOLID. This requires that there not be any freedom of movement. All dimensions are either unreacheable or occupied.
With the reverse situation, entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%, all dimensions are empty and reachable. THIS IS A VOID.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY in 2 D ? It went from 100% to 90.69%. What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY in 3D? It went from 100% to 74.05%. This is the maximum packing density.
Conclusion
The horizon of a Black Hole is as I have described it. It is the 2D surface. It is supported by this paper. The interpretation of the math is wrong. It is not a “bounce”.
Eventually, the “math kids” will get to a “full” math description of my model.
A Black Hole made up 10^-18 units of a 2 dimensional spherical surface at the horizon is sounding better all the time.
A universe in which the start was similar to a Black hole and expanded, with nothing in it would be a “holographic universe” with our 3d universe existing at the expanded event horizon. However, this would imply that there is center to the universe and that there is an outside edge with nothing in it. Black holes would be “feeding” the expansion.
I don’t think that we have been able to detect a center or an outside edge to the universe.
jal
-------------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0612/0612147.pdf
Spectral Analysis of the Volume Operator in
Loop Quantum Gravity
J. Brunnemann_ and D. Rideout
22 Dec 2006
Abstract
We describe preliminary results of a detailed numerical analysis of
the volume operator as formulated by Ashtekar and Lewandowski [2].
Due to a simplified explicit expression for its matrix elements[3], it is
possible for the first time to treat generic vertices of valence greater
than four. It is found that the vertex geometry characterizes the
volume spectrum.
If you have my model in front of you then you will understand what he is doing.
Eventually, they will be able to do a numerical analysis of my model.
In case duality and yquantum came over to peek at what I had to say … I looked at http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/pdfs/20060...o_new_world.pdf and will add that the only supersymmetry that will make sense will be the one arising/generated from my model/the SPOT/quantum geometry.
jal
Do you want to learn a new math approach to try to understand the universe?
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/GC_R&D.html
David Hestenes
Geometric Calculus is a mathematical language for expressing and elaborating geometric concepts. Spacetime algebra is an application of this language to model physical space and time. It is the core of a universal language for physics, providing invariant formulations of basic equations and a powerful computational engine for deducing their consequences.
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/Spacetim...y.w.GC.proc.pdf
Spacetime Geometry with Geometric Calculus
David Hestenes
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/RigidBodyElastic.pdf
Homogeneous Rigid Body Mechanics with Elastic Coupling
David Hestenes
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/crystalsymmetry.pdf
Point Groups and Space Groups in Geometric Algebra
David Hestenes
http://www.brannenworks.com/
Carl Brennen’s page has some very interesting papers
jal
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/GC_R&D.html
David Hestenes
Geometric Calculus is a mathematical language for expressing and elaborating geometric concepts. Spacetime algebra is an application of this language to model physical space and time. It is the core of a universal language for physics, providing invariant formulations of basic equations and a powerful computational engine for deducing their consequences.
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/Spacetim...y.w.GC.proc.pdf
Spacetime Geometry with Geometric Calculus
David Hestenes
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/RigidBodyElastic.pdf
Homogeneous Rigid Body Mechanics with Elastic Coupling
David Hestenes
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/crystalsymmetry.pdf
Point Groups and Space Groups in Geometric Algebra
David Hestenes
http://www.brannenworks.com/
Carl Brennen’s page has some very interesting papers
jal
i never really understood what space-time is
could someone explain me
could someone explain me
Good Day EVERYONE!
I have spent 2 days catching up. I have 3 pages of quotes from all of you which leads to this presentation.
© is a constant.
Therefore, the distance, (l), that light travels is a constant. It has always been a constant.
-------------------------------------
Experiment # 1
Get a pack of sticky circles from your office supply store.
Mark six of them with a big “E”. It represents Energy in all its possible forms.
The circle represents the smallest possible scale at which energy is contained. It is the Planck Area. It is the smallest distance that energy can travel. Your circles will look like the following arrangement. (energy_nodes)
You cannot put the Planck scale energy nodes any closer than shown. They must be separated by a “nul” node of no energy. Therefore, the minimum total surface area is 24 Planck units.
----------------------------------------
Experiment # 2
Get an orange that has a circumference of those six circles. Stick your circle on the orange.
You have now proven that the minimum size of a Planck Sphere is 24,(l) in area and that there can only be six Planck size ENERGY in a Planck size sphere.
Play with it. You will be able to find all kinds of quantum geometry relationships, like Hex. packing.
--------------------------------
Experiment # 3
Now, lets go to 3d. From the 2d arrangement, we will take one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the X plane. Then one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the Y plane. Then one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the Z plane.
Mathematically, Good Elf says, “Please note that this is a spatially distributed complex function and is represented by a complex plane 6 dimensional function (x,y,z,ix,iy,iz) in the real most general three dimensional case.”
To me, it is just the real location of the 2d energy in a 3d configuration.
That will make a total of 6 energy nodes and 18 “nul” nodes.
Here is my picture of one energy node and 3 “nul” nodes. (energy_nodes_2)
This will make a 3d sphere that has 3 energy nodes and 9 “nul” nodes. From the previous 2d energy distribution we can get two (2) 3d spheres that contain 3 energy nodes and 9 “nul” nodes. Each sphere will have a total of 12 nodes.(3d rotation)
How many energy nodes does a proton or a neutron have?
We call them “quarks”.
Do you have a model that can generate “quarks”?
A physicist will quickly point out that the total energy of a proton or a neutron is not the sum of the 3 quarks. There is something else making up the total energy.
How right!
Let’s put the proton into the 3d spacetime configuration that I have worked out, the 12 hex. packing of 12 spheres. There is plenty of room.
12 spheres X 12 nodes = 144 nodes that are available. A proton will only use 12 nodes.
All of the above has been derived for “first principles”. The speed of light is CONSTANT. If you change the speed of light then you have changed the distance, (l), that light must travel. © as a constant depend directly on (l) the distance. It does not depend on the size of (l). Therefore, (l) can be 10^-33 or even 10^-18.
The discussion is at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...95&#entry166952
I have spent 2 days catching up. I have 3 pages of quotes from all of you which leads to this presentation.
© is a constant.
Therefore, the distance, (l), that light travels is a constant. It has always been a constant.
-------------------------------------
Experiment # 1
Get a pack of sticky circles from your office supply store.
Mark six of them with a big “E”. It represents Energy in all its possible forms.
The circle represents the smallest possible scale at which energy is contained. It is the Planck Area. It is the smallest distance that energy can travel. Your circles will look like the following arrangement. (energy_nodes)
You cannot put the Planck scale energy nodes any closer than shown. They must be separated by a “nul” node of no energy. Therefore, the minimum total surface area is 24 Planck units.
----------------------------------------
Experiment # 2
Get an orange that has a circumference of those six circles. Stick your circle on the orange.
You have now proven that the minimum size of a Planck Sphere is 24,(l) in area and that there can only be six Planck size ENERGY in a Planck size sphere.
Play with it. You will be able to find all kinds of quantum geometry relationships, like Hex. packing.
--------------------------------
Experiment # 3
Now, lets go to 3d. From the 2d arrangement, we will take one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the X plane. Then one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the Y plane. Then one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the Z plane.
Mathematically, Good Elf says, “Please note that this is a spatially distributed complex function and is represented by a complex plane 6 dimensional function (x,y,z,ix,iy,iz) in the real most general three dimensional case.”
To me, it is just the real location of the 2d energy in a 3d configuration.
That will make a total of 6 energy nodes and 18 “nul” nodes.
Here is my picture of one energy node and 3 “nul” nodes. (energy_nodes_2)
This will make a 3d sphere that has 3 energy nodes and 9 “nul” nodes. From the previous 2d energy distribution we can get two (2) 3d spheres that contain 3 energy nodes and 9 “nul” nodes. Each sphere will have a total of 12 nodes.(3d rotation)
How many energy nodes does a proton or a neutron have?
We call them “quarks”.
Do you have a model that can generate “quarks”?
A physicist will quickly point out that the total energy of a proton or a neutron is not the sum of the 3 quarks. There is something else making up the total energy.
How right!
Let’s put the proton into the 3d spacetime configuration that I have worked out, the 12 hex. packing of 12 spheres. There is plenty of room.
12 spheres X 12 nodes = 144 nodes that are available. A proton will only use 12 nodes.
All of the above has been derived for “first principles”. The speed of light is CONSTANT. If you change the speed of light then you have changed the distance, (l), that light must travel. © as a constant depend directly on (l) the distance. It does not depend on the size of (l). Therefore, (l) can be 10^-33 or even 10^-18.
The discussion is at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...95&#entry166952
Hi jal,amrit,
Amrit .. I'm not qualified to attempt the answer but I have a trick up my sleeve .. I'll try to get back to you on that.
jal,
Just a point of interest really.. might mean something more ..
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/harmonic.html !!! It's probably obvious (not to me) but..
"..the study of a spinning body is mathematically the same as that of a free particle moving on SO(3). "
Jeez .. why is everything so complicated?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Amrit .. I'm not qualified to attempt the answer but I have a trick up my sleeve .. I'll try to get back to you on that.
jal,
Just a point of interest really.. might mean something more ..
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/harmonic.html !!! It's probably obvious (not to me) but..
"..the study of a spinning body is mathematically the same as that of a free particle moving on SO(3). "
Jeez .. why is everything so complicated?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi jal,
The more I look into my last post the more I see how nasty the maths becomes .. the point I intended to make was that my impression (could well be wrong) is that travelling in a straight line in a compacted dimension might be equivalent to spinning on the spot in 3D +T. Since lots of things spin .. electrons etc .. ???
Best wishes,
-C2.
The more I look into my last post the more I see how nasty the maths becomes .. the point I intended to make was that my impression (could well be wrong) is that travelling in a straight line in a compacted dimension might be equivalent to spinning on the spot in 3D +T. Since lots of things spin .. electrons etc .. ???
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (amrit+Dec 30 2006, 10:01 PM)
i never really understood what space-time is
could someone explain me
You have the three dimensions of space and one of time. Since we move through time at 1 second per 1 second, it is like saying "spacetemperature". An irrelevance which is really for mathworld, for working out problems.
could someone explain me
You have the three dimensions of space and one of time. Since we move through time at 1 second per 1 second, it is like saying "spacetemperature". An irrelevance which is really for mathworld, for working out problems.
Getting a bit confused? This might help.
http://www.rodenburg.org/theory/index.html
Learn about key concepts in electron wave theory - without lots of mathematics...
by John Rodenburg
Then you can add the three slit results of T.D. Visser and plasmons.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdf
and http://www.physics.montana.edu/students/th...cs/FWMixing.pdf
Four-Wave Mixing Processes
The discussion is at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry171161
http://www.rodenburg.org/theory/index.html
Learn about key concepts in electron wave theory - without lots of mathematics...
by John Rodenburg
Then you can add the three slit results of T.D. Visser and plasmons.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdf
and http://www.physics.montana.edu/students/th...cs/FWMixing.pdf
Four-Wave Mixing Processes
The discussion is at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry171161
CITATIONS
Quantum gravity and cosmological observations
Martin Bojowald
26 Jan. 2007
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0101/0101012.pdf
Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms
Lucien Hardy
Centre for Quantum Computation,
The Clarendon Laboratory,
Parks road, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
May 25, 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0101/0101012.pdf
Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms
Lucien Hardy
Centre for Quantum Computation,
The Clarendon Laboratory,
Parks road, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
May 25, 2006
p.9
The surface of the set of normalized states must therefore be N2−2 dimensional. This means that, in general, the pure states are of lower dimension than the surface of the convex set of normalized states. The only exception to this is the case N = 2 when the surface of the convex set is 2-dimensional and the pure states are specified by two real parameters. This case is illustrated by the Bloch sphere. Points on the surface of the Bloch sphere correspond to pure states.
p.16
6. We show that the N = 2 case corresponds to the Bloch sphere and hence we obtain quantum theory for the N = 2 case.
p.20
8.6 The Bloch sphere
We are left with K = N2 (since K = N has been ruled out by Axiom 5). Consider the simplest nontrivial case N = 2 and K = 4. Normalized states are contained in a K−1 = 3 dimensional convex set. The surface of this set is two-dimensional. All pure states correspond to points on this surface. The four fiducial states can all be taken to be pure. They correspond to a linearly independent set. The reversible transformations that can act on the states form a compact Lie Group. The Lie dimension (number of generators) of this group of reversible transformations cannot be equal to one since, if it were, it could not transform between the fiducial states. This is because, under a change of basis, a compact Lie group can be represented by orthogonal matrices [21]. If there is only one Lie generator then it will generate pure states on a circle. But the end points of four linearly independent vectors cannot lie on a circle since this is embedded in a two-dimensional subspace. Hence, the Lie dimension must be equal to two. [b]The pure states are represented by points on the two-dimensional surface.
Furthermore, since the Lie dimension of the group of reversible transformations is equal to two it must be possible to transform a given pure state to any point on this surface. If we can find this surface then we know the pure states for N = 2. This surface must be convex since all points on it are extremal. We will use this property to show that the surface is ellipsoidal and that, with appropriate choice of fiducial states, it can be made spherical (this is the Bloch sphere).
p. 21
(84) This equation defines a two dimensional surface T embedded in three dimensions.
If you do not read the links, you will miss most of what is being presented.
J. Ambjørn is using two three-dimensional piecewise flat manifolds of topology _ and consist of purely spacelike tetrahedra.
J. Ambjørn’s calculations should be done with the “Quantum Minimum Length Structure”
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0604/0604212.pdf
Quantum Gravity, or The Art of Building Spacetime
J. Ambjørn a,c J. Jurkiewicz b, and R. Loll
28 April 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610101.pdf
The emergence of AdS2 from quantum fluctuations
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607013.pdf
The emergence of background geometry from quantum fluctuations
Quantum gravity and cosmological observations
Martin Bojowald
26 Jan. 2007
QUOTE
p. 2
There is an additional expectation from quantum gravity, namely that space has a
discrete structure on very small scales. One can think of this structure as an irregular lattice whose typical plaquette size p is close to ℓ2 P. But unlike the Planck length, this is a geometrical parameter or field specifying the quantum gravity state and can thus be dynamical. This parameter brings in crucial information from quantum gravity, unlike ℓP which is determined simply by parameters of quantum mechanics and classical gravity.
