• [deleted]

Hi Lawrence. Gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing is fundamental to balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion and to fundamentally stabilized and balanced distance in/of space as well. Importantly (and moreover), this fundamentally proves/demonstrates F=ma.

And, this is all consistent with instantaneity and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded. (Obviously, the fact that gravity cannot be shielded is connected with instantaneity.) Balance and completeness.

Your essay reflects your fine ability. I encourage you to broaden and embolden your thinking.

    Your essay proposes a way in which special relativity can be extended to global spacetime. Your results are departures from standard cosmology. I suppose I am not sure how the cosmological constant depends upon the velocity of a particle. The potential you compute in equation 5 PE = ∫Gmm*dr/r, where I presume there should be a dr in there, appears to be similar to the calculation of a moment of inertia. The redshift factor z diverges as v --- > c in a special relativistic type of theory, but this runs into trouble with luminosities.

    Cheers LC

    Hi Lawrence:

    Thanks for your replies and comments on my paper.

    Yes, the results of my paper and book - The Hidden Factor show departure from the paradoxical and inconsistent results of the Standard Cosmology. My paper shows that when the missing physics of spontaneous decay are taken into account, it cures many ills of the standard cosmology and successfully predicts the observed expansion of galaxies and the universe.

    You asked - "...... how the cosmological constant depends upon the velocity of a particle?" The cosmological constant represents the kinetic energy (velocity) of the particles residing and moving close to the speed of light within the so-called vacuum space. This kinetic energy is the mechanistic description of the mysterious dark energy still un-described by the standard model.

    In response to your comment -"The potential you compute in equation 5 PE = ∫Gmm*dr/r, where I presume there should be a dr in there, appears to be similar to the calculation of a moment of inertia", a complete derivation of the gravitational potential is provided in the attached pdf file.

    Also, responding to your comment- "The redshift factor z diverges as v --- > c in a special relativistic type of theory, but this runs into trouble with luminosities", in the GNMUE model describe in my paper and as shown in figure 3, V is never larger than C; hence the luminosity equation has no singularities or infinities.

    I hope I answered all your questions satisfactorily. I would be glad to answer any other questions or comments.

    Best Regards

    Avtar SinghAttachment #1: Gravitation_Potential_Derivation__Excerpts_from_my_book.pdf

    • [deleted]

    There is a question here concerning expansion of the universe, and a comparison with the Andromeda galaxy which is indeed moving towards our galaxy. So let us start with the basics. I will outline the understanding of cosmology as currently understood.

    Let the distance to some galaxy far away be x. I find that this distance x is changing, so I assign a scale factor a. So the time evolution of a distance x is given by

    x = x(t) = a(t)x(0)

    In this way this motion of any distant galaxy can be compared to this scale factor which expands (or contracts if that were to be the case) with the dynamics of the universe.

    Now consider the next ingredient. The energy E of a particle of mass m moving in a central gravity field by some mass M at a distance r is

    E = (1/2)mv^2 - GMm/r

    The total energy E is constant, and largely can be ignored. In particular if the universe expands so there is no recollapse we can set it to zero. We concentrate on the velocity

    v = dx/dt = x(0)(da/dt) = x(0)a', prime means time derivative,

    so that (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)(a')^2(x(0))^2. Now concentrate on the gravity part. We set r = x, the distance to other galaxies, and we assign an average density so that the mass M is a sum of all these galactic masses M = ρVol. The volume out to some radial distance x is then Vol = (4π/3)x^3 = (4π/3)a^3(x(0))^3. We put all of this together and we get the equation

    (a'/a)^2 = 8πGρ/3.

    This equation is close to what one gets with general relativity, where here we have just used Newtonian mechanics and gravity. There is with general relativity an additional -k/a^2 factor related to the constant energy E, which for a spatially flat universe has k = 0.

    How the Hubble constant is H = (a'/a), which is a constant in space, but not necessarily in time. The Einstein cosmological constant is Λ = 8πGρ for some constant vacuum energy density ρ, and so the Hubble parameter is then

    H^2 = (a'/a)^2 = Λ/3

    For some other mass-energy density, such as matter or radiation, the density is dependent on the scale factor a.

