In Search of a Quantum Spacetime

Steve Dufourny

And you know what I have stopped all the connections and endorsemensts I have sent messages to Mr Tyson ,Mr Jagg and Mr Billeaud that all is a real circus on LinkedIn and that their psychology stop .I don't need their endorsements,I d be happy to have Mr Tyson but there it is too much.He endorses me but he does not answer, he is a fake .I have said hime what I thought .They think what with their strattegies and endorsements and this and that.I will find an other mentor than these people who does not respect me.Endorsements and this and that and what ? That is going to change my life, Mt Tyson can make a televison cosmos about the spherisation,it is not my problem.Irritating this circus on LinkedIn.A real circus.They have all won like that.I have removed the connections with them.And their endorsements on my profil, I have deleted also.I don't need celebrity on my profil.They have all won,like that all is solved now.

Steve Dufourny

Celebrity and notoriety and what after also ,I have all deleted these celebrities.They travel that is all ,they speak they endorse, that is all.

Georgina Woodward

Dear Steve, it sounds like you are making good progress in getting unnecessary and potentially unkind influences out of your life. I haven't given a great deal of thought to spheres but acknowledge their important part in physics and biology. Surface area to volume ratio is important in biology and the sphere minimizes that ratio. That traveling a 'straight' line around a sphere is the shortest distance around an enclosed space may be important in physics as it is minimizing the required energy ( least action). There seem to be a number of different reasons for them such as; growth, surface tension , presumably gravity and possibly spin, soft materials can be rolled into spheres. You often speak very generally and provide a great deal of information making it hard to address. Could you perhaps just talk about how you have arrived at the two equations you have given and what they are showing?

Steve Dufourny

Hello ,A sphere is not a surface Georgina, so don't confound please ml² is for 3D spherons produced by BH l linear velocity before encoding of spherons ,this dark matter implying the gravitation.The photons are not our only one piece.The articles also are 3D coded sphères....all in fact is in this line of resoning.I will develop a little just for you Georgina :)Regards and don't forget they turn sothey are....The 3Dspheres of course.

Steve Dufourny

Dear Zeeya wwhy we cannot answer to sky ? we have not the reply.What is this circus on LinkedIn and now here ?I don't understand.

Sky Leach

I have been reading your comments. Incidentally, I should point out that I don't hold to the hypothesis of Dark Matter for explanation of the expanding universe, largely because I am not a fan of the big bang theory. Since learning the details of QM I have suspected that the BBT was a result of religious (doctrinal) influence on the sciences rather than a product of observation.

I personally suspect (mathematically) that hydrogen can form directly from energetic decay when causal distances are far enough apart to influence the probability towards self-informed collapse of wave forms. As a function of the probability of collapse along possible vectors, the regions between galaxies should allow dispersion of the wave sufficient to allow a self-informed collapse into a (mostly) stable quantum frame.

The probability and rate of decay into baryonic matter is still quite low, but given the massive volumes of space between galaxies the result should be a continuously (apparently) expanding universe with new galaxies forming from massive hydrogen clouds over billions of years.

Of course I point out that the universe appears to be expanding since the process is always pulling towards the center of mass of any accreting galaxy. This would affect observable redshift since the space around the galaxy is pulling tighter which would affect optics in the same way as observable velocity. As a galaxy forms, the hydrogen surrounding the original stellar nurseries is slowly accelerating like any accretion disk, although ecliptic effects wouldn't be apparent or observable at any significant distance from the galaxy since the interstellar hydrogen density would still be incredibly low by stellar nursery standards.

Steve Dufourny

Are you an adept of Verlinbde and the entropical gravity ?

[deleted]

Not really, but I do find the idea interesting. I think of entropy itself as a vector of time relative to the internal state wave where the collapse forces disharmony (two points of collapse).

To explain a bit, consider that all matter is technically unstable. We think of isotopes as 'stable' and 'unstable' based on their relative stability to our frame of reference. In exploring entangled states as harmonic feedback loops it quickly becomes apparent that there are cycles where the wave-wave forms would conflict (disharmony). Since this is a very complex n-dimensional harmonic wave form and since it can change due to interaction outside of the frame calculating the entire frame is a p-complete problem.

