Dimensional Reduction in the Sky

Hi Jonathan,

I think that the - 2 in the Mandelbrot calculation is a mathematical artifact resulting from the properties of the 2 dimensional complex plane in which the object is constructed.

String theory takes 2 dimensions (the plane or "brane") as the fundamental space in which strings propagate. Witten discards the idea of spacetime and replaces it with a 2-dimensional field theory. That all of the physical world can be described in 2 dimensions eventually comes down to the holographic principle -- the information we can abstract from the surface of a black hole. Because black hole energy increases to the negative inverse (- 1) of temperature, and entropy simultaneously increases to the - 2 power, entropy increases with area (the surface of the black hole) which is r^2, radius squared.

So if we're speaking of a fundamentally geometric theory that applies arithmetic functions, as string theory does, we need all those mathematical artifacts that originate in the complex plane C, as a closed algebra, imaginary roots and all. Otherwise, we would be (mathematically) stuck in the infinitely open plane and could not escape incompleteness. String theory, although based in quantum field theory, is -- like special and general relativity -- mathematically complete.

______

I hope you and the group will forgive me for being self-serving at this point -- I have invested a lot of time and thought into constructing an alternative basis for encoding information in n-finite dimensions of space while nevertheless preserving a time metric. For this discussion, we only refer to 1.3 -- 1.10 in the draft paper linked. The table explains correspondence of the plane to the integer - 2.

All best,

Tom

Hi Jonathan,

Van Flandern's abstract reads in part: "If angular momentum conservation is invoked in the geometric interpretation to explain experiments, the causality principle is violated. The field interpretation avoids this problem by allowing faster-than-light propagation of gravity in forward time."

My essay explains why the conservation of angular momentum does not violate causality in a geometric theory of continuous functions.

Another problem with Van Flandern's hypothesis, though, is that of simultaneity. Remember that thought experimenbt where the Sun suddenly disappears, and we don't know it until approximately 8 minutes later? If it were possible for any physical influence -- including gravity -- to propagate faster than the speed of light, it would also be possible to observe action at a distance simultaneously affect two or more spacetime separated cosmic events and we would be able to observe this correlation. As it is, gravity seems to work just as Newton and Einstein described it -- as a function of mass and time reversible dynamics indexed to the speed of light.

Best,

Tom

Not so fast (or maybe faster) Tom;

The work of Jenkins and Fischbach on varying rates of nuclear decay has resulted in an interesting development. Specifically; it was found there is a seasonal dependence where the rate of decay half-life varies measurably, with a cycle that appears to relate to Sun-Earth distance. But once a greater degree of precision was achieved, it was found that this variation is also observed during a Coronal Mass Ejection or CME.

My guess is that, because these events move a significant amount of mass in a very short time, this ripples or deforms the fabric of spacetime. So if there was a discrepancy between the scalar mode and tensor mode propagation, one would expect that arrival time for such a signal would be less than 8 minutes. This is apparently exactly what is observed. Now Professor Jenkins has a Patent pending for an Early Warning System for CME events - and he even appeared on the Weather Channel to talk about it.

A topological spacetime fabric is the simplest explanation, as light travels around, while gravity acts center to center, and the ripple is felt at the sub-atomic scale.

Regards,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

I discuss the Jenkins and Fischbach data in "The Chromodynamics War" and propose that, based on my model of particle physics, it is due to solar neutrinos. I do not know what the CME mechanisms are, but if they result in an increase of solar neutrinos, this would be consistent with my model. This seems to be much simpler than "a topological space-time fabric".

In fact, I just googled and found: "Aug 30, 2010 - Jenkins and Fischbach suggest that the changes in the decay rates are due to interactions with solar neutrinos, nearly weightless particles ..."

This was what I suggested to them in 2009 when I sent them a complimentary copy of "The Chromodynamics War" upon receipt of permission to publish their data.

I'm also interested in your remarks about possible difference in the speed of light and gravity. Are there any arXiv or viXra papers on this?

Also, if you or Tom would explain the angular momentum problem, I would be interested.

And, FYI, I have gotten another competent physicist interested in Kauffmann's work. (Each one teach one!)

I don't know how you stay so up to date on these topics. Do you sleep?

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Well actually,

I always seem to be on the go in my dreams, and there are always several things to do or get done when I am awake, but my romance with pure knowledge seems to be the most compelling motivator these days. My recollection is that there were problems with the neutrino hypothesis, but I would have to do some research. However; the subject of a neutrino wind or spin-aligned fields and local connections resulting from the neutrino flux are certainly relevant to this discussion, even if topological factors do come into play.

My point was that it might be fruitful to visualize internal and external modes of connection, corresponding to scalar vs tensor modes of propagation, and a difference between the speed of gravity and the speed of light. That is; there are forces that operate upon a center and forces that operate from within that center. Part of this is driven by my desire to understand the connection of non-commutative and non-associative geometries to Physics. If one examines the quaternion 3-sphere and octonion 7-sphere, their Möbius like surface makes them simply connected; inside-out is outside-in.

Thinking about examples like this makes the ideas in the Dimensional reduction paper easier for me to understand, even if they do not exactly apply. The notion that things can be simultaneously connected by their outsides and their insides is not often discussed, but bears examination.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I just wanted to point out..

To an extent; one can draw an analogy by equating 'from the inside' with 'probing on a small level of scale' and 'from the outside' with 'probing on a larger level of scale' because the observer or detection platform always has a particular size, and there will be larger spaces 'out there' than whatever space is contained 'in here' - the space from which observations are taking place. This connects up with what Tom Ray said in his essay from last year, that observation always takes place from a center and defines a sense of toward and away.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Hello again,

It appears that the idea for 'Rainbow Gravity' was first set out in a paper by Magueijo and Smolin called Gravity's Rainbow that appeared in 'Classical and Quantum Gravity' in '04. The most important piece of that work to the current effort and the 'Dimensional Reduction..' paper is found in the following excerpt.