There is an additional expectation from quantum gravity, namely that space has a
discrete structure on very small scales. One can think of this structure as an irregular lattice whose typical plaquette size p is close to ℓ2 P. But unlike the Planck length, this is a geometrical parameter or field specifying the quantum gravity state and can thus be dynamical. This parameter brings in crucial information from quantum gravity, unlike ℓP which is determined simply by parameters of quantum mechanics and classical gravity.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0101/0101012.pdf
Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms
Lucien Hardy
Centre for Quantum Computation,
The Clarendon Laboratory,
Parks road, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
May 25, 2006
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| p. 2 There is an additional expectation from quantum gravity, namely that space has a discrete structure on very small scales. One can think of this structure as an irregular lattice whose typical plaquette size p is close to ℓ2 P. But unlike the Planck length, this is a geometrical parameter or field specifying the quantum gravity state and can thus be dynamical. This parameter brings in crucial information from quantum gravity, unlike ℓP which is determined simply by parameters of quantum mechanics and classical gravity. |
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0101/0101012.pdf
Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms
Lucien Hardy
Centre for Quantum Computation,
The Clarendon Laboratory,
Parks road, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
May 25, 2006
p.9
The surface of the set of normalized states must therefore be N2−2 dimensional. This means that, in general, the pure states are of lower dimension than the surface of the convex set of normalized states. The only exception to this is the case N = 2 when the surface of the convex set is 2-dimensional and the pure states are specified by two real parameters. This case is illustrated by the Bloch sphere. Points on the surface of the Bloch sphere correspond to pure states.
p.16
6. We show that the N = 2 case corresponds to the Bloch sphere and hence we obtain quantum theory for the N = 2 case.
p.20
8.6 The Bloch sphere
We are left with K = N2 (since K = N has been ruled out by Axiom 5). Consider the simplest nontrivial case N = 2 and K = 4. Normalized states are contained in a K−1 = 3 dimensional convex set. The surface of this set is two-dimensional. All pure states correspond to points on this surface. The four fiducial states can all be taken to be pure. They correspond to a linearly independent set. The reversible transformations that can act on the states form a compact Lie Group. The Lie dimension (number of generators) of this group of reversible transformations cannot be equal to one since, if it were, it could not transform between the fiducial states. This is because, under a change of basis, a compact Lie group can be represented by orthogonal matrices [21]. If there is only one Lie generator then it will generate pure states on a circle. But the end points of four linearly independent vectors cannot lie on a circle since this is embedded in a two-dimensional subspace. Hence, the Lie dimension must be equal to two. [b]The pure states are represented by points on the two-dimensional surface.
Furthermore, since the Lie dimension of the group of reversible transformations is equal to two it must be possible to transform a given pure state to any point on this surface. If we can find this surface then we know the pure states for N = 2. This surface must be convex since all points on it are extremal. We will use this property to show that the surface is ellipsoidal and that, with appropriate choice of fiducial states, it can be made spherical (this is the Bloch sphere).
p. 21
(84) This equation defines a two dimensional surface T embedded in three dimensions.
Finding an interesting approach to solving the dynamics, that is being developed by K. Giesel and T. Thiemann Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG) is a major milestone in my learning curve.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607099.pdf
Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG) I. Conceptual Setup
K. Giesel∗ and T. Thiemann†
The present paper introduces a new conceptual framework for canonical quantum gravity resulting in a novel top to bottom approach.
The problem with establishing the semiclassical limit of LQG has to do with the quantum dynamics:
In AQG the coherent states are linear combinations of spin network functions
only if σ is compact and even then these spin network functions are labelled by the unique abstract graph while the coefficients are labelled by the embedded graph. This tiny difference has e.g. the consequence that in LQG coherent states over different graphs are automatically orthogonal while in AQG this is not necessarily the case.
Since we can accommodate any σ in our formulation, AQG can presumably deal with topology change.
Notice that in AQG, in contrast to the embedded graphs of LQG, the infinite algebraic graph is fixed. AQG theories defined on different infinite algebraic graphs are unitarily equivalent if and only if there is a permutation of the vertices such that the algebraic graphs can be transformed into each other.
Therefore in this paper and the companion paper we will focus on cubic algebraic graphs (all vertices have valence six) which will simplify our calculations and turns out to be sufficient in order to semiclassical calculations.
(note: need the right model to get the right answers)
Notice that no continuum limit has to be performed on the algebraic graph. None of the operators of the theory depends on a lattice length. This is not possible because the theory is manifestly background independent. There are no scales to be sent to zero, everything is UV finite.
Notice that any three manifold admits an infinite number of triangulations by tetrahedra or cubes and the graphs dual to such triangulations are simplicial (all vertices are four valent) or cubic (all vertices are six valent) respectively. Thus we focus on simplicial or cubic algebraic graphs. (note: sounds like packing to me.)
Thus, the exact kernel of the master constraint could be empty or may contain too few solutions because the algebra of the constraints is anomalous.
If this is the case then, as already mentioned, one must modify the master Constraint. There are several proposals: Either one subtracts from the Master Constraint the minimum of the spectrum, or one allows a whole interval of zero in the spectum to define solutions [42] or one succeeds in defining non – anomalous constraints on the lattice, for instance by renormalisation group techniques [29]. (note: Since the double tetrahedron can be imbedded inside the cube it would be the right model to get the right answers)
Finally, an interesting question is whether there is an algebraic version not only of the volume operator but also of area [18, 43] and length operators of LQG [44]. This requires a diffeomorphism invariant definition of the classical version of these operators in terms of matter whose analytical expression uses 3d rather than 2d or 1d integrals in order that there is an embedding independent lift,
see [13] for an explanation. While the construction of these operators is not necessary because there are other functions on the classical, spatially diffeomorphism invariant phase space which separate the points, it would certainly be desirable to have those at ones disposal. We will leave this for future
research.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607100.pdf
Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG) II. Semiclassical Analysis
K. Giesel∗ and T. Thiemann†
In this paper we will display the semiclassical analysis of the (extended) algebraic Master constraint operator associated with an algebraic graph of cubic symmetry and show that AQG reproduces the correct infinitesimal generators of General Relativity in the semiclassical limit.
Here we will only consider the gravitational sector. However, the techniques used here carry over to all standard matter coupling.
We decided to present this calculation very detailed, because as pointed out in our companion paper [2], this is the first time semiclassical perturbation theory wihtin AQG allows to compute expectation values of dynamical operators.
p.25
Thus, the semiclassical limit of the algebraic Master constraint can indeed be interpreted as the discretisation of the classical Master constraint on a cubic lattice,
(note: Or you could say, as I do, “cubic packing”.)
Consequently, we have shown that the dynamics of AQG which are encoded in bM reproduce the correct infinitesimal generators of General Relativity.
Furthermore, we discussed the next-to-leading order contribution of the expectation value of bM and could show that these quantum fluctuations are finite. A more detailed analysis of the quantum fluctuations will be postponed to future research.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607101.pdf
Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG) III. Semiclassical Perturbation Theory
K. Giesel and T. Thiemann
With this new tool, the non – Abelean calculation, although technically more involved, is then exactly analogous to the Abelean calculation, thus justifying the Abelean analysis in retrospect. The results of this paper turn AQG into a calculational discipline.
In AQG on the other hand the dynamics never changes the number of degrees of freedom and the just mentioned problem disappears. Furthermore, the annoying graph dependence of the normalisable coherent states of LQG disappears in AQG.
p.22
Explicit Example: The case N = 2
Notice that for standard matter the terms appearing in the master constraint we have 2 ≤ N ≤ 12.
We will exemplify the procedure for N = 2 and consider arbitrary k. This means that in order to obtain a computable error bound of order k + 1 we must have l ≥ 15/(2(k + 1)).
Notice that while we have done perturbation theory within AQG for cubic algebraic graphs, everything goes through also in LQG for arbitrary graphs. Hence the present paper turns AQG and LQG into a calculational discipline.
(note: It could be used on my model. It would be interesting to find out if turns out to be the “final” right model to use.)
------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0608/0608210.pdf
Loop Quantum Gravity: An Inside View
T. Thiemann
29 Aug 2006
Loosely speaking, background independence means that the spacetime metric is not an external structure on which matter fields and gravitational perturbations propagate. Rather, the metric is a dynamical entity which becomes a fluctuating quantum operator.
We will mostly consider pure gravity, matter coupling works completely similar
[38].
p.21
Quantum dynamics
The quantum dynamics consists in two steps:
1. Reduction of the system with respect to the gauge transformations generated by the constraints and
2. Introduction of a notion of time with respect to which observables (gauge invariant operators) evolve.
p.26
Consider seven additional tetrahedra _ǫ v,1(e1, e2, e3), ..,_ǫ v,7(e1, e2, e3) which are obtained by analytically continuing28 the segments sI(_ǫ v(e1, e2, e3)) through the vertex so that we obtain altogether eight tetrahedral of equal coordinate volume which are like the eight octants of a Cartesian coordinate system.
(note: This is my double tetrahedral)
p. 28
The largest source of ambiguities is in the choice of the family of triangulations ǫ 7→ τ ǫ
γ adapted to a graph. In particular, while it is natural to align the edges of the tetrahedra of the triangulations with the beginning segments of the edges of the graph30 because there are no other natural terahedra available in the problem, it is not the only logically possible choice.
p. 39
Physical applications
(note: You should read them. There are too many to quote.)
p. 44
The intuitive idea behind Lorentz invariance violation in quantum gravity is the apparently Planck scale discreteness of LQG: If true, then quantum geometry looks more like a crystal than vacuum even if the gravitational vacuum state looks like Minkowski space on large scales.
A folklore statement that seems to have entered several physics blogs is that weakly discontinuous representations of the kind used in LQG do not work for the harmonic oscillator so why should they work for more complicated theories? This is the conclusion reached in [124]. As we will now show, while [124] is technically correct, its physical conclusion is completely wrong.
…Hence we may restrict to any one of these irreducible subspaces and conclude that the physics of the discontinuous representation is indistinguishable from the physics of the Schr¨odinger representation within the error δ.
p.47
A continuously updated and fairly complete list of all LQG publications to date can be found in [132].
A brief look at this list will show that there are papers of all levels of rigour and that mathematically more sophisticated papers were motivated and driven by less rigorous papers which started from a physical idea.
It is true that not all questions have been answered in connection with the quantum dynamics and research on it will continue to occupy many researchers during many years to come. However, what is asked for in [12] is too much: Nobody expects that one can completely solve the theory. We cannot even solve classical General Relativity completely and we will probably never be able to.
jal
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607099.pdf
Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG) I. Conceptual Setup
K. Giesel∗ and T. Thiemann†
The present paper introduces a new conceptual framework for canonical quantum gravity resulting in a novel top to bottom approach.
The problem with establishing the semiclassical limit of LQG has to do with the quantum dynamics:
In AQG the coherent states are linear combinations of spin network functions
only if σ is compact and even then these spin network functions are labelled by the unique abstract graph while the coefficients are labelled by the embedded graph. This tiny difference has e.g. the consequence that in LQG coherent states over different graphs are automatically orthogonal while in AQG this is not necessarily the case.
Since we can accommodate any σ in our formulation, AQG can presumably deal with topology change.
Notice that in AQG, in contrast to the embedded graphs of LQG, the infinite algebraic graph is fixed. AQG theories defined on different infinite algebraic graphs are unitarily equivalent if and only if there is a permutation of the vertices such that the algebraic graphs can be transformed into each other.
Therefore in this paper and the companion paper we will focus on cubic algebraic graphs (all vertices have valence six) which will simplify our calculations and turns out to be sufficient in order to semiclassical calculations.
(note: need the right model to get the right answers)
Notice that no continuum limit has to be performed on the algebraic graph. None of the operators of the theory depends on a lattice length. This is not possible because the theory is manifestly background independent. There are no scales to be sent to zero, everything is UV finite.
Notice that any three manifold admits an infinite number of triangulations by tetrahedra or cubes and the graphs dual to such triangulations are simplicial (all vertices are four valent) or cubic (all vertices are six valent) respectively. Thus we focus on simplicial or cubic algebraic graphs. (note: sounds like packing to me.)
Thus, the exact kernel of the master constraint could be empty or may contain too few solutions because the algebra of the constraints is anomalous.
If this is the case then, as already mentioned, one must modify the master Constraint. There are several proposals: Either one subtracts from the Master Constraint the minimum of the spectrum, or one allows a whole interval of zero in the spectum to define solutions [42] or one succeeds in defining non – anomalous constraints on the lattice, for instance by renormalisation group techniques [29]. (note: Since the double tetrahedron can be imbedded inside the cube it would be the right model to get the right answers)
Finally, an interesting question is whether there is an algebraic version not only of the volume operator but also of area [18, 43] and length operators of LQG [44]. This requires a diffeomorphism invariant definition of the classical version of these operators in terms of matter whose analytical expression uses 3d rather than 2d or 1d integrals in order that there is an embedding independent lift,
see [13] for an explanation. While the construction of these operators is not necessary because there are other functions on the classical, spatially diffeomorphism invariant phase space which separate the points, it would certainly be desirable to have those at ones disposal. We will leave this for future
research.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607100.pdf
Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG) II. Semiclassical Analysis
K. Giesel∗ and T. Thiemann†
In this paper we will display the semiclassical analysis of the (extended) algebraic Master constraint operator associated with an algebraic graph of cubic symmetry and show that AQG reproduces the correct infinitesimal generators of General Relativity in the semiclassical limit.
Here we will only consider the gravitational sector. However, the techniques used here carry over to all standard matter coupling.
We decided to present this calculation very detailed, because as pointed out in our companion paper [2], this is the first time semiclassical perturbation theory wihtin AQG allows to compute expectation values of dynamical operators.
p.25
Thus, the semiclassical limit of the algebraic Master constraint can indeed be interpreted as the discretisation of the classical Master constraint on a cubic lattice,
(note: Or you could say, as I do, “cubic packing”.)
Consequently, we have shown that the dynamics of AQG which are encoded in bM reproduce the correct infinitesimal generators of General Relativity.
Furthermore, we discussed the next-to-leading order contribution of the expectation value of bM and could show that these quantum fluctuations are finite. A more detailed analysis of the quantum fluctuations will be postponed to future research.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607101.pdf
Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG) III. Semiclassical Perturbation Theory
K. Giesel and T. Thiemann
With this new tool, the non – Abelean calculation, although technically more involved, is then exactly analogous to the Abelean calculation, thus justifying the Abelean analysis in retrospect. The results of this paper turn AQG into a calculational discipline.
In AQG on the other hand the dynamics never changes the number of degrees of freedom and the just mentioned problem disappears. Furthermore, the annoying graph dependence of the normalisable coherent states of LQG disappears in AQG.
p.22
Explicit Example: The case N = 2
Notice that for standard matter the terms appearing in the master constraint we have 2 ≤ N ≤ 12.
We will exemplify the procedure for N = 2 and consider arbitrary k. This means that in order to obtain a computable error bound of order k + 1 we must have l ≥ 15/(2(k + 1)).
Notice that while we have done perturbation theory within AQG for cubic algebraic graphs, everything goes through also in LQG for arbitrary graphs. Hence the present paper turns AQG and LQG into a calculational discipline.