    For those familiar with differential equations the solution to a' = sqrt{Λ/3}a is an exponential function. This is the expansion driven universe we do observe. For a small scale factor this exponential is approximately linear a' ~= (1 + sqrt{Λ/3})a which gives the Hubble relation found in the 1920s v = Hd. So for a galaxy as a distance d the Hubble parameter multiplied by that distance gives the velocity. The Hubble parameter is approximately H = 74km/sec/Mpc.

    The red shift factor z = v/c, which by the Hubble law is z = Hd/c. This is an approximation, where H should be thought of as the Hubble parameter that is constant on the spatial surface of the Hubble frame. The distance is d = c/H = 3x10^{5}km/sec/74km/sec/Mpc = 4054Mpc or 1.3x10^{10}ly. The apparent magnitude of an object is m = M + 5(log_{10}d - 1), for M the absolute magnitude and d the distance. For objects at z = 1 the Hubble distance matches the luminosity distance d = 10^{(m-M)5+1}. In fact this works out to the most distant galaxies observed out to z = 10.

    This does mean that objects are commoving with expanding space faster than light. It does turn out that we can still receive photons from them. Explaining that is for another day. The CMB limit is out to z = 1100, and the luminosity matches a distance of 46 billion light years. How this is larger than the distance conversion to 13.7 billion years is due to the dynamics of space.

    Cheers LC

    I have to confess I am not having the easiest time figuring out what you have written here. Good luck on this. I will try reading again in the next couple of days.

    Cheers LC

    Hi Lawrence:

    Thanks for your reply.

    You have provided an alternative explanation to the observed accelerated expansion that combines Hubble expansion with expanding space. But this explanation does not address the fundamental physics missing from current theories leading to the well-known singularities, paradoxes, and inconsistencies in QM and GR.

    The critical question is why the space is expanding. The so called dark energy, which is the assumed cause, still remains allusive with regard to its fundamental mechanism. The Relativistic expansion model GNMUE described in my paper explains the observed galactic as well as universe expansion with a physical model of the spontaneous decay of mass providing the expansion energy for space thus solving the mystery of dark energy or cosmological constant. Another feature of my model is that V never exceeds C, hence relativity is never violated. Further, it resolves many paradoxes of the standard cosmology and provides understandings of the inner workings of QM. The other alternative explanations of expansion, such as yours, may solve just one problem but do not address the many ills paralyzing physics today because of the root cause missing physics at the core.

    Best Regards

    Avtar Singh

    The Britto, Cachazo, Feng, Witten (BCFW) recursion relationship is a way in which a complex scattering process can be decomposed into tree level diagrams. The picture attached describes the process

    A set of gluon momenta entering a region (we set those leaving as the negative of entering as done in the STU symmetries) may be written as the sum of products of two diagrams. To start one chooses two gluons, here the k and n lines bolded. The sum is over all cyclically ordered distributions of gluons on each sub-amplitude (one with k and the other with n mometa) and one sums further over the helicities of the internal gluon.

    To formulate this requires the use of bispinors, or what are in effect twistors. BCFW recursion is a development in Witten's "twistor revolution" in string theory. The momenta for a gluon, a null momenta as it is massless, is written as p_{aa'} = λ_aω_{a'}. This exterior product is a form of twistor, and the two spinors for the inner products (λ, λ') = ε_{ab}λ^aλ^b, [ω, ω'] = ε_{a'b'}ω^{a'}ω^{b'}. (I use parentheses because carrot signs cause trouble with this blog) There is a notation convention that one spinor type has ( ) as an inner product and the other a [ ] inner product. This is the convention that has emerged and is here to stay. If we have two momenta p_{aa'} = λ_aω_{a'} and q_{aa'} = λ'_aω'_{a'} then

    p•q = λ_aω_{a'}λ'_bω'_{b'}δ^a_bδ^{a'}_{b'}

    = = λ_aλ'_bω_{a'}ω'_{b'}δ^a_bδ^{a'}_{b'}

    = (1/2)ε^{ab}λ_aλ'_bε^{a'b'}ω_{a'}ω'_{b'} = ½(λ, λ')[ω, ω']