My gut tells me that entropy would not conflate with gravity since it is a function of internal state while gravity (as opposed to mass) would always be between entangled sets. (i.e. gravity is a function of proton-electron and proton-neutron-electron harmonics). In other words, gravity only exists in nuclear time, not quantum time.

Sky Leach

Sorry, that last was me. I apparently wasn't logged in. :)

[deleted]

Georgina and Steve,

Each sphere has a complete surface. Only unified observable infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light exists. As I thoughtfully explained to you recently, you may place a cannonball which you think has a finite measured mass volume on your lawn alongside an air inflated party balloon, and you will note that both spheres grow in surface size at the same rate as you approach them, and both shrink in surface size as you retreat. Please stop trying to make any sense of invisible stuff.

Joe Fisher

Pentcho,

Einstein's equation e=mc². A finite amount of invisible energy must be exactly equal to a finite invisible amount of mass multiplied by the constant speed of invisible light moving through a finite sized invisible vacuum tube multiplied by its invisible light self is utterly incorrect. No part of visible infinite surface is exactly equal to any other part.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

Steve Dufourny

Could we have your real name, this Platform is transparent?

About gravitation ,it seems really that we cannot consider it like our standard model.I see several foundamental errors in all humility.First your interpretation of entropy and time.Second the extradimensions.We live in a 3D ,of course we can insert time and a relative 4D for our Tools.But the n dimensions are not rational.The lagrangian or Minkowski or this or that ,all these models respect our dimensions.The vectors ,the forces must be proportional and rational and dterministic respecting our 3D more this IRREVERSIBLE time.Gravity and entropy are linked.Gravity and thermo,standard model and special relativity no.That is why gravitons which are bosons are not possible.The problel seems in the interpretation of our universal laws.For the dark matter, I consider it produced by BH and these particles, I named them spherons are different than our photonic quantum of E.Gravitation is a different force.Photons are not the main foundamental,spherons yes.They are the chief orchestra of all informations.See that our standard model at the two scales is encircled by BH and dark matter.If our quantum sphères and cosmological sphères turn, it is not due to thermo and heat but due to an other entropical foce from the central cosmologicl BH;the biggest producing the speedest and smallest spherons,see the gravitational aethers and my équations if they are correct.mlosV=constant and E=mc²+ml² mc& was not sufficient to calculate our entire entropy in increasing furthermore due to this central cosmologica singularity.The n dimensions are not necessary to calculate our newtonian proportions.The aether is gravitational and newtonian.The nuclei are so far of us still, we are far of our central quantum coded singularities evolving and encoding photons and spherons.We have a stable gravitational serie and this serie encodes on the irreversible entropical Arrow of time.Time and gravitation are linked,that is why I beleive even that we must rethought our gravitational age instead of this 13,7 billions years calculated with our special and general relativity.The primes numbers are relevant for the serie of spherical volumes from the singularities.The constants in logic are numerous.

Sky Leach

I don't use my real name for many reasons, most of which have to do with human nature. My avatar is, however, a self-consistent identity and unique enough for discussion.

As for the semantic argument, let me remind you that dimension is a rather loosely defined term and is often polluted by cultural meme when that isn't at all appropriate. When I use the term dimension, I do not mean to imply a philosophical dimension outside of this universe. For that reason, our universe is generally construed to be four-dimensional consisting of 3 dimensions of loci with one conflated dimension of space/time. I prefer the term causation to time, as time is a measurement between cause and effect.

I have no reason to believe in the philosophical idea of multiple dimensions or parallel universes. They may exist, or they may not exist, but for the purposes of science it is hardly observable or quantifiable merely speculative (at least at our current level of development).

Also, when dealing with physical reality there is absolutely no reason to assume an 'arrow of time'. Each observational frame has a context (or frame) of time specific to the context. Why then should we assume that the same causative frame must apply for partially closed systems? Why do so many assume that events at the nuclear and quantum scale must follow the same linear causal 'arrow of time'? When examining causation, how are we to assert that a causative event between frames (ex: a photon changing energetic state by bouncing off an atom and exchanging energetic potential) must have a direct correlative effect along OUR frame? Thermal transfer is a change in the energetic potential of the atom, but that is quantitative (i.e. the state of the entire closed system has changed relative our frame) yet the direct sequence of events within the closed system of the atom could travel at a tangent to our view of causality.