(note: It could be used on my model. It would be interesting to find out if turns out to be the “final” right model to use.)
------------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0608/0608210.pdf
Loop Quantum Gravity: An Inside View
T. Thiemann
29 Aug 2006
Loosely speaking, background independence means that the spacetime metric is not an external structure on which matter fields and gravitational perturbations propagate. Rather, the metric is a dynamical entity which becomes a fluctuating quantum operator.
We will mostly consider pure gravity, matter coupling works completely similar
[38].
p.21
Quantum dynamics
The quantum dynamics consists in two steps:
1. Reduction of the system with respect to the gauge transformations generated by the constraints and
2. Introduction of a notion of time with respect to which observables (gauge invariant operators) evolve.
p.26
Consider seven additional tetrahedra _ǫ v,1(e1, e2, e3), ..,_ǫ v,7(e1, e2, e3) which are obtained by analytically continuing28 the segments sI(_ǫ v(e1, e2, e3)) through the vertex so that we obtain altogether eight tetrahedral of equal coordinate volume which are like the eight octants of a Cartesian coordinate system.
(note: This is my double tetrahedral)
p. 28
The largest source of ambiguities is in the choice of the family of triangulations ǫ 7→ τ ǫ
γ adapted to a graph. In particular, while it is natural to align the edges of the tetrahedra of the triangulations with the beginning segments of the edges of the graph30 because there are no other natural terahedra available in the problem, it is not the only logically possible choice.
p. 39
Physical applications
(note: You should read them. There are too many to quote.)
p. 44
The intuitive idea behind Lorentz invariance violation in quantum gravity is the apparently Planck scale discreteness of LQG: If true, then quantum geometry looks more like a crystal than vacuum even if the gravitational vacuum state looks like Minkowski space on large scales.
A folklore statement that seems to have entered several physics blogs is that weakly discontinuous representations of the kind used in LQG do not work for the harmonic oscillator so why should they work for more complicated theories? This is the conclusion reached in [124]. As we will now show, while [124] is technically correct, its physical conclusion is completely wrong.
…Hence we may restrict to any one of these irreducible subspaces and conclude that the physics of the discontinuous representation is indistinguishable from the physics of the Schr¨odinger representation within the error δ.
p.47
A continuously updated and fairly complete list of all LQG publications to date can be found in [132].
A brief look at this list will show that there are papers of all levels of rigour and that mathematically more sophisticated papers were motivated and driven by less rigorous papers which started from a physical idea.
It is true that not all questions have been answered in connection with the quantum dynamics and research on it will continue to occupy many researchers during many years to come. However, what is asked for in [12] is too much: Nobody expects that one can completely solve the theory. We cannot even solve classical General Relativity completely and we will probably never be able to.
jal
When two mathematicians talk to each other they can understand each other because they have given specific definitions to the words that they use.
Each branch of mathematic has their definition.
It is the same thing in physics.
English, on the other hand, lacks these precise definitions.
Therefore, when trying to communicate in English, there is confusion of what is meant and what is being described.
Sure, “orange” is not a word that you would use. You are smart enough to “translate” that it could be the use of a “Bloch ball/ Bloch sphere”.
Some people might find it easier to relate to my model by thinking about “Bloch ball or Bloch sphere”.
1. The surface of the “Bloch ball or Bloch sphere” is what we are “experiencing”.
2. Then Planck Scale gives is the minimum size and the distribution of those pure states (2D packing).
3. Then because the speed of light is a constant that means that those pure state do not have to be at the Planck scale. Their size will be determined by experimental observations.
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0101/0101012.pdf
"Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms"
PURE STATES
The pure states are represented by points on the two-dimensional surface.
We apply the group of continuous reversible transformations (implied by the continuity postulate) to show that the set of states must live inside a ball (with pure states on the surface). This is the Bloch ball of quantum theory for a two dimensional Hilbert space.
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0104/0104088.pdf
Unknown Quantum States: The Quantum de Finetti Representation
P. 10
If one admits that mixed states cannot be objective properties, because another observer, possessing privileged information, can know which pure state underlies the mixed state, then it becomes very tempting to regard the pure states as giving the “true” state of a system.
Probabilities that come from pure states would then be regarded as objective, and the probabilities for pure states within an ensemble decomposition of a mixed state would be regarded as subjective, expressing our ignorance of which pure state is the “true” state of the system. An immediate and, in our view, irremediable problem with this idea is that a mixed state has infinitely many ensemble decompositions into pure states [19,56,57], so the distinction between subjective and objective becomes hopelessly blurred.
Is the author saying that the Bloch ball cannot be a realizable concept?
Then he goes on, … to saying that you can have the Bloch ball. (with pure states on the surface)
p.15
Our problem hinges on finding a special kind of POVM, one for which any set of outcome probabilities specifies a unique operator. This boils down to a problem in pure linear algebra.
The space of operators on Hd is itself a linear vector space of dimension d2. The quantity tr( A†B ) serves as an inner product on that space.
note: Therefore, inside the Bloch ball is the complex function and the simple/pure state is on the surface of the sphere.
If the POVM elements E_ span the space of operators—there must be at least d2 POVM elements in the set—the measurement probabilities p_ = tr(ρE_)—now thought of as projections in the directions E_—are sufficient to specify a unique operator ρ. Two distinct density operators ρ and σ must give rise to different measurement statistics. Such measurements, which might be called informationally complete, have been studied for some time.
p. 17
It should now begin to be apparent why we chose to imagine a measurement E consisting of precisely d2 linearly independent elements. This allows us to assert the existence of a unique operator Ap on Hd corresponding to each point p in the domain of the integral. The ultimate goal here is to turn Eqs. (4.12) and (4.13) into a single operator equation.
p.20
Then he goes on to say that you cannot have unique operator/pure state/ real numbers on the Bloch ball
To give a concrete example, let us take the case of real-Hilbert-space quantum mechanics. This theory is the same as ordinary quantum mechanics in all aspects except that the Hilbert spaces are defined over the field of real numbers rather than the complex numbers. It turns out that this is a case where the quantum de Finetti theorem fails. Let us start to explain why by first describing how the particular proof technique used above loses validity in the new context.
My understanding is that once you have generated the Bloch ball by complex numbers then you can treat it as if it was “real-Hilbert-space quantum mechanics” (as if you had real numbers?) What would be wrong with generation a model from the pure state? After all that is what we are observing in the macro world, (waves are particle-like and particles are wave-like), the surface of “Bloch ball/ Bloch sphere”.
… look up … http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0508/0508039.pdf
Is Hilbert space discrete?
Roman V. Buniy,1, ∗ Stephen D. H. Hsu,1, † and A. Zee2, ‡
1Institute of Theoretical Science
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403
2Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics
UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
06 Aug 2005
We therefore assume the existence of a long-distance (infrared) regulator L in addition to a short-distance (ultraviolet) regulator l P .
While we have motivated a non-zero ǫ using quantum gravity, we stress that discreteness may appear at a dimensional scale larger than l P , and that experimentalists should keep an open mind.
Do you see his error? Hint… Planck Scale gives is the minimum size and the distribution of those points. (2D packing)
Each branch of mathematic has their definition.
It is the same thing in physics.
English, on the other hand, lacks these precise definitions.
Therefore, when trying to communicate in English, there is confusion of what is meant and what is being described.
Sure, “orange” is not a word that you would use. You are smart enough to “translate” that it could be the use of a “Bloch ball/ Bloch sphere”.
Some people might find it easier to relate to my model by thinking about “Bloch ball or Bloch sphere”.
1. The surface of the “Bloch ball or Bloch sphere” is what we are “experiencing”.
2. Then Planck Scale gives is the minimum size and the distribution of those pure states (2D packing).
3. Then because the speed of light is a constant that means that those pure state do not have to be at the Planck scale. Their size will be determined by experimental observations.
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0101/0101012.pdf
"Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms"
PURE STATES
The pure states are represented by points on the two-dimensional surface.
We apply the group of continuous reversible transformations (implied by the continuity postulate) to show that the set of states must live inside a ball (with pure states on the surface). This is the Bloch ball of quantum theory for a two dimensional Hilbert space.
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0104/0104088.pdf
Unknown Quantum States: The Quantum de Finetti Representation
P. 10
If one admits that mixed states cannot be objective properties, because another observer, possessing privileged information, can know which pure state underlies the mixed state, then it becomes very tempting to regard the pure states as giving the “true” state of a system.
Probabilities that come from pure states would then be regarded as objective, and the probabilities for pure states within an ensemble decomposition of a mixed state would be regarded as subjective, expressing our ignorance of which pure state is the “true” state of the system. An immediate and, in our view, irremediable problem with this idea is that a mixed state has infinitely many ensemble decompositions into pure states [19,56,57], so the distinction between subjective and objective becomes hopelessly blurred.
Is the author saying that the Bloch ball cannot be a realizable concept?
Then he goes on, … to saying that you can have the Bloch ball. (with pure states on the surface)
p.15
Our problem hinges on finding a special kind of POVM, one for which any set of outcome probabilities specifies a unique operator. This boils down to a problem in pure linear algebra.
The space of operators on Hd is itself a linear vector space of dimension d2. The quantity tr( A†B ) serves as an inner product on that space.
note: Therefore, inside the Bloch ball is the complex function and the simple/pure state is on the surface of the sphere.
If the POVM elements E_ span the space of operators—there must be at least d2 POVM elements in the set—the measurement probabilities p_ = tr(ρE_)—now thought of as projections in the directions E_—are sufficient to specify a unique operator ρ. Two distinct density operators ρ and σ must give rise to different measurement statistics. Such measurements, which might be called informationally complete, have been studied for some time.
p. 17
It should now begin to be apparent why we chose to imagine a measurement E consisting of precisely d2 linearly independent elements. This allows us to assert the existence of a unique operator Ap on Hd corresponding to each point p in the domain of the integral. The ultimate goal here is to turn Eqs. (4.12) and (4.13) into a single operator equation.
p.20
Then he goes on to say that you cannot have unique operator/pure state/ real numbers on the Bloch ball
To give a concrete example, let us take the case of real-Hilbert-space quantum mechanics. This theory is the same as ordinary quantum mechanics in all aspects except that the Hilbert spaces are defined over the field of real numbers rather than the complex numbers. It turns out that this is a case where the quantum de Finetti theorem fails. Let us start to explain why by first describing how the particular proof technique used above loses validity in the new context.
My understanding is that once you have generated the Bloch ball by complex numbers then you can treat it as if it was “real-Hilbert-space quantum mechanics” (as if you had real numbers?) What would be wrong with generation a model from the pure state? After all that is what we are observing in the macro world, (waves are particle-like and particles are wave-like), the surface of “Bloch ball/ Bloch sphere”.
… look up … http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0508/0508039.pdf
Is Hilbert space discrete?
Roman V. Buniy,1, ∗ Stephen D. H. Hsu,1, † and A. Zee2, ‡
1Institute of Theoretical Science
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403
2Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics
UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
06 Aug 2005
We therefore assume the existence of a long-distance (infrared) regulator L in addition to a short-distance (ultraviolet) regulator l P .
While we have motivated a non-zero ǫ using quantum gravity, we stress that discreteness may appear at a dimensional scale larger than l P , and that experimentalists should keep an open mind.
Do you see his error? Hint… Planck Scale gives is the minimum size and the distribution of those points. (2D packing)
I am impressed that a mathematical justification has already been proposed for “SPOT”.
The “E” of my bloch sphere diagram = the field’s energy-momentum density.
The “math kids” will read the whole paper but I will quote a few relevant key points for the other readers.
For what it’s worth … let it be recorded that I was the first to cite and refer to “Multi-Particle States in Deformed Special Relativity” by S. Hossenfelder.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0702/0702016.pdf
Multi-Particle States in Deformed Special Relativity
S. Hossenfelder∗
Perimeter Institute
31 Caroline St. N, Waterloo,
Ontario, N2L 2Y5, Canada
(Dated: February 2, 2007)
…through the very introduction of a minimal length – implies a generalized uncertainty principle [21, 22, 23, 24, 25], which forbids it to localize a particle to a point. Therefore, already this formulation must be interpreted as a theory for an energy distribution with maximally possible localization, and the momentum space properties for space-time points inside this space-time volume.
…. We can use box modes and shrink the box as small as possible, that is as small as a Planck-
volume….
note: see my model for the proper application of minimum length. It is a sphere NOT a box. It is not necessary to input anything by hand.
If one wants to construct a field theory that consistently incorporates DSR, the transformation behavior for
a classical particle with four momentum p can not independently be transferred to each of the single field’s
modes, since superposition of these modes implies that the properties at a point in spacetime - and therefore the momentum space at this point - depend not only on the single mode but on the energy density of all the present excitations.
on the energy density
This is the [E] in my model of the Bloch sphere
The question how to generalize the formalism of DSR to multi-particle states is essential if one wants to formulate a quantum field theory. The missing description of multi-particle systems is an huge obstacle on the way to formulate the principles of the theory, and to recover the limiting cases of the Standard Model and Special Relativity.
In particular, one wants to construct a conserved quantity for bound states and interactions.
Need to find the right model
Since the transformation behavior reflects the properties of the curved momentum space of the particle with energy k, this means that these momentum spaces are independent of each other. This is a justified expectation if the particle’s energies are sufficiently localized, as not to influence each other. This is
appropriate for point particles, but will definitely not be the case for plane waves.
don’t jump to conclusions… the solution is in the paper for you to read
In General Relativity however, the metric is a function not of the energy of a single mode, but of the energy-momentum tensor of the whole quantum field. In a theory of quantum gravity, the metric g would become an operator, and the action would be a functional of g coupled to the quantum field φ. When applying the variational principle, both are treated as independent variables. Variation with respect to the field φ results in the field’s equations of motion; variation with respect to the metric should result in a quantum version of Einstein’s field equations. From dimensional arguments, and to recover the classical limit, the source term in the latter equations should be the field’s density, and not a global charge.
In lack of the full theory of quantum gravity, the here investigated approach can be understood as an ed-
ucated guess for the arising metric. Instead of deriving it, we required it to reproduce the existence of a minimal length which captures one of the best known, and most widely examined, properties of gravitational effects in the Planckian regime. This metric then can be inserted in the field equations for φ which makes them non-linear. Nevertheless, the conjectured metric operator should be a function of the field’s densities, and instead of it being a function of k only, it should be of the form gμ_(∂φ∂φ).
Moreover, it follows from this that the relation between the momentum p and the wave vector k of a single mode therefore does not only depend on the mode’s properties, but on the energy density of the whole field and Eq. (12) should correctly read
p_ = g_μ(∂φ∂φ)kμ . (36)
In contrast to the single particles that were considered for the construction of the original DSR transformations, plane waves do overlap each other. The transformations acting on one wave will therefore be sensitive to the energy content of the other waves, all of which taken together determine the structure of the momentum space bundle over the space-time. Up to dimensional factors, the standard DSR approach remains applicable for a single mode, in which case the energy density is proportional to the mode’s frequency.