    A tree level amplitude A(1,2,...,n-1,n) of n cyclically ordered gluons. Each gluon has momenta p_i^{aa'} = λ_i^aω_i^{a'} corresponding to the two spinors. We pick out our two gluons of interest and define a momentum

    p_k(z) = λ_k(ω_k - zω_n},

    p_n(z) = (λ_n + zλ_k)ω_n

    which are forms of the twistor equations. The momenta of the other gluons remain unchanged p_j(z) = p_j, for j =/= k or n. This theory involves then the transformations on the two elements of the bispinor as

    ω_k --- > ω_k - zω_n

    λ_n --- > λ_n + zλ_k.

    Now examine the amplitude under this transformation

    A(z) = A(p_1, p_2, ..., p_{k-1}, p_k(z), ... p_{n-1}, p_n(z)),

    Now a complex function of z. This amplitude is on shell for all z and momenta are all conserved.

    Breaking up the "blob" into these two parts is then equivalent to writing this amplitude as

    A_k = sum_{ij}A_{j+1}(1/P_{ij}^2)A_{k - i+1}

    The momentum flowing through a tree diagram is equal to the sum of external momenta. This sum in the propagator is the sum of momenta in adjacent external lines, where here the index j stands for k and n P_{ij}(z) = p_i(z) + ...+ p_j(z) = sum j_j + p_k(z) + p_n(z). By the construction above it is clear this turns out to be independent of z. In the summation we let k lie within the range i,j and n in the range j+1 ... .

    The P_{ij}(z) = P_{ij} + z_kλ_n so the square is then P_{ij}^2(z) = P_{ij}^2 - z(λ_k|P_{ij}|ω_n], here evaluated on both pairs of spinors. Thus we have

    1/P_{ij}^2(z) = 1/(P_{ij}^2 - z(λ_k|P_{ij}|ω_n]) =

    (1/P_{ij}^2)(1/(1+z(λ_k|P_{ij}|ω_n])/P_{ij}^2)

    or as

    A(z) = sum_{ij}ρ_{ij}/(z - z_{ij}), for z_{ij} = z(λ_k|P_{ij}|ω_n]/P_{ij}^2

    This then has simple poles at z = z_{ij} where the residues ρ_{ij} are evaluated with ∫A(z)dz/z. The residues correspond to internal lines which are placed on shell.

    This then in general corresponds to the recursion relationship, where we set

    A_k = sum_{ij}sum_hA^h_{j+1}(1/P_{ij}^2)A^{-h}_{k - i+1},

    where now I have included the sum over helicity states. The recursion relationship is evident where the two terms in the numerator may be further decomposed. This procedure with P_{ij}(z) = P_{ij} + z_kλ_n evaluated at the pole reduces all off-shell processes in the "blob" on the left hand side of the diagram to an on-shell process in the evaluation of residues.

    Cheers LCAttachment #1: BCFW_recursion_rule_2.GIF

    5 days later

    Dear Lawrence,

    Congratulations for the essay. I like how you walked through the assumptions about space and time, showing how they changed in the history, and how you discussed the deformations of the foundations. I found the second part more difficult to me, so I had to reread it with more care. I really hope that unitarity and locality are not lost, but if they are, the implications you foresee are very interesting.

    Good luck with the contest,

    Cristi Stoica

      If locality and unitarity are not fundamental it means there is a huge reduction in the number of fundamental degrees of freedom in the universe. In fact if you read my paper referenced in my essay you see that the number of degrees of freedom on a brane are boost dependent, and are thus not fundamental. The huge number of elementary particles we observe in the universe are just the same type of particle under multiple copies of emergent spacetime configuration variables This means there is fundamentally only one electron, one down quark, one Z particle, one Higgs particle, one photon and so forth. We observe any of these single particles under a huge number of "projections," if you will, which are due to the emergence of configuration variables on a spatial manifold.

      I think that quantum gravity is not unitary, but that it probably conserves quantum information. The issue I raised on your essay blog with coordinate change with the singularity removed to infinity connects with this. The quantum wave functions are not unitary, but with the appearance of a pole they are meromorphic. These functions are then more fundamentally modular functions, or modular forms, which operate on lattices. These lattices are E_8 or the Leech lattice Λ_{24}, which are quantum error correction codes.

