Superdeterminism at the Planck scale by james r. akerlund

Dear Mr. Akerlund

Your essay is very interesting and important. I think that the theory of Big Bang is wrong, but that's not the point. The point is that the transcendent mathematical constant pi is key to understanding the universe.

Discovered mathematical constant e, 2pi ... and in my essay exp (2pi), formula (17), governing the universe. Then, if somebody says that is all determined by mathematics, I remind him, pi is a transcendent number. Thus, the irrationality of mathematical and physical constants makes Indeterminism. So, you just read essay of Mr. Akerlund.

Regardes,

Branko

Dear james R. Akerlund,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Nice essay Mr Akerlund,

You have a nice and rare Super determination, to go to other Universes... wonderful. May God give His best blessings for that......

Your poem and thinking are excellent. I was also like that. I wanted to pursue my hobby in Physics so invested my spare time in this Dynamic Universe Model for the last 30 /35 years.

Some of your words are very nice but not limited to these given below.....

1. Putting on your underwear (A) before the pants (B) is not the same as putting on your pants (B) then putting on your underwear (A), or A+B тЙа B+A. Noncommunitive also includes A*B тЙа B*A.

2. To be a superdeterminist, you are saying the universe has no genuine chance and free will does not exist. We are of the opinion that free will only happens about six times a day for a human, and most of those are hidden from us, but that isn't the subject of this paper.

............ In my feeling multiverses are not there. In the Macro world we see only one history, but I don't know about Quantum Mechanics.

Here I am proposing a fundamental property of Universe. It is reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe. As you are interested in fundamental questions , I request you to please have a look on my essay with a different type of fundamental ideology...

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

Hi James,

Seeing your abstract, after reading your comments on my page, gives me insight into why you might write what you did. Are you aware about recent papers by Hyun Seok Yang? I have not read your paper yet, so he may be one of your references. I apologize if some of my commentary is impertinent, but I will re-post my reply to your comments on my page below. Then I'll promise to read your essay before long.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I am compelled to respond to this..

While I am not a great fan of String Theory; I admit its value and I think it's part of the total picture we must examine, but it is a smaller piece of the puzzle than some believe. I am a friend of Brian Greene and I have met Ed Witten, but I am more in the camp of Abhay Ashtekar, in regards to how the Strings program fits into the overall spectrum of gravitational Physics, at least. I had the pleasure to sit with him, during a few lectures at GR21, and he shows a genuine interest to make use of every advancement, regardless from what camp it comes. I figure there is something behind the fact that regularities appear, when various theories of Quantum Gravity make similar predictions, despite having a completely different theoretical basis.

I admit the 'Math predates universe..' idea is a little hard to swallow, and the idea that it also dictates both the laws of Physics that shape the universe, and that there be an evolution of form and consciousness within that universe makes my premise ambitious indeed. But I think Max Tegmark did not go nearly far enough, in his MUH. Connes is emphatic about features of NCG that have no parallel in conventional Maths. Kainen in correspondence has endorsed my usage, and was flattered to be mentioned with Connes. I had my doubts until recently, as well. But my conversation with Tevian affirmed that these are complications that must be dealt with.

After a discovery I made more than 30 years ago, suggesting the Mandelbrot Set could be a sort of road map for Cosmology; I have tried in vain to disprove this, and instead I have settled on the idea that the universe is maximally mathematical. While trying to understand why the universe would mimic the Mandelbrot Set, or vice versa, I came to understand it is only one piece of the puzzle - which like E8 can tell us a lot about the universe. Seeing how far Garrett Lisi was able to take it, but that more was needed, got me to thinking. But my collaboration with (now departed) Ray Munroe was the clincher for me.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Just a query to go...

Do you ever draw 7-color maps on your donuts in the morning Jim?

All the Best,

Jonathan

Having read your essay..

I like the idea you have developed, but this essay is obviously talking about work in progress. I find it interesting that you have used a coined term noncommunitive, but you are talking about something similar to what Connes is talking about in some of his non-commutative geometry work. You hint at what I talked about with Tevian Dray, that led to my essay on Putting Elephants to Work. What he affirmed is what I said about spacetime becoming first non-commutative and then non-associative as we approach the Planck scale. This does create a condition bordering on super-determinism.

However; you have erred in some of the details, even though your core message is essentially right, to a point where it requires additional research on your part to correct. What you need to know is out there, but there are a lot of missing puzzle pieces in the picture you are assembling, and your unconventional usage or coined terminology prevents this from being digested in a rigorous way. It still needs work or is a work in progress, and I will rate it accordingly, but I give you kudos for some interesting explorations. Thanks James.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Given what your essay concludes..

You may wish to check out the essay of Andrew Beckwith, who comes to a similar conclusion through different means. His derivation is highly technical, but if correct would affirm the spirit of your work. I would also greatly recommend you check out Hyun Seok Yang on arXiv, for papers about emergent spacetime, which assert that being non-commutative in the microscale equals emergent spacetime.

Enjoy,

Jonathan

Hi James, Very interesting approach of the Planck Wall.

I think that the "deterministic" or even "superdeterministic" effect from behind (what I call Total Simultaneity) is emerging becaus we only can compare the past.

I also use the Planck Wall as a limit of reality, so I hope that you will find some time to comment my essay "The Purpose of Life" and give it a rating.

I do not understand the "authors" just giving ONE's without any comment, untill now I received already 5 !!!. So be prepared!!! I rated you very positive because of the new thoughts that I learned.

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Hello Mr Arkelund,

I must say that I liked a lot your approach of this non commutative planck scale.Very relevant.

Good luck in this contest

Best

Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

James Akerlund,

Thank you so much for leaving a comment on my essay thread. It brought to light a distinction between mathematics and information I had not fully communicated. I take them as separate entities. Certainly the number of abstract objects and their relationships are extensive and indeed infinite. However I consider information as something physical; contained within the negentropy of the universe. I agree with you that the physical evolution of the universe proceeds through numbered states. However, the number six might not be an eigenstate. The Universe may have jumped from 4 to 8. But that does not rule out six as a valid abstract object. I believe the abstract objects are there whether we look for them or not. Our concept of Euclidian geometry, which can be derived by logic from an underlying subset of relationships in the ARM, represents an excellent first-order mapping of our physical reality. Space time is non-Euclidean, not because we ask it to be but because it more closely maps to abstract mathematical structures of higher complexity. Does the color of your grass map to topology? Yes it does, but not completely. At the most fundamental level, the topology of the causal lattice determines the nature of electromagnetic vibrations that impinge upon the objects that we subjectively experience as the qualia of color. Color is an emergent phenomenon that occurs within the consciousness of any sentient being with color receptors. But that qualia owes its attributes (hue, saturation and brightness) to their supervenience on a long chain of emergent physical structures which owe their commanding form to the abstract relationships in the underlying emergent structures in the ARM. We certainly cannot explain color by topology alone but we cannot fully explain color without it. As all of mathematics seems to be based on set theory, it would be hard to give an example anywhere in nature were set theory does not apply.

Best regards,

Jim Stanfield