Instead, one should consider the local density of the field, and impose a bound on it. This is also a more appropriate choice simply because we want to construct a field theory for DSR.
In the standard DSR approach there is no dependence on the volume inside which we localize a mode with a given energy. We can use box modes and shrink the box as small as possible, that is as small as a Planck-volume.
I repeat, … see my Bloch sphere
This does not reflect in any way in the transformation properties of the modes. If one thinks in terms
of total energy, then it is not even clear in which limit an un-deformed Special Relativity has to be recovered. The limit of a total energy E very small with respect to the Planck-mass, E ≪ mp (single particle), as well as very large mp ≪ E (multi-particle) need to reduce to the standard transformation behaviour, since we have observations in both cases that show no deviation from Special Relativity. Instead, the limit that one would like to take is that of a small energy density with respect to the
Planck scale E/Volume ≪ mp/l3p
This means however, that the whole formalism of DSR needs to be sensitive to the volume in which we localize the energy.
see my model of the minimum Planck volume
For a single particle, we were just concerned with the particle’s configuration space over the particle’s world line. As long as the particles are separated from each other, it is conceivable to treat their momentum spaces as independent. In the case of superpositions of modes however, the properties of the momentum spaces over the space-time in which the field extends should depend on all of the modes that contribute to the field’s composition. We are therefore lead to the conclusion that the quantity to be bounded in DSR should not be the energy of a particle, but rather the energy density of a matter field.
note: “pure state”
Again, we are lead to the conclusion that the quantity to consider should be the field’s energy-momentum density rather than the four-momentum of a particle. Deformed Special Relativity, in the interpretation as
commonly used, is not able to reproduce the Standard Model of particle physics because multi-particle states cannot be described. For the same reason, it is not possible to reproduce the usual transformation laws of Special Relativity for macroscopic objects. The here presented analysis does not aim to provide a
complete quantum field theory with DSR that incorporates the suggested framework, but it presents a starting point for further investigations. I am summarizing the difficulties with the common approach here not because I like to tell depressing stories, but because I think that it is indeed possible to formulate a quantum field theory with DSR, that does not suffer from the above mentioned problems. This theory might be less exciting but also less speculative.
You might also refer to http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/strings...der_SP_KITP.pdf
Minimum Length
The devil is in the details. My model may die but out of the ashes will rise a new and better model.
A true “seeker” gets joy from the journey …. The journey never ends ….
Who will be the first to write up the right application of minimum length?
Roman V. Buniy or S. Hossenfelder.
WE ARE OFF TO THE RACES.
jal
The “E” of my bloch sphere diagram = the field’s energy-momentum density.
The “math kids” will read the whole paper but I will quote a few relevant key points for the other readers.
For what it’s worth … let it be recorded that I was the first to cite and refer to “Multi-Particle States in Deformed Special Relativity” by S. Hossenfelder.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0702/0702016.pdf
Multi-Particle States in Deformed Special Relativity
S. Hossenfelder∗
Perimeter Institute
31 Caroline St. N, Waterloo,
Ontario, N2L 2Y5, Canada
(Dated: February 2, 2007)
…through the very introduction of a minimal length – implies a generalized uncertainty principle [21, 22, 23, 24, 25], which forbids it to localize a particle to a point. Therefore, already this formulation must be interpreted as a theory for an energy distribution with maximally possible localization, and the momentum space properties for space-time points inside this space-time volume.
…. We can use box modes and shrink the box as small as possible, that is as small as a Planck-
volume….
note: see my model for the proper application of minimum length. It is a sphere NOT a box. It is not necessary to input anything by hand.
If one wants to construct a field theory that consistently incorporates DSR, the transformation behavior for
a classical particle with four momentum p can not independently be transferred to each of the single field’s
modes, since superposition of these modes implies that the properties at a point in spacetime - and therefore the momentum space at this point - depend not only on the single mode but on the energy density of all the present excitations.
on the energy density
This is the [E] in my model of the Bloch sphere
The question how to generalize the formalism of DSR to multi-particle states is essential if one wants to formulate a quantum field theory. The missing description of multi-particle systems is an huge obstacle on the way to formulate the principles of the theory, and to recover the limiting cases of the Standard Model and Special Relativity.
In particular, one wants to construct a conserved quantity for bound states and interactions.
Need to find the right model
Since the transformation behavior reflects the properties of the curved momentum space of the particle with energy k, this means that these momentum spaces are independent of each other. This is a justified expectation if the particle’s energies are sufficiently localized, as not to influence each other. This is
appropriate for point particles, but will definitely not be the case for plane waves.
don’t jump to conclusions… the solution is in the paper for you to read
In General Relativity however, the metric is a function not of the energy of a single mode, but of the energy-momentum tensor of the whole quantum field. In a theory of quantum gravity, the metric g would become an operator, and the action would be a functional of g coupled to the quantum field φ. When applying the variational principle, both are treated as independent variables. Variation with respect to the field φ results in the field’s equations of motion; variation with respect to the metric should result in a quantum version of Einstein’s field equations. From dimensional arguments, and to recover the classical limit, the source term in the latter equations should be the field’s density, and not a global charge.
In lack of the full theory of quantum gravity, the here investigated approach can be understood as an ed-
ucated guess for the arising metric. Instead of deriving it, we required it to reproduce the existence of a minimal length which captures one of the best known, and most widely examined, properties of gravitational effects in the Planckian regime. This metric then can be inserted in the field equations for φ which makes them non-linear. Nevertheless, the conjectured metric operator should be a function of the field’s densities, and instead of it being a function of k only, it should be of the form gμ_(∂φ∂φ).
Moreover, it follows from this that the relation between the momentum p and the wave vector k of a single mode therefore does not only depend on the mode’s properties, but on the energy density of the whole field and Eq. (12) should correctly read
p_ = g_μ(∂φ∂φ)kμ . (36)
In contrast to the single particles that were considered for the construction of the original DSR transformations, plane waves do overlap each other. The transformations acting on one wave will therefore be sensitive to the energy content of the other waves, all of which taken together determine the structure of the momentum space bundle over the space-time. Up to dimensional factors, the standard DSR approach remains applicable for a single mode, in which case the energy density is proportional to the mode’s frequency.
Instead, one should consider the local density of the field, and impose a bound on it. This is also a more appropriate choice simply because we want to construct a field theory for DSR.
In the standard DSR approach there is no dependence on the volume inside which we localize a mode with a given energy. We can use box modes and shrink the box as small as possible, that is as small as a Planck-volume.
I repeat, … see my Bloch sphere
This does not reflect in any way in the transformation properties of the modes. If one thinks in terms
of total energy, then it is not even clear in which limit an un-deformed Special Relativity has to be recovered. The limit of a total energy E very small with respect to the Planck-mass, E ≪ mp (single particle), as well as very large mp ≪ E (multi-particle) need to reduce to the standard transformation behaviour, since we have observations in both cases that show no deviation from Special Relativity. Instead, the limit that one would like to take is that of a small energy density with respect to the
Planck scale E/Volume ≪ mp/l3p
This means however, that the whole formalism of DSR needs to be sensitive to the volume in which we localize the energy.
see my model of the minimum Planck volume
For a single particle, we were just concerned with the particle’s configuration space over the particle’s world line. As long as the particles are separated from each other, it is conceivable to treat their momentum spaces as independent. In the case of superpositions of modes however, the properties of the momentum spaces over the space-time in which the field extends should depend on all of the modes that contribute to the field’s composition. We are therefore lead to the conclusion that the quantity to be bounded in DSR should not be the energy of a particle, but rather the energy density of a matter field.
note: “pure state”
Again, we are lead to the conclusion that the quantity to consider should be the field’s energy-momentum density rather than the four-momentum of a particle. Deformed Special Relativity, in the interpretation as
commonly used, is not able to reproduce the Standard Model of particle physics because multi-particle states cannot be described. For the same reason, it is not possible to reproduce the usual transformation laws of Special Relativity for macroscopic objects. The here presented analysis does not aim to provide a
complete quantum field theory with DSR that incorporates the suggested framework, but it presents a starting point for further investigations. I am summarizing the difficulties with the common approach here not because I like to tell depressing stories, but because I think that it is indeed possible to formulate a quantum field theory with DSR, that does not suffer from the above mentioned problems. This theory might be less exciting but also less speculative.
You might also refer to http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/strings...der_SP_KITP.pdf
Minimum Length
The devil is in the details. My model may die but out of the ashes will rise a new and better model.
A true “seeker” gets joy from the journey …. The journey never ends ….
Who will be the first to write up the right application of minimum length?
Roman V. Buniy or S. Hossenfelder.
WE ARE OFF TO THE RACES.
jal
I have shown two ways of understanding minimum length.
The uncertainty (location of the energy density, 6 of them) can only be at one of those 24 locations.
and
The uncertainty is at the location … 1, 2, 3, or 4.
Let’s see if you have been paying attention. The devil is in the details.
If the energy density is at position # 1 then the uncertainty will be between position #1 and position # 3. Why? Because position # 2 is too close for minimum scale and position # 4 is too far for minimum scale and too close to position # 1.
Therefore, the uncertainty will be between position # 1 and # 3.
--------------
There are good links to minimum length at
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2006/05/m...ngth-scale.html
Bee’s The Minimal Length Scale
Remember... Finding the dead end is as important as blazing a new path.
jal
The uncertainty (location of the energy density, 6 of them) can only be at one of those 24 locations.
and
The uncertainty is at the location … 1, 2, 3, or 4.
Let’s see if you have been paying attention. The devil is in the details.
If the energy density is at position # 1 then the uncertainty will be between position #1 and position # 3. Why? Because position # 2 is too close for minimum scale and position # 4 is too far for minimum scale and too close to position # 1.
Therefore, the uncertainty will be between position # 1 and # 3.
--------------
There are good links to minimum length at
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2006/05/m...ngth-scale.html
Bee’s The Minimal Length Scale
Remember... Finding the dead end is as important as blazing a new path.
jal
There is a minimum length. Here is the structure.
There is NO uncertainty of the minimum length and of the minimum structure.
The only uncertainty is the measurement. The uncertainty is in determining position # 1 or position # 3 from the "SPOT". The uncertainty principle does not apply to the “actual” structure only to its measurement. It is not an appropriate use of the Uncertainty Principle.
Here are some references.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9602/9602085.pdf
On Quantum Field Theory with Nonzero Minimal
Uncertainties in Positions and Momenta
Achim Kempf
15 Feb 1996
--------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0610/0610064.pdf
Scale Dependent Metric and Minimal Length in QEG ‡
Martin Reuter and Jan-Markus Schwindt
05 Oct 2006
-------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9403/9403008.pdf
Quantum gravity and minimum length
Luis J. Garay
Theoretical Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College,
Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, U.K.
(5 August 1994)
There is NO uncertainty of the minimum length and of the minimum structure.
The only uncertainty is the measurement. The uncertainty is in determining position # 1 or position # 3 from the "SPOT". The uncertainty principle does not apply to the “actual” structure only to its measurement. It is not an appropriate use of the Uncertainty Principle.
Here are some references.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9602/9602085.pdf
On Quantum Field Theory with Nonzero Minimal
Uncertainties in Positions and Momenta
Achim Kempf
15 Feb 1996
--------------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0610/0610064.pdf
Scale Dependent Metric and Minimal Length in QEG ‡
Martin Reuter and Jan-Markus Schwindt
05 Oct 2006
-------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9403/9403008.pdf
Quantum gravity and minimum length
Luis J. Garay
Theoretical Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College,
Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, U.K.
(5 August 1994)
I JUST FOUND OUT THAT MY APPROACH HAS GOT A NAME – “Structuralism”
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926969-6.pdf
Quantum Gravity Meets Structuralism: Interweaving Relations in the Fundation of Physics
by Dean Rickles and Steven French
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...1/QGbook-SF.pdf
Time and Structure in Canonical Gravity.1
Dean Rickles
Division of History & Philosophy of Science,
University of Leeds.
phldpr@leeds.ac.uk
An abridged version of this paper is to appear in Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity.
Edited by S. French, D. Rickles, and J. Saatsi. Oxford University Press (2005).
JAL
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926969-6.pdf
Quantum Gravity Meets Structuralism: Interweaving Relations in the Fundation of Physics
by Dean Rickles and Steven French
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...1/QGbook-SF.pdf
Time and Structure in Canonical Gravity.1
Dean Rickles
Division of History & Philosophy of Science,
University of Leeds.
phldpr@leeds.ac.uk
An abridged version of this paper is to appear in Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity.
Edited by S. French, D. Rickles, and J. Saatsi. Oxford University Press (2005).
JAL
(QMLS)- “Quantum Minimum Length Structure”
The “quantum minimum length structure”, (QMLS), is from first principle and it explains why our universe is the way it is.
You can see the evidence of the “quantum minimum length structure” at the triple slit experiment done by T.D. Visser.
At page 5 of http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdf .
This can be can extrapolated and you can see that the minimum length quantum structure is in the arrangements of the atoms http://arxiv.org/ftp/nucl-th/papers/0309/0309035.pdf
….. in the arrangement of the molecules http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/index.html
…. and in the arrangement of everything. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0207/0207116.pdf
The “quantum minimum length structure” is the building block of our universe.
There is a minimum length. Here is the structure.
All of this evidence is right before our nose and is now being considered and evaluated by the scientific community. (see previous links ie. Bloch sphere)
As I have said before, the dynamic is an important component which is very well presented in “Structuralism”.
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926969-6.pdf
Quantum Gravity Meets Structuralism: Interweaving Relations in the Fundation of Physics by Dean Rickles and Steven French
------------------
Keep an eye on Sabine Hossenfelder’s blog at http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ .
I’m sure that she will be aware of new developments before me.
-------------------
The “quantum minimum length structure”, (QMLS), is from first principle and it explains why our universe is the way it is.
You can see the evidence of the “quantum minimum length structure” at the triple slit experiment done by T.D. Visser.
At page 5 of http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdf .
This can be can extrapolated and you can see that the minimum length quantum structure is in the arrangements of the atoms http://arxiv.org/ftp/nucl-th/papers/0309/0309035.pdf
….. in the arrangement of the molecules http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/index.html
…. and in the arrangement of everything. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0207/0207116.pdf
The “quantum minimum length structure” is the building block of our universe.
There is a minimum length. Here is the structure.
All of this evidence is right before our nose and is now being considered and evaluated by the scientific community. (see previous links ie. Bloch sphere)
As I have said before, the dynamic is an important component which is very well presented in “Structuralism”.