      I am not very happy with how this is turning out. First off I am not garnering the type of attention I would prefer to see. Secondly my essay is languishing at #46, where 10 to 15 of the essays ahead of mine are TOTLSHT. About an equal number I fail to see as better than mine. In fact the paper by Fischer that has been near the top is basically wrong; he uses a static matter solution (the TOV equation of state) for a dense star to prove that a collapsing body (not static mind you) does not form a singularity. Thirdly, since I had to re-edit my essay, due to the fact it went over a bit to page 10, it was later hosted but I was not given a voting code. My attempts to rectify this situation have failed.

      In the near future I will try to rattle some people's cages to see if I can get more attention, and maybe a few votes that buoy me upwards a bit. I have been rather busy and frankly a bit depressed about how this seems to be turning out.

      Cheers LC

        I wrote the response in a fresh text box. So if you are getting those respose alerts by email you will be appraised.

        LC

        pay attention the dream team ahahahah wait wawwwww impressing your maths ahahah.

        they have the latex in their head ahahah Chriti, Florin, Georgina,Jonathan, Joy, Ray, Lawrence, Edwin,Mickael,Don,James, JCN,goodband they say hahahah wawww imrpessing the strategy in some years, wawwww ahahah make surf band of comics ! I have seen your real heart . Dark and vanitious and without consciouness.Ahahah pay attebntion, I don't see their play, pay attention, they superimpose the algorythms, waww they are so intelligent.

        And what after ahahaha band of comics.

        I will fight with honor, faith, universality, universal love !!!

        ahaha and Joe and Frank and alan and ted an,d friends who insists ahaha poor thinkers

        Occupied with startegies instead of studying from real innovators.ahaha ironical no,

        And what after? that is all you can make ???

        You can make better perhaps become there it was easy to find the players and easy to play also. But it is just a suggestion of course.ahahah ironical.

        Jonathan and lawrence,them make surf in california, Don, Florin and Jonathan,them are at New York, Edwin and Eckard them speak about consciousness wit James and Brendan and Johan them travel of course.And who pay for these things, still the people of course like always.Georgina prefers the prime quaternionic bridge and of course joy implies the connection. and what after , a course of maths.

        You are ironical !

        Vanity of vanities , all is vanity !

        "If locality and unitarity are not fundamental it means there is a huge reduction in the number of fundamental degrees of freedom in the universe."

        I see now what you mean, and I think you're right. These symmetries sound like a kind of "gauge freedom".

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        • [deleted]

        With his judgment TOTLSHT LC will perhaps win less sympathies than for instance Christi who even declared non-constant numbers "great work". This comment of mine is not meant to appreciate non-factual kindness.

        How many degrees of freedom has an empty sheet of paper? Call me an anus, I think LC is not even wrong if he demands a huge number of fundamental degrees of freedom in the universe. I see his gauge freedom in company with Einstein's naive observer-bound perspective.

        If my own essay did not just face more attention but at least one tangible critical comment, those who might tacitly agree with my admittedly unwelcome arguments will certainly be happy.

        Eckard

        Chris,

        There is more to this, which I could not break out due to length limitations. The gauge symmetries are Yangians, or enveloping algebras. These have a duality, where the gauge symmetry in one representation is dual to another without spacetime configuration variables.

        Eckard,

        I argue for a massive reduction in the number of degrees of freedom. In fact if the universe has quantum states given by E_8xE_8, it means the universe has only 496 fundamental degrees of freedom, or in its supersymmetric extension 512 = 2^8.. In the Leech lattice Λ_{24}there are 4096 weights, due to the theta function representation over 3 E_8 groups, and Λ_{24} is the automorphism of the Conway group Co_1 with rank 8,315,553,613,086,720,000. The full automorphism over the Fischer-Griess group is of rank 808,017,424,794,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000, which is huge. Yet in this total extended picture the number of real degrees of freedom is only 4096.

