Wrinkles in Spacetime

John,

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

There's little respect for relativity -- among both FQXi members and forum participants -- in spite of overwhelming theoretical consistency and experimental validation. If you critically examine past essay winners you'll find they favor mystical concepts, incomplete concepts and ad hoc assumptions of quantum indeterminacy.

Relativity mathematics rests on a simple calculus theorem of continuity, ably expressed by Joy Christian as " ... product of limits = limits of products." here

The continuity of spacetime is not an easy thing to get one's mind around; however, what makes it easier to embrace probability? Quantum mechanics has so many interpretations because the theory allows them. The constraints of relativity are entirely within the postulates. Mathematically complete.

I predict that as understanding of LIGO results becomes stronger, so will the understanding of Minkowski space; i.e., spacetime. Then there will be no non-arbitrary boundary between quantum and classical domains.

Tom,

my pleasure, for what its worth.

"The continuity of spacetime is not an easy thing to get one's mind around;" which must be some sort of truism if one accepts the Planck scale as the physical limit of size. Because while it might be incomprehensibly tiny to our human experience, in comparison to 'infinitely small' it is huge. So either granular non-locality exists down to the infinitely small, interior of a Planck scale particle; or, the same homogeneous, simply connected continuity of spacetime prescribed in field theory exists as the 'stuff' interior of that Planck scale volume. A not so fine a point that gets swept under the rug. :-) jrc

I'm a little unclear as to how these experiments and theories expect to tell the difference between a defect in spacetime and a break in symmetry which might not reach parameters precipitating a virtual particle. Would that be considered a real defect, or recognizable as a simply 'less than limit' condition?

John,

It's worth a lot. :-)

There's a different way to interpret the Planck limit. If one wishes, one can describe any measurement in terms of Planck units. There's nothing mysterious in this; one may always impose a unit of arbitrary length and count the units. The significance of the Planck length is that it's independent of any particular scale.

This does nothing to the physical argument of spacetime continuity. If one tries to be so brash as separate space from time in ordinary measure space, the Planck time is simply self-referential to the Planck length. To me, this strongly suggests an extra-dimensional framework of simply connected points to some dimension limit -- based on the arithmetic theorem that a point can be mapped simultaneously to any set of points, provided it is far enough away. There is not 'enough' space to do this, without the added degree of freedom that an extra-dimensional structure provides, nor 'enough' time unless time is a property of spacetime.

Planck limits of all sorts are experimental boundaries that can't be explained until we have a theory of quantum gravity -- and a unitary one at that.

Your question is fuzzy. I get that 'defect in spacetime' = 'break in symmetry', yet what are 'parameters precipitating a virtual particle'? Do you mean black hole conditions? Do you mean 'parameter' as something other than an adjustable variable?

Tom,

that Anon was me, I thought I was still logged in.

no, no... a break in symmetry precipitates a condensate of energy into matter, which you often refer to as diffeomorphis. The outstanding question of course being how do parameters of physical properties correspond to mathematical properties of geometry to result in that break in symmetry in a confluence of events. But also a confluence of events might not reach critical levels of proportion that would break with symmetry, and no discrete volume condition would form. My question was; how do the experimental and theoretical protocols differentiate those conditions from a 'defect' in spacetime? The article wasn't very clear as to what would be deemed defective. jrc

Okay, I think I get it.

"My question was; how do the experimental and theoretical protocols differentiate those conditions from a 'defect' in spacetime?"

They don't. The arguments for and against continuous and discrete spacetime are equally valid. One has to propose what a defect would look like -- perhaps an unexpected change in curvature. Then again, the existence of curvature itself suggests continuous spacetime.

"The article wasn't very clear as to what would be deemed defective."

I don't think Sabine hasn't gotten that far yet.

Tom,

Okay, I'll puzzle over that some. It's all beyond my depth but I don't have a problem with a defective universe. Continuous spacetime isn't as much of a head warp for me as is discrete spacetime, what's that? How would spacetime be infinitely multi-connected? For me, energy and spacetime are inseperable and density is a function of velocity. Yet symmetrically, light velocity is an absolute limit because that is the natural limit of action in a time parameter. A zero boundary condition could exist as a minimum energy density where time exists at c and no spatial motion were therefore possible. So while connectivity of spacetime would still exist beyond that zero boundary, the inertial connectivity of the energy condensate would be dependent on a maximum density proportionate to the total energy content within the zero boundary. And that inertial connectivity is what we call gravity. Rather than being the weakest force, gravity is the manifestation of all the energy content inertially connected in that boundary and is exponentially greater by virtue of density at smaller scales. The strong nuclear force might be just that, gravity.