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926969-6.pdf
Quantum Gravity Meets Structuralism: Interweaving Relations in the Fundation of Physics by Dean Rickles and Steven French
------------------
Keep an eye on Sabine Hossenfelder’s blog at http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ .
I’m sure that she will be aware of new developments before me.
-------------------
Trying to determine if there is a minimum length has been asked/researched before.
------------------
http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0412/0412307.pdf
Self-organized criticality in quantum gravity
Mohammad H. Ansari_ and Lee Smolin†
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, On, Canada N2L 3G1 and
Perimeter Institute, Waterloo, On, Canada N2L 2Y5
(Dated: April 29, 2006)
We study a simple model of spin network evolution motivated by the hypothesis that the emergence of classical space-time from a discrete microscopic dynamics may be a self-organized critical process. Self organized critical systems are statistical systems that naturally evolve without fine
tuning to critical states in which correlation functions are scale invariant. We study several rules for evolution of frozen spin networks in which the spins labelling the edges evolve on a fixed graph.
We find evidence for a set of rules which behaves analogously to sand pile models in which a critical state emerges without fine tuning, in which some correlation functions become scale invariant.
------------------
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0505144
Minimum Length from First Principles
Xavier Calmeta∗, Michael Graesserb†and Stephen D.H Hsuc‡
aDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, UNC Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255.
bCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125
cInstitute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403.
May 27, 2006
We show that no device or gedanken experiment is capable of measuring a distance less than the Planck length. By "measuring a distance less than the Planck length" we mean, technically, resolve the eigenvalues of the position operator to within that accuracy. The only assumptions in our argument are causality, the uncertainty principle from quantum mechanics and a dynamical criteria for gravitational collapse from classical general relativity called the hoop conjecture. The inability of any gedanken experiment to measure a sub-Planckian distance suggests the existence of a minimal length.
----------------
The “quantum minimum length structure” is the building block of our universe and of my model.
I should include some inspirational references for my model.
http://www.weburbia.com/pg/discrete.htm
It has been argued by 't Hooft that this finiteness of entropy and information in a black-hole is also evidence for the discreteness of space-time. In fact the number of degrees of freedom must be given by the area in Planck units of a surface surrounding the region of space. This has led to some speculative ideas about how quantum gravity theories might work through a holographic mechanism, i.e. it is suggested that physics must be formulated with degrees of freedom distributed on a two dimensional surface with the third spatial dimension being dynamically generated.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9601014
Quantization of Point Particles in 2+1 Dimensional Gravity and Space-Time Discreteness
Authors: G. 't Hooft
Comments: 23 pages Plain TeX, 3 Figures
Report-no: THU-96/02
Journal-ref: Class.Quant.Grav. 13 (1996) 1023-1040
By investigating the canonical commutation rules for gravitating quantized particles in a 2+1 dimensional world it is found that these particles live on a space-time lattice. The space-time lattice points can be characterized by three integers. Various representations are possible, the details depending on the topology chosen for energy-momentum space.
We find that an S2 ×S1 topology yields a physically most interesting lattice within which first quantization of Dirac particles is possible. An S3 topology also gives a lattice, but does not allow first quantized particles.
It is somewhat puzzling to the present author why the lattice structure of space and time had escaped attention from other investigators up till now.
Since we are dealing with angles, not hyperbolic angles, it is not advised to use hyperbolic spaces but rather compact spaces.
Here we emphasize that the lattice structure has been derived from the mathematical expressions for the relation between momenta and the Hamiltonian, rather than postulated. Only with the lattice spacing precisely defined by the Planck length do the field equations take the form of difference
equations involving only nearest neighbors on the lattice.
My model uses the “Quantum Minimum Length Structure”
If energy-momentum space is indeed represented by an S2 sphere we will be forced to restrict ourselves to the SO(3) quantum numbers l and m, but it is conceivable that more complex theories can be constructed; we leave this to other investigators.
It may seem that angular momentum ought to be quantized in units _/(_−H) rather than 1. We deliberately postponed this complication. The reason is that this topological aspect of space emerges if one particle circumnavigates another particle, in other words, it becomes relevant only if we consider two or more particles. In the present work only single particle states were considered. The center of our coordinate frame is not a particle.
We seem to have hit upon a new terrain of lattice theories where much remains to be explored.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0701/0701097.pdf
ON THE FREE-WILL POSTULATE IN QUANTUM MECHANICS
Gerard ’t Hooft
15 Jan 2007
All we should demand is that the model in question obeys the most
rigid requirements of internal logic. Our model should consist of a complete description of its physical variables, the values they can take, and the laws they obey while evolving.
The notion of time has to be introduced if only to distinguish cause from effect : cause must always precede effect.
The unconstrained initial state condition states that, the deterministic equations should determine what will happen next. However, these deterministic equations cannot contain wave functions, and therefore, one cannot demand to have the free will to modify the settings of a detector, without even affecting the wave functions of the objects measured. According to our deterministic theories, these wave functions are man-made artifacts, and they can therefore not be kept unaffected. These wave functions may well depend critically on past events, in a fully conspiratorial manner. A quite similar situation is known to exist in local gauge theories for elementary particles. Fixing the gauge by some gauge condition may generate field configurations that depend in a conspiratorial way on the past or the future, but this has no effect on the physically observable events, just because these are gauge-independent. In the same vein, the dependence on wave functions may appear to be conspiratorial, just because the wave functions as such are unobservable.
If a Noble prize winner, Gerard ’t Hooft, can say these things then working with these ideas to create a model is not a waste of efforts.
My model uses the “Quantum Minimum Length Structure” to improve his model.
--------------
What do you want to see?
It’s all the same thing.
The “Quantum Minimum Length Structure”
------------------------
It’s no accident that Chris Quigg got the interpenetrating tetrahedra http://boudin.fnal.gov/~quigg/JGV/EnvPFintro.html
His model is more than a help to "visualizing"
It’s built from the principle of the “Quantum Minimum Length Structure”
People like Chris Quigg and Gerard ’t Hooft would not be involved with CERN if they were “crackpots”.
---------------
read ..... learn ..... assimilate
------------------
http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0412/0412307.pdf
Self-organized criticality in quantum gravity
Mohammad H. Ansari_ and Lee Smolin†
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, On, Canada N2L 3G1 and
Perimeter Institute, Waterloo, On, Canada N2L 2Y5
(Dated: April 29, 2006)
We study a simple model of spin network evolution motivated by the hypothesis that the emergence of classical space-time from a discrete microscopic dynamics may be a self-organized critical process. Self organized critical systems are statistical systems that naturally evolve without fine
tuning to critical states in which correlation functions are scale invariant. We study several rules for evolution of frozen spin networks in which the spins labelling the edges evolve on a fixed graph.
We find evidence for a set of rules which behaves analogously to sand pile models in which a critical state emerges without fine tuning, in which some correlation functions become scale invariant.
------------------
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0505144
Minimum Length from First Principles
Xavier Calmeta∗, Michael Graesserb†and Stephen D.H Hsuc‡
aDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, UNC Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255.
bCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125
cInstitute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403.
May 27, 2006
We show that no device or gedanken experiment is capable of measuring a distance less than the Planck length. By "measuring a distance less than the Planck length" we mean, technically, resolve the eigenvalues of the position operator to within that accuracy. The only assumptions in our argument are causality, the uncertainty principle from quantum mechanics and a dynamical criteria for gravitational collapse from classical general relativity called the hoop conjecture. The inability of any gedanken experiment to measure a sub-Planckian distance suggests the existence of a minimal length.
----------------
The “quantum minimum length structure” is the building block of our universe and of my model.
I should include some inspirational references for my model.
http://www.weburbia.com/pg/discrete.htm
It has been argued by 't Hooft that this finiteness of entropy and information in a black-hole is also evidence for the discreteness of space-time. In fact the number of degrees of freedom must be given by the area in Planck units of a surface surrounding the region of space. This has led to some speculative ideas about how quantum gravity theories might work through a holographic mechanism, i.e. it is suggested that physics must be formulated with degrees of freedom distributed on a two dimensional surface with the third spatial dimension being dynamically generated.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9601014
Quantization of Point Particles in 2+1 Dimensional Gravity and Space-Time Discreteness
Authors: G. 't Hooft
Comments: 23 pages Plain TeX, 3 Figures
Report-no: THU-96/02
Journal-ref: Class.Quant.Grav. 13 (1996) 1023-1040
By investigating the canonical commutation rules for gravitating quantized particles in a 2+1 dimensional world it is found that these particles live on a space-time lattice. The space-time lattice points can be characterized by three integers. Various representations are possible, the details depending on the topology chosen for energy-momentum space.
We find that an S2 ×S1 topology yields a physically most interesting lattice within which first quantization of Dirac particles is possible. An S3 topology also gives a lattice, but does not allow first quantized particles.
It is somewhat puzzling to the present author why the lattice structure of space and time had escaped attention from other investigators up till now.
Since we are dealing with angles, not hyperbolic angles, it is not advised to use hyperbolic spaces but rather compact spaces.
Here we emphasize that the lattice structure has been derived from the mathematical expressions for the relation between momenta and the Hamiltonian, rather than postulated. Only with the lattice spacing precisely defined by the Planck length do the field equations take the form of difference
equations involving only nearest neighbors on the lattice.
My model uses the “Quantum Minimum Length Structure”
If energy-momentum space is indeed represented by an S2 sphere we will be forced to restrict ourselves to the SO(3) quantum numbers l and m, but it is conceivable that more complex theories can be constructed; we leave this to other investigators.
It may seem that angular momentum ought to be quantized in units _/(_−H) rather than 1. We deliberately postponed this complication. The reason is that this topological aspect of space emerges if one particle circumnavigates another particle, in other words, it becomes relevant only if we consider two or more particles. In the present work only single particle states were considered. The center of our coordinate frame is not a particle.
We seem to have hit upon a new terrain of lattice theories where much remains to be explored.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0701/0701097.pdf
ON THE FREE-WILL POSTULATE IN QUANTUM MECHANICS
Gerard ’t Hooft
15 Jan 2007
All we should demand is that the model in question obeys the most
rigid requirements of internal logic. Our model should consist of a complete description of its physical variables, the values they can take, and the laws they obey while evolving.
The notion of time has to be introduced if only to distinguish cause from effect : cause must always precede effect.
The unconstrained initial state condition states that, the deterministic equations should determine what will happen next. However, these deterministic equations cannot contain wave functions, and therefore, one cannot demand to have the free will to modify the settings of a detector, without even affecting the wave functions of the objects measured. According to our deterministic theories, these wave functions are man-made artifacts, and they can therefore not be kept unaffected. These wave functions may well depend critically on past events, in a fully conspiratorial manner. A quite similar situation is known to exist in local gauge theories for elementary particles. Fixing the gauge by some gauge condition may generate field configurations that depend in a conspiratorial way on the past or the future, but this has no effect on the physically observable events, just because these are gauge-independent. In the same vein, the dependence on wave functions may appear to be conspiratorial, just because the wave functions as such are unobservable.
If a Noble prize winner, Gerard ’t Hooft, can say these things then working with these ideas to create a model is not a waste of efforts.
My model uses the “Quantum Minimum Length Structure” to improve his model.
--------------
What do you want to see?
It’s all the same thing.
The “Quantum Minimum Length Structure”
------------------------
It’s no accident that Chris Quigg got the interpenetrating tetrahedra http://boudin.fnal.gov/~quigg/JGV/EnvPFintro.html
His model is more than a help to "visualizing"
It’s built from the principle of the “Quantum Minimum Length Structure”
People like Chris Quigg and Gerard ’t Hooft would not be involved with CERN if they were “crackpots”.
---------------
read ..... learn ..... assimilate
QUOTE (Confused2+Jan 22 2007, 12:17 AM)
The more I look into my last post the more I see how nasty the maths becomes.
If you had to know all the physical, chemical and electrical processes necessary to just move your arm, probably no one would ever be able to move again. People let themselves get bogged down with often unnecessary detail and often resent others who don't and do it the easy way.
Does a chemist need to know quantum theory to know that if he mixes chemicals A+B, he'll get C+D?
If you had to know all the physical, chemical and electrical processes necessary to just move your arm, probably no one would ever be able to move again. People let themselves get bogged down with often unnecessary detail and often resent others who don't and do it the easy way.
Does a chemist need to know quantum theory to know that if he mixes chemicals A+B, he'll get C+D?
jal. Without reading the articles, just looking at those models, they are wrong. A triangle is not a natural shape other than when (atomic bond) constraints require it. A sphere is the preferred smallest shape at all levels when possible.
kaneda!
You have missed the point of what is a model.
I agree, "A sphere is the preferred smallest shape at all levels when possible".
If you have a thread discussion I'll join you there. Send a PM.
I wish to keep this thread as a summary of the concept that I developed and discussed.
Thanks
jal
You have missed the point of what is a model.
I agree, "A sphere is the preferred smallest shape at all levels when possible".
If you have a thread discussion I'll join you there. Send a PM.
I wish to keep this thread as a summary of the concept that I developed and discussed.
Thanks
jal
QUOTE
…. moving the discussion of quantum cosmology and various types of inflation from handwaving arguments into the realm of quantitative analysis would be highly desirable and quite possibly already within reach.
J. Ambjørn
J. Ambjørn
If you do not read the links, you will miss most of what is being presented.
J. Ambjørn is using two three-dimensional piecewise flat manifolds of topology _ and consist of purely spacelike tetrahedra.
J. Ambjørn’s calculations should be done with the “Quantum Minimum Length Structure”
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0604/0604212.pdf
Quantum Gravity, or The Art of Building Spacetime
J. Ambjørn a,c J. Jurkiewicz b, and R. Loll
28 April 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610101.pdf
The emergence of AdS2 from quantum fluctuations
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607013.pdf
The emergence of background geometry from quantum fluctuations
More references/information on minimum length (for the “math kids”)
If you have read these papers before then you should read them again with the additional knowledge of the QMLS.
http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9411/9411005.pdf
Discreteness of Area and Volume in Quantum Gravity
Carlo Rovelli∗ and Lee Smolin
17 Dec 2006
This is the “math kids’” way of describing the "SPOT" without the QMLS.
http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9403/9403008.pdf
Quantum gravity and minimum length
Luis J. Garay
09 May 1995
---------------------------
Quantum Minimum Length Structure , (QMLS), in a “Black Hole”
The area containing the energy of a “SPOT” is A/4. This is a 2d surface.
What do you want to see? These are all the same.
The RED is the location of the energy (6) when considering the Quantum Minimum Length Structure. I’m showing, (inside the circle), the possible allowed location of the energy of a “Black Hole”.