        The actual number of elementary particles is then very small, but they have multiple representations in configuration variables. The configuration variables are a system of entanglements, or holographic projections, which give the appearance of a large number of particles.

        I don't think the fundamental issues with physics lie with the foundations of mathematics. I might be wrong of course, but I really do not think mathematics has been on some fools errand for the last 150 years or more.

        Cheers LC

        Lawrence,

        a really interesting and enlightning essay. In most cases, only "boring" agreement between us. The BCJ duality is very interesting. Before reading your essay I started to study this duality but now I understand its relevance.

        At one point we maybe disagree: "...that spacetime is not a complete concept". We found a contrary point of view (see my essay) especially to express the "fuzzyness". Interestingly, modularity is also important there and locality is unimportant (by diffeomrophism invariance). In particular, the diffeomorphism group is not a Lie group (rather a pseudo-group) and the description of the local part (some substitute of a Lie algebra) used enveloped algebras in an essential way. You see "boring agreement" at wide parts.

        Best

        Torsten

          I read your paper a week ago with the idea of reading it again with greater attention to detail and your references. I just reread your paper, but unfortunately not in great detail, so I have yet to dig into your paper at great length. I have to confess I have read a pretty small minority of the paper on this essay website.

          I went through the Atiyah, Donaldson, Freedman work on exotic four manifolds some years ago. I thought there were certain prospects for a quantum description from this. The difficulty I see with this is that manifolds which are homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic leave a big question on how one defines a Polyakov measure in a path integral

          ∫(D[g, ψ]/diff(g, ψ)) exp(iS)

          where one "mods out" diffeomorphisms or gauge dependencies. The thought occurred to me that in 11-dimensions the dual to four dimensional spacetime is a 7-dimensional space. In that case there are these 28 distinct differentiable structures Milnor demonstrated to exist. I think by doing this the really tough problem with Donaldson's theorem might be transformed to a much more tractable problem. The Cartan matrix for the E_8 is the same as the matrix associated with Donaldson's theorem. The 28 differential structures of the 7-manifold I have pondered have some relationship to the complex G_2, the automorphism of E_8.

          Physically spacetime will never be observed to have a foamy or grainy structure. The reason is simple. If I am right there are only one of each type of elementary particle. The multiplicity of elementary particles exists because they are holographic projections onto configuration variables. The configuration variables are simply a measure of how an electron here is entangled with another "there," whether there means an electron in a nearby transmission line, or the degenerate gas in a white dwarf or anywhere in the universe. The same holds for a photon, down quark and so forth. So any UV particle, say a photon, it may "feel" noncommutative geometry more than an IR photon, but due to their entanglement this effect is cancelled out. In effect the extreme IR boson from Hawking-Gibbon radiation is equivalent to an extreme UV boson, and so the apparent fluctuations at the UV scale are removed.

          The physical effect of the emergence I propose is with quantum information exterior and interior to a black hole. There exists a duality between the two data sets, and if we were to develop a Planck energy accelerator (which we will not do) then scattering amplitudes should reflect this fact. We do however have a possible window into this with gravity as the "square" of gauge theory. Gluon scattering amplitudes should carry this information as well. This may then be accessible to LHC types of experiments.

          I will read your paper in greater detail in the near future, for it is one of the better ones I have seen submitted. It might take me a week or so to make more detailed comments.

          Cheers LC

          dear Lawrence

          as you suggested in a post related to my essay, there are some connections between our essays, in spite of the differences of approach and goals

          and now that I have studied your essay I can observer that there are closer connections between parts of your essay and some of my works, see e.g.

          http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1206.3805

          http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1107.1724

          http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1101.0931

          best wishes for the competition

          Giovanni

            Dear Giovanni,

            I just started reading Relative locality in a quantum spacetime and the pregeometry of _-Minkowski http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3805v1.pd. You seem to be pointing to a similar end. Noncommutative geometry and Hopf algebras are a main tool in the work with Yangians. I will write more when I complete reading your paper.