As an allegory, consider an atom as spherical time dimension all it's own. A causative event that changes the state of the atom changes the entire past and future of the atom. That change is observed (entangled observation) at the speed of light relative our frame, but attempting to assume that the previous state of the atom is preserved within its local frame violates the observations of t-symmetry. Saying that the atom was previously in a different state from within the quanta of the atom would be impossible, because the atom observes itself only as a standing wave where past, present, and future all change when the standing wave changes.

Steve Agnew

For goodness sake, congratulations to Sean Carroll for his grant from fxqi. Although Sean dabbles in mutiverses, which seem to me to be the same as any supernatural agent of belief, Carroll is also very skilled at math.

Sooner or later, he and others will discover the truth of our discrete reality. That truth should have been sooner, but truth is always better than the alternative.

It is a mystery to me why science cannot even agree about what it disagrees about...perhaps Sean can help...

Sky Leach

agree

As to the discovery of truth, keep this in mind:

Math is a language that describes series of events with precision.

There always comes a point where you simply have to include some philosophy as assumption. Math can be descriptive, even predictive, but it can't answer why things happen the way that they do.

Like with all other language, this provides the context within which the mathematics gain their meaning.

Steve Agnew

...and of course, the matter wave of the universe is the key to the truth. If science can break out of the prison of time and space, they will finally realize the nirvana of matter and action. The universe only needs the duality of matter and action and time and space both emerge nicely from that duality.

There are no singularities with matter and action since all spatial displacement and time are due to the periods of quantum action. Since there are no zero periods of quantum action of 1/tau at action centers of mass, there are no singularities like 1/r at body centers.

Such a simple proposition should result in a simple universe...

Steve Dufourny

Hi,I agree totally with the first part of yoyr comment Mr Agnew,the second for me is not correct,but of course it is just my opinion, a simple nursery man,a simple cultivator of flowers and plants :) the second part seems lacking of two foundamentals important, the coded gravitational singularitiesHow can we have this general analyse,the codes are essential ?All is coded and these codes are created.The emergence of properties are due to intrinsic codes and these stable series encode furthermore respecting this entropical evolution of matters.The foundamental of matter is not the photon Mr Agnew,it is not possible considering the necessity to have a gravitational chief orchestra.The zero absolute is intriguing considering this gravition.I beleive strongly that if an infinite entity above our understanding exists and has created this physiclity.I am doubting that this infinite entropy has created a prison where we cannot travel between stars and galaxies even.The earth is a big village, the universe also.If we remain,we stay in this special relativity,never we shall travel Inside this universe.It is just that we are Young at this universal scale.We evolve quietly and it is welllike that, already that we are not able to harmonise this planet :) The matter Mr Agnew is more than we can imagine;more more far of our human interpretation.Don't forget our thinkers thinking in god if I can say,Tesla, Newton,Einstein ...and so more had understood the matter energy evolution by encodings spiritually speaking.Photons are just a tool,the energy matter is more than this simple analyse.It is not possible simply.Regards

Steve Agnew

In a finite universe, the there can be no infinities. In an infinite universe full of singularities, anything is possible. Multiverses, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy, eternally collapsing objects, etc., are just different ways of dealing with infinities.

Since all observations to date show a finite universe with finite objects with finite actions, singularities simply reflect the limits of spacetime math for representing our finite reality.

Quantum matter is never still and there are always finite orbit times for particles bound in quantum matter. Therefore all 1/r^2 forces, which have singularities at r=0, are really 1/tau^2 forces. Since tau is a finite quantum orbit time, tau is never zero and there are no singularities in the quantum universe of just matter and action.

Gravity force is a pairing of the bonding photons of matter with their complementary photons from CMB creation. Although general relativity does a very good job describing much of reality, GR simply does not describe the quantum orbits that bind objects in the quantum universe. The biphotons of quantum gravity do show the quantum orbits of matter, tau, entangled with the quantum orbits of the universe, Tau.

Centering the universe on matter and action instead of space and time removes the straightjacket of space and time. It is the straightjacket of space and time that keeps science from injuring itself during the current madness of an impossible quantum GR.