I'll stop blithering, I don't often try to express these notions though they work okay in some simple math, but I know its rather conjectural and conventionally heretical. Have you had a look at Gary Simpson's 'Quaternion Dynamics' paper? goto viXra.org; click: all submissions; then tab authors go and a google search list appears with the title line. click that and then scroll down to the 'referrences' and click the viXra link and it should give you the html. Might have to hunt around a bit. It's over my level and presented mostly in matrix signage but you would follow it, and it is a precursor to a 5D rationale he is preparing. That I find intriguing, and while he sees it as failing by dependence on a fixed background, the fifth D could be fixed not to a background co-ordinate but to the notion of symmetry of c being the absolute time limit of my blither above. He's more on your level than I and you might enjoy some dialogue instead of diatribe for a change. :-) jr

Tom,

JRC has suggested that you might be able to elaborate upon the subtle distinction between dimension 4 in GR vs dimension 4 in QM. If so, please do. I have read the other recent posts here and you seem to be alluding to the answer but have not explicitly stated it. Also, JRC suggests that you might wish to correspond privately. If so, my email is gsim100887@aol.com.

Steve D.,

Actually, my hands and fingers are sore but I am improving. At least I can smoothly play 1/16'th notes now. Practice, Practice, Practice.

All,

I'm a little surprised that no one has challenged me regarding the claim of being able to calculate the size of the proton. In QED, this is almost impossible to do but I claim to have done so and I used a very simple equation.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

I am actually quite curious about your proton determination. And what you have given as a diameter is in the ballpark of a base radius of a unitary field determination of my own. Is there a metaphysical model to your proton that would be something like 'a wrinkle of spacetime' that has curled up on itself?

Or; is it a material body separate and unequal in spacetime? I try not to go too far off the topic path but like everybody else can't resist pursuing tangent ideas. What's this proton of yours look like. In unitary (or unified) field metaphysics, its the neutron that poses the biggest problem. :-) jrc

Try my équations with different mathematical methods by computing with the serie of spherical volumes for the diameters.Perhaps simply it exists a correlation with our sun and our protons.......More far,we have the BH.

ps:) Garry always indeed practice ,don't forget the words at the first page of the Hannon methos.1% of inspirations and 99% of transpiration :)

Dark energy for me is the push at the instant zero of the physicality.A spherical gravitational expansion instead of a BB.Dark matter is not baryonic and is in my model produced by BH.These particles of gravitation are encoded also in our nuclei like the bosons photons in our standard model but differently.That is why the quantum of gravitational energy is different than a photonic quantum of E.Space in my model does not exist because the gravitational aether implies the speedest linear speed but also the smallest spherons produced by the central singularity of the universal sphere.So space does not exist because the spherical volumes decrease from this central cosm sphere.

The standardоЂЏmodel is encircled by BH and spherons like our cosmological scale relativelly speaking.E=mcВІ+mlВІ and mlosV=constant can help for the spherical volume and the 3 motions of sphГЁres.encircles the standard model with one system of quantum BH gravitationally stable and primordial encoding the spherons produced by BH.The spherons are this weakest force.More a BH is important , more the particle produced is small and speed.That is why the universal sphere does not turn and the central BH turns the slowest.

I must test of course , but it seems rational.These BH are essential dark matter and gravitation also.We need to explain them.The special relativity is correct but gravitation is speeder and smaller considering the linear quantum sphГЁres before encoding.This gravitation cannot be baryonic and Under our standard model, it is not possible considering an universal analyse for the future travel Inside this universal sphere.Best Regards dear Jedis of the SPHERE:)

Steve,

Believe it or not, I'm trying to steer towards the topic of 'Wrinkles in Spacetime' and what a 'defect' therein might be. So while I can recognize you have been wrestling with the topological paradigm in an effort to package the observable universe, and the simply connected 3sphere provides an expandable wrapper, I do have trouble understanding what you are trying to say. You have been able to overcome some of the language barrier to the rather sloppy English common these days and I am as guilty as anybody in being lazily monolingual.

But if I'm getting this correctly, you seem to subscribe to the idea that gravitation is a different kind of energy than electrostatic and magnetostatic fields, and hold with the idea that a gravitational field can extend to infinity without explaining how that could be possible without the finite quantity of energy in that field becoming so spread out as to become infinitesimally weak everywhere in that infinite volume of space.