"the geometry of spacetime may depend on the energy of a particle moving in it. Thus, spacetime geometry has an effective description; in the language of the renormalization group, geometry "runs." Hence there is no single spacetime dual to momentum space; the dual to momentum space is the energy dependent family of metrics."

That is; the spectral dimension D runs with the energy E we use, or equivalently with the smallness of scale we probe the dimensionality of space in, making spacetime appear 2-d as we approach a UV cutoff (toward the Planck scale) and 4-d toward the infrared, or as we approach the common level of scale. The 'family of metrics' noted in the quote above constitute the 'rainbow' of Rainbow Gravity.

More later,

Jonathan

The team of Jenkins and Fischbach attracted my attention for one reason. Nuclear disintegration are said to be random and impervious to anything. But every other spontaneous phenomenon are subjected to the local rate of passage of time!. Nuclear disintegration may be random but its rate should be subject to local time rate.

This is what I was looking for. I understand the relationship of gravity to the rate of passage of time like Unruh.(1) (Below), they are one and the same.

"A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is

that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity,affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time's flowing unequably from place to place."

From this, I was expecting time to run at different rates away from the Sun and nuclear disintegration rates to follow.

This was the basis of a gravitational wave detector I was thinking about... Passing gravitational waves (made of variations of time rate) would change in a specific way the variations in the rate of disintegration of radio-nuclide.... using particle emission time of flight to avoid temporary local time distorsions .... and coincidence detectors for direction ... The question is; how good are we at measuring short time interval? Better than "space" intervals?

Marcel,

Forgot the reference (1) to Unruh article. Here it is.

(1) arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

Marcel,

Johnatan

My be h= 1.054x 10^-27g x sm^2/sec is 2-Dimensional quanta of the Universe wrapped in 3-Dimensional Space.Hint to Holographic universe...?

Yuri

Hi Georgina,

You wrote, "Even if the communication happens instantaneously, there will be a delay between that observed event."

No. "Instantaneous" means that the two events are observed to be simultaneous. It doesn't happen, because all physical influences are communicated at less than the speed of light, making all events observer-dependent; i.e., there is some spacetime separation between any two events, such that observers in each inertial frame interpret the time of each event incident differently, and each interpretation is valid. There is no lapsed time for simultaneous events, just as there is no lapsed time between the endpoints of a beam of light.

Tom

Tom maybe I'm confused. How can *images* be -both- separated in (space-) time and observed to be -simultaneously- affecting each other i.e. happening at the same time?? I don't think they can but that doesn't mean there definitely isn't faster than light communication between the *objects*. It seems to me the separation of the images is more of a problem than the communication speed between the objects.

A question that comes to my mind is; Can the shape of the (medium of)space be changed faster than light can travel through it? If it can then there is the possibility that a phenomenon could be communicated faster than light speed.

Georgina,

You ask, "A question that comes to my mind is; Can the shape of the (medium of)space be changed faster than light can travel through it?"

What medium? Light propagates in a vacuum.

"If it can then there is the possibility that a phenomenon could be communicated faster than light speed."

That's how the worm creatures in Herbert's *Dune* series traveled faster than light -- they 'folded' space under the influence of some chemical. In the real world of relativity, however, space is not a physically real phenomenon independent of time; length contraction and time dilation guarantee that proper time seems to pass at the same rate for every observer everywhere in the universe, such that the laws of physics are uniform. One way to look at it, is that between photons at antipodal points of the universe, there is no duration.

Tom

I thought the first part explained my problem with the idea of seeing something simultaneous when what is seen is also separated by space-time.

The question was just a sort of by the way. I can accept that in the space-time image there is no medium depicted between the images seen. However there is something in space, which it seems is now called the Higgs field (as the Higgs boson I have heard referred to as the quantum of ubiquitous resistance). If there is resistance, and I think there must be to account for inertia, there has to be -something- that resists i.e. not a vacuum.

Thank you so much Marcel-Marie..

I appreciate the insights and the time taken to comment. I'll look at the Unruh paper and I think I need to read your essay too, as I saw you are in the contest, and what you say sounds very interesting. I hope you find my essay of interest as well, but I will comment here after looking further. The Gravity Wave detector idea is VERY MUCH of interest, especially to a colleague Dr. Beckwith.

There are some very good clocks now, and that definitely opens up the possibility for some exciting new Physics. I'll comment more on this page, after looking at the above.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

That absolutely appears relevant Yuri.

It could all boil down to whether light travels as photons or plasmons, but I think there is more to it. From what I recall of your research, there are definitely tie-ins of your work to these new findings,and as Giovanni says above, things are developing quickly in a productive way. Maybe some of the roadblocks to understanding are being removed, and important work that has been held back can get the recognition it deserves.

I will try to get to reading your essay too, and I thank you for leaving your comment here.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

I have developped a scale-invariant 2D theory. It is very basic (I am not a theoretical physicist) but it might give you some ideas. I hope it helps.

You can also find my essay here .

Cheers,

Patrick

Georgina,

"If there is resistance, and I think there must be to account for inertia, there has to be -something- that resists i.e. not a vacuum."

No, there doesn't have to be something else. Petkov's badly neglected essay in the last competition elegantly explained that bodies do not resist their motion. If you re-read it, you should understand why.

Tom

OK Tom, thanks for the suggestion.