Steve Dufourny

Hello Mr Agnew,

Happy to see you again and thanks for sharing.We have a different interpretation of this universe,but it is interesting to see your thoughts.Isee that the majority of the sciences community search this gravitation.I have seen a lot of works trying to interpret this gravity.But I have seen that the problem was(for me and it is only my point of vue of course,it is not a postulate)to consider this gravitation like an emergent force due to electromagnetic forces ,magnets, mmagnetism,electricity are relevant, but I beeive that gravity is not this.Gravitons for example so are not possible in my point of vue .People wants to explain this weakest force just above our electromagnetism ,weaker.And also they consider these particles weaker than photons.The problemis to have forgotten the bridge above theprotons neutrons with their quanrks at this nuclear forces with gluons.The gravitationl force there increases and at the electromagnetic decreases.We have soa road toards theentire entropy because we go towards the main central singularities, gravitational coded by the cosmological singularity.GR for me acts on the luminerous aether, this photoniic sphererespecting the special relativity,that is why we have the time of arrivals of signals for LIGO,The quantum scale is Under the special relativity but the general do not really work there due to scales.The GR is for the cosmological scale?i agree about so the quantum GR.That said the mass curves spacetime ....Spherisation gravitation are natural ....ps the singularities for me are themain cenral sphères, coded gravitationally implying a stability in space time, that is why these baryons have not a linear velocity and are stable in the topography of our universe.Best Regards and still thanks for sharing.

Steve Dufourny

It is interesting,We search all after all these universal laws and domains.We try to encircle this physicality created by this infinite entropy above this said physicality.Maths are a very relevant Tools of course but maths is like notes ,physics is the melody.I like the works of Mr Tegmark about multiverse.I like the philosophy.But we must also accept several principles like entropy, uniqueness, equivalence.If we have for example multispheres instead of one universal sphere, we must accept that we return always to the number 1 for this uniqueness.I need causalities for the informations.We must consider thisnumber 1 and the zero also.If multispheres exist,we return always to the main singularity ,cosmological.This singularity creates the gravitational codes.Photons are encircled by spherons in fact and it is this gravitation which implies the comportments of photons.In fact it is fascinating this uniqueness where all comes from.CPT symmetry and the works of Lorentz permit to see the rotation and this gravity in fact if we analyse differently this weakest quantum force.The violations of invariances of Lorents are intriguing when we work with mathematical détails.How can we utilise the imaginaries for the locality, this and that? I am understanding the multiverses like mirrors.It could be relevant to analyse the antimatter correlated with spherons(dark matter) and BH like a simple other sense of rotation for gravitation.It will permit to harmonise the multispheres with the uniqueness andd gravitation.If we violate T ,so we don't violate time but like entropy , gravitation and time are linked, so we can analyse it like irreversible but correlated with entropical gravity.Perhaps simply that quantum BH and spherons turn in opposite sese simple that our CPT symmetry.In all case all this can be imrpoved and detailed.Best Regards¨ps maths are relevant but physics is the chief orchestra.I love maths you know I class the primes now :) I cannot to class all .I beleive strongly that p-adics numbers can help for the serie of uniqueness, entropical gravitational stable encoding,they can permit to see the serie of spherical volumes from the main central sphere perhaps.Rzgards

Sky Leach

You lost me mate.

I'm just looking for a description that is predictive of quantum-physical outcomes. I'm doing it because it would be useful.

I'm not into the bigger philosophical picture. If I, or someone else, succeeds in creating a model that sufficiently describes the physics then I will be content to let others describe the metaphysical.

When I find that I must make an assumption in a predictive model, which happens with nearly any predictive model at some point, then I do so because it is a test. If the model works, the assumption might be true and becomes a hypothesis. If not, then it's one more idea that didn't work.

I'm just a simple kind of man.

Steve Agnew

I also am not a fan of the big bang...nor of the singularities that tie spacetime into that many knots of unknownable matter.

You want to make cosmic hydrogen appear from the nothing of space and therefore expand the universe. Good luck with that...

You might also consider making cosmic hydrogen disappear and therefore shrink the universe. Of course, a shrinking universe means that early galaxies are redder because because charge and gravity forces are lower in the early universe and not because the universe expands at all.