What I've tried to say, is that just as time and space are intrinsically bound and indistinguishable at the foundational level, so is energy intrinsically bound up with spacetime. And that it is only due to the aggregate of vast numbers of self-gravitational material particles of energy condensed into matter that results in the apparent weakness of the gravitational field. Gravitation must be treated as a function of the time parameter, and where time is compressed into smaller volumes it operates more slowly. An object would have to traverse the same amount of time in a region of high energy density in a tiny volume, as that same object would traverse in a region of low energy density in a much larger volume. This does not mean there cannot be an empirically determined minimum density necessary to maintain connectivity of the physical energy. If we accept Mach's Principle in general without being too purist, the behavior of energy can range from inelastic to aetherial as a coefficient function of velocity determining density. And a greater energy density will exhibit and translate the characterists of a lower density but not vice versa. Gravity is observable in the magnetic behavior, the electrical behavior and the kinetic behavior of matter, but those characteristics are not observable at distances where the energy density only translates gravitational characteristics. And the lower the density of energy the more it melds one inertial domain with others expanding into the observed macroscopic domains.

I have long subscribed to a school of thought in Condensed Matter Physics that anything we might call particulate matter is A Wrinkle In Spacetime that curls up on itself. I like to quip it as Big Rock Candy Mountain. There is simply too much energy created by the stress of spacetime than there is room enough in the universe for it to exist at any given time at a density it seeks at light velocity. We live in a quantum universe because foundationally it is in an energy supersaturate state, and the 2.76 Kelvin CMB is the ambient level of compression which requires matter to condense from energy to conserve space.

That being said; a *defect* whether causally or probabilistically would be when something that could, should or would happen, simply doesn't. Or pops up when there's no reason against all probability. C'est la vie. jrc

Hi John,

I will improve my English,I speak it like in french in fact , my grammar must be improved.I will do it in buying a book when I will have the loan soon due to debts of death of my mother.It is not a priority for me.I am a little sad that you have not understood my équations.I am going to make simple.Like said Einstein ,if you are not able to explain it simply to your grandmother,you don'tunderstand it really.The dark matter exists and is not baryonic.If this matter exists John,so there is a cause.They must be produced by something.Not the stars.BH are a reality and exist.We see that our standard model has a wall at this horizon between the two different model(Standard and gravitational.The supermassive BH are sphères, it islogic.If they are there, there are reasons.I say that these BH are also present at quantum scale.Protons are the secret but the standard model is not sufficient.See my équation E=mc²+ml² ,have youseen the relevance with l linear velocity of these particles coming from the main cenral cosmological BH, the biggest spherical volume after the universal sphere.See that we can superimpose the sphères !!!The quantum serie and its finite number(primes p adics numbers are relevant)is the same than the cosmological serie inlogic.The quantum stable serie is a relative photo ofour universalsphere.I hope than you see my theory ofspherisation now :) see that it explains gravitation and the link with infinite entropy at this central sphere.God is not far of us with this weakest force John.Imagine the number 1 for this singularity......BH in our universal sphere are less numerous than stars but the particles produced ? The standard model is encircled by BH and Dark matter.The gravitation is implied by this central cosmological sphere and its weak rotation and codes.It is simple when we see the generality of this universe.God does not play at dice and the sphere is the perfect equilibrium of sphere.The gravitation needs BH and dark matter and Inside the heat and thermo and electromagnetic forces are a kind of E.

John C.,

I will direct you to three papers posted to viXra.org. These are "The Wave Medium, the Electron, and the Proton - Parts 1 and 2" and "Quaternion Dynamics - Part 1". The first two papers lay out the concepts and develop a simplified model. The third paper develops quaternions. The exponential form is of interest and will lead to octonions when multiplied by the complex form of Euler's Equation. Equation 13.4 of the second paper is the basis for the proton size calculation.

Steve D.,

I'm up to 3 hours of practice per day. I let my hands rest one day per week.

The quaternion expressions could easily be interpreted as spheres since they have the same mathematical form (i.e., the sum of squares equals a square). The above works might also be of interest to you.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

thanks for the viXra directive, I'll see if I can follow it.

Steve,

As you write it, your equation says that: (E)nergy is equal to mc^2; plus the same initial mass quantity, squared. Is that correct? And in what way does that extra energy come about, what is a mass doing or interacting with that your equation refers to? What causes that m^2 to be added to mass:energy equivalence? Sorry, I do not understand. :-) jrc

Hello John and Gary,

Gary thanks ,I will learn more.