If you wanted to see “Quantum Foam”, which is the spacetime structure, then you would need to add the Z-axis with the location of the energy as allowed by the “Quantum Minimum Length Structure” and then add a particle-wave going through it.
My drawing skills are too poor to do that drawing.
Jal
If you have read these papers before then you should read them again with the additional knowledge of the QMLS.
http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9411/9411005.pdf
Discreteness of Area and Volume in Quantum Gravity
Carlo Rovelli∗ and Lee Smolin
17 Dec 2006
This is the “math kids’” way of describing the "SPOT" without the QMLS.
http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9403/9403008.pdf
Quantum gravity and minimum length
Luis J. Garay
09 May 1995
---------------------------
Quantum Minimum Length Structure , (QMLS), in a “Black Hole”
The area containing the energy of a “SPOT” is A/4. This is a 2d surface.
What do you want to see? These are all the same.
The RED is the location of the energy (6) when considering the Quantum Minimum Length Structure. I’m showing, (inside the circle), the possible allowed location of the energy of a “Black Hole”.
If you wanted to see “Quantum Foam”, which is the spacetime structure, then you would need to add the Z-axis with the location of the energy as allowed by the “Quantum Minimum Length Structure” and then add a particle-wave going through it.
My drawing skills are too poor to do that drawing.
Jal
Must read the following.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0702/0702094.pdf
Black Hole Entropy and the Problem of Universality
S. Carlip∗
16 Feb 2007
The entropy is thus fixed by symmetry, independent of any details of the states being counted.
So it is at least possible that results from two-dimensional conformal field theory may be relevant.
Most important for our purposes, the BTZ black hole exhibits conventional thermodynamic behavior, with an entropy S = 2πr+/4¯hG (3.3) equal to a quarter of its horizon size.
• we should look for “broken gauge invariance” to provide new degrees of freedom;
• we should at least hope for an effective two-dimensional picture, which would allow us to use the Cardy formula;
• but we should look near the horizon for our new Goldstone-like modes.
Given a value a = 2, the entropy (5.10) is precisely 2π times the standard Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. A similar factor of 2π was found in [68]. I believe it arises because in radial quantization we are computing the entropy over “all times,” on an initial surface consisting of a circle of circumference 2π.
My! … my!… just like the SPOT. What a coincidence? Therefore, we can get any size of a "Black Hole. All it needs is to be some multiplication (n) of 2 pi. The infalling particles/energy would upset the balance and it would need to rebalance itself to a new size (n) 2 pi. Nice mechanism for having hair.
-----------------
Something interesting to read.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0204/0204210.pdf
A Hexagon Model for 3D Lorentzian Quantum Cosmology
B. Dittrich1 and R. Loll2
1Max-Planck-Institute for Gravitational Physics, Am M¨uhlenberg 1, D-14476 Golm
2Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University, Leuvenlaan 4, NL-3584 CE Utrecht
November 7, 2006
In summary, we think that a further investigation of this model is a promising avenue to pursue, both to advance our understanding of dynamically triangulated models and their continuum limits, and to achieve some degree of unification among the existing and rather disparate approaches to three-dimensional quantum gravity.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0702/0702094.pdf
Black Hole Entropy and the Problem of Universality
S. Carlip∗
16 Feb 2007
The entropy is thus fixed by symmetry, independent of any details of the states being counted.
So it is at least possible that results from two-dimensional conformal field theory may be relevant.
Most important for our purposes, the BTZ black hole exhibits conventional thermodynamic behavior, with an entropy S = 2πr+/4¯hG (3.3) equal to a quarter of its horizon size.
• we should look for “broken gauge invariance” to provide new degrees of freedom;
• we should at least hope for an effective two-dimensional picture, which would allow us to use the Cardy formula;
• but we should look near the horizon for our new Goldstone-like modes.
Given a value a = 2, the entropy (5.10) is precisely 2π times the standard Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. A similar factor of 2π was found in [68]. I believe it arises because in radial quantization we are computing the entropy over “all times,” on an initial surface consisting of a circle of circumference 2π.
My! … my!… just like the SPOT. What a coincidence? Therefore, we can get any size of a "Black Hole. All it needs is to be some multiplication (n) of 2 pi. The infalling particles/energy would upset the balance and it would need to rebalance itself to a new size (n) 2 pi. Nice mechanism for having hair.
-----------------
Something interesting to read.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0204/0204210.pdf
A Hexagon Model for 3D Lorentzian Quantum Cosmology
B. Dittrich1 and R. Loll2
1Max-Planck-Institute for Gravitational Physics, Am M¨uhlenberg 1, D-14476 Golm
2Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University, Leuvenlaan 4, NL-3584 CE Utrecht
November 7, 2006
In summary, we think that a further investigation of this model is a promising avenue to pursue, both to advance our understanding of dynamically triangulated models and their continuum limits, and to achieve some degree of unification among the existing and rather disparate approaches to three-dimensional quantum gravity.
A couple of planks and some glue.
http://tressful.blogspot.com/index.html
Mohammad H. Ansari
Jan 09 2007
http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0607/0607081.pdf
Spectroscopy of a canonically quantized horizon
Mohammad H. Ansari
Something for me and something for TRoc. (ordinary harmonic oscillator)
p. 4 see picture FIG. 1: A quantized black hole
The aim of this note is two fold:
1. Firstly, in Part (I) an unexpected symmetry in the complete spectrum of area is
descried. In fact, this spectrum can be decomposed into a several evenly spaced
sets, each with individual gap between levels. This leads to a reduced formula
of area eigenvalues. In SU(2) version of loop quantum gravity the gaps scale as
the square roots of ‘square-free’ numbers. In SO(3) version, they are the square roots of the discriminants of all possible quadratic positive definite forms.
2. Secondly, in Part (II) it is discussed that having applied the complete spectrum
of area, a black hole radiates quantum mechanically a continuous spectrum.
But the existence of the symmetry within the area spectrum results to a phenomenon called the quantum amplification effect. This generates several distinct bright lines in radiance spectrum. It gives the signature of quantum gravity observability in radiation from primordial black holes. Moreover, it challenges the isolated horizon picture conjecture, while makes it possible to test loop quantum gravity with black hole radiation well above Planck scale.
With his presentation and a Quantum Minimum Length Structure there has to be a minimum length for a photon waves. The quantum minimum length does not have to be at the Planck Scale. Has Mohammad H. Ansari found the minimum length for a photon wave? Therefore, has he found the size of the area which is the size of the “SPOT”.
Can the spectrum be reproduced without starting at the Planck scale?
Does his calculation leave open the possibility of finding the quantum minimum length in our universe?
I’m beginning to see the path to growing hair and to tap into a new source of energy.
Check out his math in the appendix.
The minimum frequency is called the fundamental frequency, (see formula)
Other emissive frequencies are harmonics ωn, which are proportional to this fundamental frequency by an integer n, ωn = n̟.
http://tressful.blogspot.com/index.html
Mohammad H. Ansari
Jan 09 2007
http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0607/0607081.pdf
Spectroscopy of a canonically quantized horizon
Mohammad H. Ansari
Something for me and something for TRoc. (ordinary harmonic oscillator)
p. 4 see picture FIG. 1: A quantized black hole
The aim of this note is two fold:
1. Firstly, in Part (I) an unexpected symmetry in the complete spectrum of area is
descried. In fact, this spectrum can be decomposed into a several evenly spaced
sets, each with individual gap between levels. This leads to a reduced formula
of area eigenvalues. In SU(2) version of loop quantum gravity the gaps scale as
the square roots of ‘square-free’ numbers. In SO(3) version, they are the square roots of the discriminants of all possible quadratic positive definite forms.
2. Secondly, in Part (II) it is discussed that having applied the complete spectrum
of area, a black hole radiates quantum mechanically a continuous spectrum.
But the existence of the symmetry within the area spectrum results to a phenomenon called the quantum amplification effect. This generates several distinct bright lines in radiance spectrum. It gives the signature of quantum gravity observability in radiation from primordial black holes. Moreover, it challenges the isolated horizon picture conjecture, while makes it possible to test loop quantum gravity with black hole radiation well above Planck scale.
With his presentation and a Quantum Minimum Length Structure there has to be a minimum length for a photon waves. The quantum minimum length does not have to be at the Planck Scale. Has Mohammad H. Ansari found the minimum length for a photon wave? Therefore, has he found the size of the area which is the size of the “SPOT”.
Can the spectrum be reproduced without starting at the Planck scale?
Does his calculation leave open the possibility of finding the quantum minimum length in our universe?
I’m beginning to see the path to growing hair and to tap into a new source of energy.
Check out his math in the appendix.
The minimum frequency is called the fundamental frequency, (see formula)
Other emissive frequencies are harmonics ωn, which are proportional to this fundamental frequency by an integer n, ωn = n̟.
Reference for BEGINNERS so that they can understand why/how my 2d model works with QMLS. (don’t worry about the formulas)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0409/0409039.pdf
Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions: The Case of a Closed Universe
S. Carlip
22 Sep 2004
Abstract
In three spacetime dimensions, general relativity drastically simplifies, becoming a “topological” theory with no propagating local degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, many of the difficult conceptual problems of quantizing gravity are still present. In this review, I summarize the rather large body of work that has gone towards quantizing (2+1)- dimensional vacuum gravity in the setting of a spatially closed universe.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0409/0409039.pdf
Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions: The Case of a Closed Universe
S. Carlip
22 Sep 2004
Abstract
In three spacetime dimensions, general relativity drastically simplifies, becoming a “topological” theory with no propagating local degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, many of the difficult conceptual problems of quantizing gravity are still present. In this review, I summarize the rather large body of work that has gone towards quantizing (2+1)- dimensional vacuum gravity in the setting of a spatially closed universe.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0605/0605014.pdf
Quantum geometry and microscopic black hole entropy
Alejandro Corichi,1, 2, ∗ Jacobo D´ıaz-Polo,3, † and Enrique Fern´andez-Borja4, ‡
14 Aug 2006
The number of microscopic states that are consistent with a black hole of a given horizon area A0 are counted and the statistical entropy, as a function of the area, is obtained for A0 up to
550 ℓ2Pl.
To this effect, we have found the frequency that best approximates the oscillations, and the frequency in areas gives an area scale
of δAosc = 2.407 ℓ2Pl. It remains a challenge to find an explanation for this scale.
The BI parameter that yields the desired agreement with S = A/4 is given by the
value γ0 = 0.27398
Why does the Graph starts at an area of approx = 50 and entropy between 6 10?
When I use QMLS I get an area of 24 units for a sphere.
When I use 2.763953198 for a diameter I get 24 units of area for a sphere and 6 units of area for a circle. (Just the way that they are suppose to be for a 2d unit and minimum sphere.)
From first principle I get the diameter and the Barbero-Immirzi parameter that is different by a factor of 10?
Only whole units of area would be allowed for a “black hole” to generate a fundamental
Frequency.
If only whole units of QML are allowed then fractional area numbers would not be allowed.
From the information that I provided any “math kid” can write a paper that points out which sizes of mini “black holes” that would be permitted. (Hurry!... CERN is waiting!)
Example:
Diameter..........Area sphere................Area circle
0.55279064............0.96 ....................0.240...... (not permitted)
0.2763953198.........0.24 ....................0.060...... (not permitted)
0.6909883............. 1.5 .....................0.375..... (not permitted)
1.3819766............. 6 .................... 1.5 ....... (not permitted)
2.763953198.....24 .................... 6 .......... okay
5.5279064........... 96 ................... 24 .......... okay
11.55812............384 ................... 96 .......... okay
22.1116256.......1,536 .................. 384 ......... okay
44.22325115......6,144 ................1,536 ......... okay
Simple jal
-------------------
reference
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog21/node11.html
Quantization of area: the plot thickens
John Baez
(Barbero-Immirzi parameter)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0301/0301122.pdf
Kerr black hole quasinormal frequencies
Shahar Hod
11 Sept 2006
------------------------
Quantum geometry and microscopic black hole entropy
Alejandro Corichi,1, 2, ∗ Jacobo D´ıaz-Polo,3, † and Enrique Fern´andez-Borja4, ‡
14 Aug 2006
The number of microscopic states that are consistent with a black hole of a given horizon area A0 are counted and the statistical entropy, as a function of the area, is obtained for A0 up to
550 ℓ2Pl.
To this effect, we have found the frequency that best approximates the oscillations, and the frequency in areas gives an area scale
of δAosc = 2.407 ℓ2Pl. It remains a challenge to find an explanation for this scale.
The BI parameter that yields the desired agreement with S = A/4 is given by the
value γ0 = 0.27398
Why does the Graph starts at an area of approx = 50 and entropy between 6 10?
When I use QMLS I get an area of 24 units for a sphere.
When I use 2.763953198 for a diameter I get 24 units of area for a sphere and 6 units of area for a circle. (Just the way that they are suppose to be for a 2d unit and minimum sphere.)
From first principle I get the diameter and the Barbero-Immirzi parameter that is different by a factor of 10?
Only whole units of area would be allowed for a “black hole” to generate a fundamental
Frequency.
If only whole units of QML are allowed then fractional area numbers would not be allowed.
From the information that I provided any “math kid” can write a paper that points out which sizes of mini “black holes” that would be permitted. (Hurry!... CERN is waiting!)
Example:
Diameter..........Area sphere................Area circle
0.55279064............0.96 ....................0.240...... (not permitted)
0.2763953198.........0.24 ....................0.060...... (not permitted)
0.6909883............. 1.5 .....................0.375..... (not permitted)
1.3819766............. 6 .................... 1.5 ....... (not permitted)
2.763953198.....24 .................... 6 .......... okay
5.5279064........... 96 ................... 24 .......... okay
11.55812............384 ................... 96 .......... okay
22.1116256.......1,536 .................. 384 ......... okay
44.22325115......6,144 ................1,536 ......... okay
Simple jal
-------------------
reference
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog21/node11.html
Quantization of area: the plot thickens
John Baez
(Barbero-Immirzi parameter)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0301/0301122.pdf
Kerr black hole quasinormal frequencies
Shahar Hod
11 Sept 2006
------------------------
If you want to learn more about “black holes". Read the following.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...4-10/title.html
Isolated and Dynamical Horizons and Their Applications
Abhay Ashtekar
15 December 2004
ashtekar @ gravity.psu.edu
The next challenge is to figure out what happens as the quantum “black hole’ goes between stable configurations (ie. 24 to 96).