            Equation 1 is interesting, for it proposes a noncommutative relationship between time and the spatial coordinates. This in my opinion harkens back to an old argument by Bohr. In 1930 there was a famous Solvay conference where Einstein and Bohr sparred over the reality of quantum mechanics. Einstein was convinced of reality and locality and argued staunchly for an incompleteness of quantum mechanics. Quantum theory could only be made complete if there are some hidden variables that underlay the probabilistic, nonlocal quirky aspects of quantum mechanics. At the 1930 Solvay conference Einstein proposed an interesting thought experiment. Einstein considered a device which consisted of a box with a door in one of its walls controlled by a clock. The box contains radiation, similar to a high-Q cavity in laser optics. The door opens for some brief period of time t, which is known to the experimenter. The loss of one photon with energy E = ħω reduces the mass of the box-clock system by m = E/c^2, which is weighed. Einstein argued that knowledge of t and the change in weight provides an arbitrarily accurate measurement of both energy and time which may violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ΔEΔt ~ ħ.

            Bohr realized that the weight of the device is made by the displacement of a scale in spacetime. The clock's new position in the gravity field of the Earth, or any other mass, will change the clock rate by gravitational time dilation as measured from some distant point the experimenter is located. The temporal metric term for a spherical gravity field is 1 - 2GM/rc^2, where a displacement by some δr means the change in the metric term is ~ (GM/c^2r^2)δr. Hence the clock's time intervals T is measured to change by a factor

            T --> T sqrt{(1 - 2GM/c^2)δr/r^2} ~ T(1 - GMδr/r^2c^2),

            so the clock appears to tick slower. This changes the time span the clock keeps the door on the box open to release a photon. Assume that the uncertainty in the momentum is given by the Δp ~ ħΔr < TgΔm, where g = GM/r^2. Similarly the uncertainty in time is found as Δ T = (Tg/c^2)δr. From this ΔT > ħ/Δmc^2 is obtained and the Heisenberg uncertainty relation ΔTΔE > ħ. This demands a Fourier transformation between position and momentum, as well as time and energy.

            Consider an example with the Schwarzschild metric terms. The metric change is then ~ 1x10^{-12}m^{-1}δr, which for δr = 10^{-3}m is around 10^{-15}. Thus for a open door time interval of 10^{-2}sec, the time uncertainty is around Δ t ~ 10^{-17}sec. The uncertainty in the energy is further ħΔω, where by Fourier reasoning Δω ~ 10^{17}. Hence the Heisenberg uncertainty is ΔEΔt ~ ħ.

            This argument by Bohr is one of those things which I find myself re-reading. This argument by Bohr is in my opinion on of these spectacular brilliant events in physics.

            This holds in some part to the quantum level with gravity, even if we do not fully understand quantum gravity. Consider the clock in Einstein's box as a black hole with mass m. The quantum periodicity of this black hole is given by some multiple of Planck masses. For a black hole of integer number n of Planck masses the time it takes a photon to travel across the event horizon is t ~ Gm/c^3 = nT_p, which are considered as the time intervals of the clock. The uncertainty in time the door to the box remains open is

            ΔT ~ Tg/c(δr - GM/c^2),

            as measured by a distant observer. Similarly the change in the energy is given by E_2/E_1 = sqrt{(1 - 2M/r_1)/(1 - 2M/r_2)}, which gives an energy uncertainty of

            ΔE ~ (ħ/T_1)g/c^2(δr - GM/c^2)^{-1}.

            Consequently the Heisenberg uncertainty principle still holds ΔEΔT ~ ħ. Thus general relativity beyond the Newtonian limit preserves the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It is interesting to note in the Newtonian limit this leads to a spread of frequencies Δω ~ sqrt{c^5/Għ}, which is the Planck frequency.

            The uncertainty in the ΔE ~ ħ/Δ t does have a funny situation, where if the energy is Δ E is larger than the Planck mass there is the occurrence of an event horizon. The horizon has a radius R ~ 2GΔE/c^4, which is the uncertainty in the radial position R = Δr associated with the energy fluctuation. Putting this together with the Planckian uncertainty in the Einstein box we then have

            ΔrΔt ~ (2Għ)/c^4 = L^2_{Planck}/c.

            So this argument can be pushed to understand the nature of noncommutative coordinates in quantum gravity.

            Cheers LC