As long as there are a concerted changes in h, c, and alpha, a shrinking universe makes sense. As you note, this shrinkage (or expansion) is quite small and difficult to measure. In fact it is matter decays at -0.26 ppb/yr, but force increases at the same rate and so current precision is not quite there for measurement. However, precise measurements over many years will and actually do now show universe decay...very soon this will be measured as either a shrinkage or the expansion as you suggest.

There are many experiments now underway looking for the gravity Casmir effect, which measures the gravity of vacuum. If hydrogen appears from space, that would mean that space has gravity. Likewise, if matter decays into space, that would mean that space has antigravity and antimatter instead. However, if matter decays into space and gravity increases at the same rate, there will only be a second order change. In fact, there are now second order changes observed for alpha.

All objects have their own atomic time known as interval time. However, the universe is also an object and so the universe also has its own time called universe action time. In the big bang universe, these two clocks tick at the same rate relative to the CMB moving frame after inflation has patched up the early universe issues.

In the shrinking universe, atomic interval time ticks very slowly at the CMB as compared with universe action time. With two time dimensions, of course, there is no problem with an arrow of time. The universe action time is that arrow...

Steve Dufourny

Hello all,

Mr Agnew, I thought a little about the whole of the cosmologicalparameters.If we resume ,isotropy and the radius at the same time imply an homogenous universe.The pression, the volume,the density,the mass in increasing.,the acceleration decceleration towards maximum volume,th accel deccel towards the min vol......can be inserted with the friedmann-Lemaître equation with the vaccuum,the empty space.If we consider the curvature factor in spherical way in a closed evolutive system and that we consider that the empty does not really exist but is the dark matter(spherons E=mc²+ml²)and also that we consider that dark energy is simply a push opposite to gravitation, so we can see the spherisation with the max and min volumes.Now consider the spherons produce by BH and that this matter is the real gravittion,so we can see the system of spherisation,an evolution on an entropical irreversible arrowof time respecting CPT also.Now see my second equation mlosV=constant and so we see that the biggest BH the central sphere is the biggest volume after the universal evolutive sphere.This only one cosmological singularity where all codes come from creates the gravitational opposite push which will be balanced due to increasing matter so density.Two matters must be inserted, the baryonic matter Under the standard model and photons but also this darkmatter, the spherons not baryonic.The gravitation is explained because BH and dark matter encircle our standard model and these spherons are also encoded in nuclei like photons bosons.Now it could be interesting to analysethis dark energy correlated with the natural rotation of all sphères,quant and cosmol like a correlation with the rotation natural of this central sphere.See that with my équations the central cosmol singularity this biggest BH produces the speedest and smallest spherons.The universal sphere does not turn and the central sphere turns the slowest.All quantum stable serie so possesse also a singularity, the main central sphere.And this serie encodes bosons and spherons.The aethere seems gravitational.The cosmological constant with this dark energy can be improved if we consider an opposite gravity for the natural gravitation and spherisation.The two densities ,baryonic and not baryonic can be inserted with determinism.The spherical volumes and the primes seem the answer for the serie, primordial if I can say.The serie is the same at the two scales and finite ,the cosmol serie produce, the quant series encode.A constant must appear between all central sphères in fact.This reasoning could permit to see the real spherisation of the universal sphere.God like said Einsten does not play at dices after all.The informations come from this central cosmological BH,the bridge with this infinite entropy creating a physicality.....:)Regards from Belgium.

Steve Agnew

I must admit that spherons are way beyond me. The CMB provides the universe with its only absolute frame of reference and it moves at 99.9991% of c. You might say that the CMB movement is what defines c as just this side of the universe edge, which is aethertime.

However, the big bangers say that the CMB will go over the event horizon in another billion years or so along with a lot of the cosmic universe and so our descendants will not be able to figure out the universe at all since they will only have darkness.

Entropy is simply the log of the possible states and so entropy is easy as long as you can count states. In aethertime, dark matter is simply a consequence of star matter decay, which couples with other star matter decay. Since matter decay is the source of all force, star matter decay ends up as another force and so there is no dark matter. Dark energy is the same.

The universe runs on matter decay and the exchange of matter is what bonds objects together.