------------------
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...4-10/title.html
Isolated and Dynamical Horizons and Their Applications
Abhay Ashtekar
15 December 2004
ashtekar @ gravity.psu.edu
QUOTE
7.2 Quantum horizon geometry
Since the eigenvalues are distinct in different -sectors, it immediately follows that these sectors provide unitarily inequivalent representations of the algebra of geometric operators; there is ‘super-selection’. Put differently, there is a quantization ambiguity, and which -sector is actually realized in Nature is an experimental question. One appropriate experiment, for example a measurement of the smallest non-zero area eigenvalue, would fix the value of and hence the quantum theory. MY value is 10x bigger (2.763953198) and every area are equal. Radom areas and random sizes means that the speed of light would be random and not a constant. Every further experiment - e.g., the measurement of higher eigenvalues or eigenvalues of other operators such as those corresponding to the volume of a region - would provide tests of the theory.
… For agreement with semi-classical considerations in these cases, the leading contribution to entropy should be given by the Hawking-Bekenstein formula (87 ). This can happen only in the sector . (2.763953198) is close enough
The quantum theory is now completely determined through this single constraint.
Since the eigenvalues are distinct in different -sectors, it immediately follows that these sectors provide unitarily inequivalent representations of the algebra of geometric operators; there is ‘super-selection’. Put differently, there is a quantization ambiguity, and which -sector is actually realized in Nature is an experimental question. One appropriate experiment, for example a measurement of the smallest non-zero area eigenvalue, would fix the value of and hence the quantum theory. MY value is 10x bigger (2.763953198) and every area are equal. Radom areas and random sizes means that the speed of light would be random and not a constant. Every further experiment - e.g., the measurement of higher eigenvalues or eigenvalues of other operators such as those corresponding to the volume of a region - would provide tests of the theory.
… For agreement with semi-classical considerations in these cases, the leading contribution to entropy should be given by the Hawking-Bekenstein formula (87 ). This can happen only in the sector . (2.763953198) is close enough
The quantum theory is now completely determined through this single constraint.
The next challenge is to figure out what happens as the quantum “black hole’ goes between stable configurations (ie. 24 to 96).
------------------
QUOTE (jal+Feb 23 2007, 04:42 PM)
If you want to learn more about “black holes". Read the following.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...4-10/title.html
Isolated and Dynamical Horizons and Their Applications
Abhay Ashtekar
15 December 2004
ashtekar @ gravity.psu.edu
The next challenge is to figure out what happens as the quantum “black hole’ goes between stable configurations (ie. 24 to 96).
------------------
I think you interest about nuclear structure in a unified approach
nuclear particles index
http://www.wbabin.net/science/alexandris7.pdf
discusion in a unified approach of nuclear particles
http://www.cerglobal.org/Detail.tpl?rnd=97...4408&sku=F10024
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...4-10/title.html
Isolated and Dynamical Horizons and Their Applications
Abhay Ashtekar
15 December 2004
ashtekar @ gravity.psu.edu
The next challenge is to figure out what happens as the quantum “black hole’ goes between stable configurations (ie. 24 to 96).
------------------
I think you interest about nuclear structure in a unified approach
nuclear particles index
http://www.wbabin.net/science/alexandris7.pdf
discusion in a unified approach of nuclear particles
http://www.cerglobal.org/Detail.tpl?rnd=97...4408&sku=F10024
Here is the challenge.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...4-10/title.html
4.2 Mechanics of dynamical horizons
The variations in the first law (36 ) represent infinitesimal changes in equilibrium states of horizon geometries. In the derivation of Section 4.1, these variations relate nearby but distinct space-times in each of which the horizon is in equilibrium. Therefore Equation (36 ) is interpreted as the first law in a passive form. Physically, it is perhaps the active form of the first law that is of more direct interest where a physical process, such as the one depicted in the right panel of Figure 1 causes a transition from one equilibrium state to a nearby one. Such a law can be established in the dynamical horizon framework. In fact, one can consider fully non-equilibrium situations, allowing physical processes in a given space-time in which there is a finite - rather than an infinitesimal - change in the state of the horizon.
4.3 Passage of dynamical horizons to equilibrium
A priori therefore, it is not at all clear that angular momentum and mass would join smoothly if the transition occurs at a finite time. However, a detailed analysis shows that the two sets of notions in fact agree.
---------------------
For the quantum “black hole” to expands it must take in a multiple of quantas of energy then the horizon expands to a new equilibrium with the smallest non-zero area eigenvalue. (angular momentum and mass)
There would be the following number of quantas of energy for each stable horizons.
Diameter..........Area sphere...Area circle … # quantas … Area.. ratio c/s
2.763953198.....24 .................... 6 .......... 6 ……. ¼
5.5279064........... 96 ................... 24 .......... 24 ……. ¼
11.55812............384 ................... 96 .......... 96 ……. ¼
22.1116256.......1,536 .................. 384 ......... 384 ……. ¼
44.22325115..... 6,144 ............. 1,536 ......... 1,536 ……... ¼
88.44645 …….. 24,576 ………….... 6,144 ……. 6,144 ...…… ¼
176.8929 ……. 98,304 …………... 24,576 ….. 24,576 ……... ¼
Why does all of the energy show up on the surface area for circle?
Why is the ratio always ¼ for a stable horizon?
What else does the quantum minimum length structure produce?
Who is playing with numerology? Me? Or the scientists?
If nobody....... then you are looking at a First Principle
------------------------
Quantum Minimum Length Structure , (QMLS),
The area containing the energy of a “SPOT” is A/4. This is a 2d surface.
What do you want to see? These are all the same.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...4-10/title.html
4.2 Mechanics of dynamical horizons
The variations in the first law (36 ) represent infinitesimal changes in equilibrium states of horizon geometries. In the derivation of Section 4.1, these variations relate nearby but distinct space-times in each of which the horizon is in equilibrium. Therefore Equation (36 ) is interpreted as the first law in a passive form. Physically, it is perhaps the active form of the first law that is of more direct interest where a physical process, such as the one depicted in the right panel of Figure 1 causes a transition from one equilibrium state to a nearby one. Such a law can be established in the dynamical horizon framework. In fact, one can consider fully non-equilibrium situations, allowing physical processes in a given space-time in which there is a finite - rather than an infinitesimal - change in the state of the horizon.
4.3 Passage of dynamical horizons to equilibrium
A priori therefore, it is not at all clear that angular momentum and mass would join smoothly if the transition occurs at a finite time. However, a detailed analysis shows that the two sets of notions in fact agree.
---------------------
For the quantum “black hole” to expands it must take in a multiple of quantas of energy then the horizon expands to a new equilibrium with the smallest non-zero area eigenvalue. (angular momentum and mass)
There would be the following number of quantas of energy for each stable horizons.
Diameter..........Area sphere...Area circle … # quantas … Area.. ratio c/s
2.763953198.....24 .................... 6 .......... 6 ……. ¼
5.5279064........... 96 ................... 24 .......... 24 ……. ¼
11.55812............384 ................... 96 .......... 96 ……. ¼
22.1116256.......1,536 .................. 384 ......... 384 ……. ¼
44.22325115..... 6,144 ............. 1,536 ......... 1,536 ……... ¼
88.44645 …….. 24,576 ………….... 6,144 ……. 6,144 ...…… ¼
176.8929 ……. 98,304 …………... 24,576 ….. 24,576 ……... ¼
Why does all of the energy show up on the surface area for circle?
Why is the ratio always ¼ for a stable horizon?
What else does the quantum minimum length structure produce?
Who is playing with numerology? Me? Or the scientists?
If nobody....... then you are looking at a First Principle
------------------------
Quantum Minimum Length Structure , (QMLS),
The area containing the energy of a “SPOT” is A/4. This is a 2d surface.
What do you want to see? These are all the same.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0211/0211076.pdf
Quasinormal Modes, the Area Spectrum, and Black Hole Entropy
Olaf Dreyer_
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 35 King Street North, Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9, Canada
(Dated: May 24, 2006)
The results of canonical quantum gravity concerning geometric operators and black hole entropy are beset by an ambiguity labelled by the Immirzi parameter.
We use a result from classical gravity concerning the quasinormal mode spectrum of a black hole to fix this parameter in a new way.
-----------------
I have also used it in a new way.
Quasinormal Modes, the Area Spectrum, and Black Hole Entropy
Olaf Dreyer_
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 35 King Street North, Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9, Canada
(Dated: May 24, 2006)
The results of canonical quantum gravity concerning geometric operators and black hole entropy are beset by an ambiguity labelled by the Immirzi parameter.
We use a result from classical gravity concerning the quasinormal mode spectrum of a black hole to fix this parameter in a new way.
-----------------
I have also used it in a new way.
I am using the Immirzi parameter and making the relationship to the diameter of a quantum “black hole”.
The following numbers are those which are for stable configurations.
I’ve added the volume so that you can see how fast the volume grows.
Keep in mind that these are quantum “black holes” that are “made” by an exterior force.
They are not “held” together by gravity, G(newton).
There will be a gravity force contribution, call it G(quantum), but by itself, it is not sufficient to “hold” this quantum “black hole” together.
Think of the energy needed to flatten a cardboard box.
Then figure out if it takes more energy to flatten a bigger box.
Remove the exterior energy and the “box” springs back into shape.
The SUN is probably making these quantum “black holes” all the time but since the energy is always moving around these “black holes” they do not last long enough to be noticed.
Maybe you would like to do some calculation and let us know how much energy will be needed for these quantum “black holes”.
I expect that CERN has already done their calculations, with their models, and came to the conclusion that the quantum “black holes” would not exist long enough for them to notice their appearance.
We could open a NEW thread to do the discussion based on this model.
Diameter..........Area sphere...Area circle … # quantas … Area ratio c/s … volume
2.763953198.....24 .................... 6 .......... 6 ……. ¼ ……………11.056
5.5279064........... 96 ................... 24 .......... 24 ……. ¼ ……………...88.447
11.55812............384 ................... 96 .......... 96 ……. ¼ ……………..808.46
22.1116256.......1,536 .................. 384 ......... 384 ……. ¼ ………… 5,660.6
44.22325115..... 6,144 ............. 1,536 ......... 1,536 ……... ¼ ………….45,285.0
-------------
The following numbers are those which are for stable configurations.
I’ve added the volume so that you can see how fast the volume grows.
Keep in mind that these are quantum “black holes” that are “made” by an exterior force.
They are not “held” together by gravity, G(newton).
There will be a gravity force contribution, call it G(quantum), but by itself, it is not sufficient to “hold” this quantum “black hole” together.
Think of the energy needed to flatten a cardboard box.
Then figure out if it takes more energy to flatten a bigger box.
Remove the exterior energy and the “box” springs back into shape.
The SUN is probably making these quantum “black holes” all the time but since the energy is always moving around these “black holes” they do not last long enough to be noticed.
Maybe you would like to do some calculation and let us know how much energy will be needed for these quantum “black holes”.
I expect that CERN has already done their calculations, with their models, and came to the conclusion that the quantum “black holes” would not exist long enough for them to notice their appearance.
We could open a NEW thread to do the discussion based on this model.
Diameter..........Area sphere...Area circle … # quantas … Area ratio c/s … volume
2.763953198.....24 .................... 6 .......... 6 ……. ¼ ……………11.056
5.5279064........... 96 ................... 24 .......... 24 ……. ¼ ……………...88.447
11.55812............384 ................... 96 .......... 96 ……. ¼ ……………..808.46
22.1116256.......1,536 .................. 384 ......... 384 ……. ¼ ………… 5,660.6
44.22325115..... 6,144 ............. 1,536 ......... 1,536 ……... ¼ ………….45,285.0
-------------
Since nobody is in a hurry to do math and talk about the Immirzi parameter, I'll give something else to think about.....
Some Implications of the Cosmological Constant to Fundamental Physics
R. Aldrovandi, J. P. Beltrán Almeida and J. G. Pereira
12 Feb 2007
…the de Sitter spacetime is transitive under a combination of translations and proper conformal transformations. The relative importance of each one of these transformations is determined by the value of the length parameter l, that is, by the value of the cosmological constant.
The first notion of distance is that related to translations, which become the dominant part of the dS transitivity generators for small values of .
The second notion of distance is that related to the proper conformal transformation.
For small values of , the de Sitter length parameter l is large, and the modifications in the energy-momentum relation will be small. Up to first order in , we get (se formula)
In the limit of a vanishing cosmological constant, the ordinary notions of energy and momentum are recovered, and the de Sitter relativity reduces to the ordinary special relativity, in which the Poincaré symmetry is exact. The energy momentum relation, in this case, reduces to the usual expression
(see formula)
6. FINAL REMARKS
For example, ordinary special relativity, which is based on the Poincaré group, will no longer be true, and must be replaced by a new special relativity based on the de Sitter group.
The physical tangent space at each point of any spacetime will consequently be converted into an osculating de Sitter spacetime.
Due to the fact that the de Sitter spacetime is transitive under a combination of translation and proper conformal transformations, the de Sitter special relativity can be viewed as made up of two different relativities: the usual one, related to translations, and a conformal one, related to proper conformal transformations.
There are more remarks which do not conflict with my model. Read them…you will get a surprise.
And.. What is making this happen?
It’s the Quantum Minimum Length Structure (QMLS).
I agree with the paper that the (QMLS) might be detectable at the next round of experiments at CERN.
-----------------------
Some Implications of the Cosmological Constant to Fundamental Physics
R. Aldrovandi, J. P. Beltrán Almeida and J. G. Pereira
12 Feb 2007
…the de Sitter spacetime is transitive under a combination of translations and proper conformal transformations. The relative importance of each one of these transformations is determined by the value of the length parameter l, that is, by the value of the cosmological constant.
The first notion of distance is that related to translations, which become the dominant part of the dS transitivity generators for small values of .
The second notion of distance is that related to the proper conformal transformation.
For small values of , the de Sitter length parameter l is large, and the modifications in the energy-momentum relation will be small. Up to first order in , we get (se formula)
In the limit of a vanishing cosmological constant, the ordinary notions of energy and momentum are recovered, and the de Sitter relativity reduces to the ordinary special relativity, in which the Poincaré symmetry is exact. The energy momentum relation, in this case, reduces to the usual expression
(see formula)
6. FINAL REMARKS
For example, ordinary special relativity, which is based on the Poincaré group, will no longer be true, and must be replaced by a new special relativity based on the de Sitter group.
The physical tangent space at each point of any spacetime will consequently be converted into an osculating de Sitter spacetime.
Due to the fact that the de Sitter spacetime is transitive under a combination of translation and proper conformal transformations, the de Sitter special relativity can be viewed as made up of two different relativities: the usual one, related to translations, and a conformal one, related to proper conformal transformations.
There are more remarks which do not conflict with my model. Read them…you will get a surprise.
And.. What is making this happen?
It’s the Quantum Minimum Length Structure (QMLS).
I agree with the paper that the (QMLS) might be detectable at the next round of experiments at CERN.