John,see simply that BH produce particles and they have like photons a linear speed before encoding.Forget the standard model and focus on dark matter and gravitation.Youknow the equation of Einstein is more suntil that you imagine.The mass encodes simply photonic informations.He had seen this encoding of evolution.I have inserted the linear speed of spherons before encoding like mc².We must rethought even our mass John.The ml² is the other step towards the entire entropy.I thought that you had understood my équations.But no apprently.See simply the generality and the project of God John with humility of course:) If you rest in the special relatiivity with simply stars and standardmodel, never you will found a road towards gravitation.It is a different quantum of E simply.It is logic in fact corrlated with rotating sphères and proportions.Hope that helps.Don't hesitate to ask questions, I will answer with pleasure.Don't forget John,see the generality and the sphères turning.Se that the central BH of our universal sphere produces the smallest andspeedest particles of gravitation implying the gravitational aether tending to infinity at this wall between physicality and infinity.Regards

Gary.

Okay, I'll try to answer: "I understand that QM and GR are both 4-D models. Presumably, they both share the same three spatial dimensions.

What is the basis for the belief that they also share the same 4'th dimension?"

QM is not a 4 dimension model.

Let's look at in the context of Bell's theorem. Even though the theorem claims to test local realism, the choice function is invested in detector settings, an unrealistic proposal. After repeating random choices a statistically significant number of times, we count the number of times the choices correlate and normalize the results. Richard Gill says, "The physicist's correlation is just the probability of equal outcomes minus the probability of different outcomes."

Quantum theory confuses physics with physicist. Random choices yield random results. And the time parameter is non-existent. In other words, the theorem proves just what the theorem assumes (See Karl Hess, Einstein was Right! ).

In an objective spacetime, simple connectedness is a theorem by existence -- the added degree of freedom that the time parameter provides assures objective outcomes without pinning an observation to a particular observer. It fulfills Einstein's requirement to complete an observation without disturbing the system. In other words, quantum mechanics can be derived from continuous spacetime in an objective manner, though the converse is not true. Quantum theorists make all kinds of ad hoc assumptions -- Quantum Bayesian is the worst of them, as it imposes a measure of personal belief.

The time coordinate has a negative value in Minkowski spacetime. Time reversibility is an absolute requirement of general relativity -- it provides symmetry -- while special relativity, straight line motion, is asymmetric with regard to time. This is how quantum mechanics can claim compatibility with special relativity, and why QM and general relativity cannot both be foundational.

Special relativity requires time dilation, something QM ignores. Or rather, normalizes, and then is able to ignore. Since time is length 1 in one direction, it has to be length 1 in all directions. Fine. In what measure space? Quantum theorists are in a potential trap of logical contradiction: if the measure space is n-dimension Hilbert space, it has to be rigged for 3 dimensions, R^3. So it limits itself to a 3 coordinate system, xyz, though we know that a complete accounting for position requires a 4 coordinate system, xyzt. Because normalized time zeros out of an algebraic equation, continuity can never be built into a quantum theory; i.e., T = 0 in a linear equation.

Steve,

No one that I know of argues that mass as a unit of measure is a universal absolute. The Equivalence Principle derived from SR established what had only been accepted as an assumed operational equality between gravitational mass and inertial mass. And by necessity of measurement through motion, extends to time and space. Hence spacetime is a logical consequence of the Equivalence Principle.

The one thing that can be derived from our system of arbitrary value units of physical quantities as an absolute value, is light velocity. Yet as you write it: "m|" would utilize the vertical bar to denote "m" as an absolute value. While I recognize and agree that our definition of inertia is only operational (a mass in motion stays in motion : a mass at rest stays at rest), and would theoretically benefit from development of a general definition which would predictably identify what it is about inertia that is the same for any mass regardless of state of motion; it would be illogical to assume that could be had by assuming an absolute value for mass. Rather, a general definition of inertia would have to be a universal proportionality of light velocity in relation to any given mass value.

Secondly, there are as many arguments against the Big Bang as there are for it. Foremost in opposition is that GR is not a complete theory! Doesn't claim to be! Einstein wasn't playing God and the Big Bang wasn't his damned idea! And your central universal sphere is the second argument in opposition, which exposes the contradiction of spatial neutral centrality in Relativity with a reversibility timeline of the observed expansion of the universe. GR is not a complete theory, the BB might as well be a Bed and Breakfast for all I care. Sorry. I wish we could communicate better (no need to get paranoid about it) but what little I think I understand of what you are saying, I would disagree with as stated above. Best wishes, anyway. Hell, this is just something to do til they close the lid on me. I think its ridiculous they way some people are so certain of being right in any walk of life that they think its okay to trip up others. I can sympathize with parental loss and financial difficulty, take it a bit easier on yourself. :-) jrc