-----------------------
I missed the edit time
Here is the link:
Some consideration on scaling for G (Newton), and G (quantum)
(deformed (or doubly, as it has been called) special relativity-(DSR))
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0702/0702065.pdf
Here is the link:
Some consideration on scaling for G (Newton), and G (quantum)
(deformed (or doubly, as it has been called) special relativity-(DSR))
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0702/0702065.pdf
14 March2007
More info on the Barbero-Immirzi parameter. There is no problem with my way of using it.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0703/0703058.pdf
Asymptotic quasinormal modes of scalar field in a gravity’s rainbow
Cheng-Zhou Liu and Jian-Yang Zhu
08 March 2007
Abstract
In the context of a gravity’s rainbow, the asymptotic quasinormal modes of the scalar perturbation in the quantum modified Schwarzschild black holes are investigated. By using the monodromy method, we calculated and obtained the asymptotic quasinormal frequencies, which are dominated not only by the mass parameter of the spacetime, but also by the energy functions from the modified dispersion relations. However, the real parts of the asymptotic quasinormal modes is still TH ln 3, which is consistent with Hod’s conjecture. In addition, for the quantum corrected black hole, the area spacing is calculated and the result is independent of the energy functions, in spite of the area itself is energy dependence. And that, by relating the area spectrum to loop quantum gravity, the Barbero-Immirzi parameter is given and it remains the same as from the usual black hole.
--------------
More info on the Barbero-Immirzi parameter. There is no problem with my way of using it.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0703/0703058.pdf
Asymptotic quasinormal modes of scalar field in a gravity’s rainbow
Cheng-Zhou Liu and Jian-Yang Zhu
08 March 2007
Abstract
In the context of a gravity’s rainbow, the asymptotic quasinormal modes of the scalar perturbation in the quantum modified Schwarzschild black holes are investigated. By using the monodromy method, we calculated and obtained the asymptotic quasinormal frequencies, which are dominated not only by the mass parameter of the spacetime, but also by the energy functions from the modified dispersion relations. However, the real parts of the asymptotic quasinormal modes is still TH ln 3, which is consistent with Hod’s conjecture. In addition, for the quantum corrected black hole, the area spacing is calculated and the result is independent of the energy functions, in spite of the area itself is energy dependence. And that, by relating the area spectrum to loop quantum gravity, the Barbero-Immirzi parameter is given and it remains the same as from the usual black hole.
--------------
Here are some better pictures than mine.
First, the triangle, 2d
then the 3-Dimensional star (or dual tetrahedron)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics
One of Jenny's more complex experiments include a spherical vibrating water droplet containing fine particles, these particles then formed into a 3-Dimensional star (or dual) tetrahedron shape with surrounding circles as shown below.
edit:
You might want to read the following
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
System Dynamics
An aspect of systems theory, system dynamics, is a method for understanding the dynamic behavior of complex systems. The basis of the method is the recognition that the structure of any system — the many circular, interlocking, sometimes time-delayed relationships among its components — is often just as important in determining its behavior as the individual components themselves. Examples are chaos theory and social dynamics. It is also claimed that, because there are often properties-of-the-whole which cannot be found among the properties-of-the-elements, in some cases the behavior of the whole cannot be explained in terms of the behavior of the parts. An example is the properties of these letters which when considered together can give rise to meaning which does not exist in the letters by themselves. This further explains the integration of tools, like language, as a more parsimonious process in the human application of easiest path adaptability through interconnected systems.
First, the triangle, 2d
then the 3-Dimensional star (or dual tetrahedron)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics
One of Jenny's more complex experiments include a spherical vibrating water droplet containing fine particles, these particles then formed into a 3-Dimensional star (or dual) tetrahedron shape with surrounding circles as shown below.
edit:
You might want to read the following
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
System Dynamics
An aspect of systems theory, system dynamics, is a method for understanding the dynamic behavior of complex systems. The basis of the method is the recognition that the structure of any system — the many circular, interlocking, sometimes time-delayed relationships among its components — is often just as important in determining its behavior as the individual components themselves. Examples are chaos theory and social dynamics. It is also claimed that, because there are often properties-of-the-whole which cannot be found among the properties-of-the-elements, in some cases the behavior of the whole cannot be explained in terms of the behavior of the parts. An example is the properties of these letters which when considered together can give rise to meaning which does not exist in the letters by themselves. This further explains the integration of tools, like language, as a more parsimonious process in the human application of easiest path adaptability through interconnected systems.
Browse the following site
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-wave.asp
The Particle - The wrong turn that led physics to a dead end
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-wave.asp
The Particle - The wrong turn that led physics to a dead end
This is to help you understand my approach. Learning about symmetry can be fun.
http://www.fam-bundgaard.dk/SOMA/NEWS/LETTERS.HTM
SOMA
Don’t overlook all the links.
http://www.fam-bundgaard.dk/SOMA/NEWS/N991201.HTM
The 48 Symmetries of SOMA
http://www.fam-bundgaard.dk/SOMA/NEWS/LETTERS.HTM
SOMA
Don’t overlook all the links.
http://www.fam-bundgaard.dk/SOMA/NEWS/N991201.HTM
The 48 Symmetries of SOMA
http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/
Xiao-Gang Wen Home Page
Read his first chapter
A new book
Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems
---from the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons
Chapter 1: Introduction
Then try out his java model
http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/java/dance/dance.html
It will show the quantum minimum length structure in a dynamic situation.
Try it with 12.
Xiao-Gang Wen Home Page
Read his first chapter
A new book
Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems
---from the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons
Chapter 1: Introduction
Then try out his java model
http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/java/dance/dance.html
It will show the quantum minimum length structure in a dynamic situation.
Try it with 12.
Time to go back to school.
The dynamic approaches are slowly developing.
http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/topartS3.pdf
An Introduction of Topological Orders
Xiao-Gang Wen
-----------------
Don’t be mislead by the word “ether”. He uses a cube and I use a double tetra.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0507/0507118.pdf
Quantum ether: photons and electrons from a rotor model
Michael Levin and Xiao-Gang Wen∗
Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
(Dated: May, 2005)
13 Feb. 2007
V. CONCLUSION
From a high energy point of view, the string-net picture of the vacuum is quite appealing. It explains why the standard model looks the way it does - that is, why nature chooses such peculiar things as gauge bosons and fermions to describe itself. In addition, it unifies the mysterious gauge symmetries and anticommuting fields into a single underlying structure: a string-net condensate. But can we actually construct a string-condensed local bosonic model that produces the entire standard model? We are close, but not quite there. In terms of elementary
particles we can produce photons, gluons, leptons and quarks, but we do not know how to produce neutrinos or SU(2) gauge bosons.
The dynamic approaches are slowly developing.
http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/topartS3.pdf
An Introduction of Topological Orders
Xiao-Gang Wen
-----------------
Don’t be mislead by the word “ether”. He uses a cube and I use a double tetra.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0507/0507118.pdf
Quantum ether: photons and electrons from a rotor model
Michael Levin and Xiao-Gang Wen∗
Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
(Dated: May, 2005)
13 Feb. 2007
V. CONCLUSION
From a high energy point of view, the string-net picture of the vacuum is quite appealing. It explains why the standard model looks the way it does - that is, why nature chooses such peculiar things as gauge bosons and fermions to describe itself. In addition, it unifies the mysterious gauge symmetries and anticommuting fields into a single underlying structure: a string-net condensate. But can we actually construct a string-condensed local bosonic model that produces the entire standard model? We are close, but not quite there. In terms of elementary
particles we can produce photons, gluons, leptons and quarks, but we do not know how to produce neutrinos or SU(2) gauge bosons.
The paper that you have all been waiting for.
"SPOT" HAS MADE IT IN THE arxiv.org
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610056.pdf
Quantum Mechanics and the Generalized Uncertainty Principle
Jang Young Bang_ and Micheal S. Berger†
01 Dec 2006
THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF WHAT IS TO COME.
"SPOT" HAS MADE IT IN THE arxiv.org
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610056.pdf
Quantum Mechanics and the Generalized Uncertainty Principle
Jang Young Bang_ and Micheal S. Berger†
01 Dec 2006
QUOTE
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
We have derived the generalized uncertainty principle from a toy model of discretized space by considering quantum mechanics on a circle where the compacification involves the momentum. This model may be useful in exploring how the ultraviolet limit is approached in more realistic models of discrete spacetime or models of quantum gravity with a fundamental or minimum length. This may result in an improved understanding of the origin of the generalized uncertainty principle in theories of quantum gravity.
We have derived the generalized uncertainty principle from a toy model of discretized space by considering quantum mechanics on a circle where the compacification involves the momentum. This model may be useful in exploring how the ultraviolet limit is approached in more realistic models of discrete spacetime or models of quantum gravity with a fundamental or minimum length. This may result in an improved understanding of the origin of the generalized uncertainty principle in theories of quantum gravity.
THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF WHAT IS TO COME.
Another paper …. Another small step towards using the Quantum Minimum Length Structure (QMLS) This approach could be applied to find out what is happening on a membrane; both are 2D.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0703/0703135.pdf
Loop quantization of spherically symmetric midi-superspaces
Miguel Campiglia1, Rodolfo Gambini1, Jorge Pullin2
27 March 2007
This can be achieved by applying/obeying the Quantum Minimum Length Structure (QMLS)
---------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0703/0703135.pdf
Loop quantization of spherically symmetric midi-superspaces
Miguel Campiglia1, Rodolfo Gambini1, Jorge Pullin2
27 March 2007
QUOTE
We quantize the exterior of spherically symmetric vacuum space-times using a midi-superspace reduction within the Ashtekar new variables. Through a partial gauge fixing we eliminate the diffeomorphism constraint and are left with a Hamiltonian constraint that is first class. We complete the quantization in the loop representation. We also use the model to discuss the issues that will arise in more general contexts in the “uniform discretization” approach to the dynamics.
p.12 If one adopts the point of view commonly used in loop quantum cosmology, that the quantum of distance should have a minimum value, then one would not expect to take the limit ρ going to zero, but to keep the parameters at a minimum value. In such a case one could expect to eliminate the singularity. This is plausible since then the triads would likely not go to zero.
p.12 If one adopts the point of view commonly used in loop quantum cosmology, that the quantum of distance should have a minimum value, then one would not expect to take the limit ρ going to zero, but to keep the parameters at a minimum value. In such a case one could expect to eliminate the singularity. This is plausible since then the triads would likely not go to zero.
This can be achieved by applying/obeying the Quantum Minimum Length Structure (QMLS)
---------------
Another paper ... another approach .... trying to understand minimum length.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0703/0703144.pdf
Dynamical coherent states and physical solutions of quantum cosmological bounces
Martin Bojowald_
29 march 2007
“Squeezed”, is another approach to try to understand minimum length.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezed_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_coherence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_optics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_band
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_frequency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinusoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0703/0703144.pdf
Dynamical coherent states and physical solutions of quantum cosmological bounces
Martin Bojowald_
29 march 2007
QUOTE
…As an exactly solvable model even at the quantum level, it illustrates properties of dynamical coherent states and provides the basis for a systematic perturbation theory of loop quantum gravity….
…We will see that the coherent state structure of the model is much richer than that of unsqueezed Gaussian states, with squeezing influencing the general behavior significantly….
…We will see that the coherent state structure of the model is much richer than that of unsqueezed Gaussian states, with squeezing influencing the general behavior significantly….
“Squeezed”, is another approach to try to understand minimum length.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezed_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_coherence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_optics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_band
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_frequency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinusoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics
Another step in the right direction.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0278
q-deformed spin foam models of quantum gravity
Igor Khavkine1 and J. Daniel Christensen
02 April 2007
Large triangulations are necessary to approximate semiclassical space-times. The possibility of obtaining numerical results from larger triangulations takes us one step closer to that goal and increases the number of facets from which the physical properties of a spin foam model may be examined. As an example, we are able to study how the spin-spin correlation varies with the distance between faces in the triangulation.
Consider a triangulated 4-manifold. Let _n denote the set of n-dimensional simplices of the triangulation. The dual 2-skeleton is formed by associating a dual vertex, edge and polygonal face to each 4-simplex, tetrahedron, and triangle of the triangulation, respectively.
Given the discrete structure of our spacetime model, it is conceivable that this combinatorial distance, multiplied by a fundamental unit of length, approximates some notion of distance derived from the dynamical geometry of the spin foam model.
(I use a double tetra. See my visuals)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0278
q-deformed spin foam models of quantum gravity
Igor Khavkine1 and J. Daniel Christensen
02 April 2007
Large triangulations are necessary to approximate semiclassical space-times. The possibility of obtaining numerical results from larger triangulations takes us one step closer to that goal and increases the number of facets from which the physical properties of a spin foam model may be examined. As an example, we are able to study how the spin-spin correlation varies with the distance between faces in the triangulation.
Consider a triangulated 4-manifold. Let _n denote the set of n-dimensional simplices of the triangulation. The dual 2-skeleton is formed by associating a dual vertex, edge and polygonal face to each 4-simplex, tetrahedron, and triangle of the triangulation, respectively.
Given the discrete structure of our spacetime model, it is conceivable that this combinatorial distance, multiplied by a fundamental unit of length, approximates some notion of distance derived from the dynamical geometry of the spin foam model.
(I use a double tetra. See my visuals)
Well its not called a spot or QMLS but its going in the right direction.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.2397v1.pdf
The Quantum Configuration Space of Loop Quantum Cosmology
J. M. Velhinho
18 April 2007
I even looked up the following to try to get a better idea of what is happening.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0264-9381/20/1/103/q301l3.html
Polymer and Fock representations for a scalar field
Abhay Ashtekar, Jerzy Lewandowski and Hanno Sahlmann
11 Dec 2002
“Our choices will ensure that the polymer scalar field can `live' on quantum geometry.”
--------------
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.2397v1.pdf
The Quantum Configuration Space of Loop Quantum Cosmology
J. M. Velhinho
18 April 2007
QUOTE
abstract
The article gives an account of several aspects of the space known as the Bohr compactification of the line, featuring as the quantum configuration space in loop quantum cosmology, as well as of the corresponding configuration space realization of the so-called polymer representation. Analogies with loop quantum gravity are explored, providing an introduction to (part of) the mathematical structure of loop quantum gravity, in a technically simpler context.
The article gives an account of several aspects of the space known as the Bohr compactification of the line, featuring as the quantum configuration space in loop quantum cosmology, as well as of the corresponding configuration space realization of the so-called polymer representation. Analogies with loop quantum gravity are explored, providing an introduction to (part of) the mathematical structure of loop quantum gravity, in a technically simpler context.
I even looked up the following to try to get a better idea of what is happening.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0264-9381/20/1/103/q301l3.html
Polymer and Fock representations for a scalar field
Abhay Ashtekar, Jerzy Lewandowski and Hanno Sahlmann
11 Dec 2002
“Our choices will ensure that the polymer scalar field can `live' on quantum geometry.”
--------------
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.