Aims and Intention from Mindful Mathematics: The Encompassing Physicality of Geometric Clifford Algebra by Michaele Suisse

Dear Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron,

Congratulations on a superb essay on a most valuable topic.

While I do not believe sentience "emerged", nor do I believe that wave functions 'collapse', nevertheless I very much believe that you are 100% correct about geometrical algebra:

"A certain profundity to ... the interaction algebra of fundamental geometric objects - point, line, plane, and volume elements - of our own physical space."

Recall that Einstein said there is no space absent of field. Vishwakarma takes this as the basic postulate to develop general relativity. So I believe that the gravitational field essentially 'defines' space and time, and clearly Hestenes Space-time Algebra is its most powerful formulation. Thus, when Wheeler says:

"There's nothing in the world except empty curved space. Matter, charge, electromagnetism and other fields are only manifestations of the curvature of space"

I believe he is mistaken. Empty space doesn't exist. The curvature is inherent in the fields that define space. I believe you are correct to state that "a satisfactory model will ultimately require fundamental objects corresponding to the full three dimensions of physical space."

Feynman, Thirring, Weinberg and others have shown that one can begin with Minkowski space (weak-field theory) and iteratively 'bootstrap' to the full non-linear Einstein's equation. Conversely, one can linearize GR to work in Minkowski space. They therefore are equivalent. The 'curved space-time' is equivalent to a field-density-based flat space. The Equivalence Principle fails when tidal effects or rotation cannot be ignored. If Minkowski-with-fields is mathematically equivalent to 'empty curved space-time, but physically more realistic, then you are surely correct in your 3D approach.

Your figure 3 is fascinating. I'll check out your papers. You might also enjoy a recent paper of mine: The Nature of Quantum Gravity.

And your figure 4 is fantastic! Thanks. Another must read paper.

I fully agree that "At root the confusion arises from modeling electron and quarks as point particles."

We overlap in our models. I view the wave function as deBroglie-Bohm, i.e., physically real. The Born probability interpretation derives from the Partition function. 'Superposition' is a probability concept, 'collapsing' to the actual state. 'Interference' is a physical phenomenon, the interaction of real fields of the wave function.

I hope you enjoy my essay, and feel like responding to it. But in any case, as far as spreading the good word about Geometric Algebra, I feel like we're with Jake and Elwood, "on a mission from God".

My best wishes and good luck in the contest,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Michaele Suisse,

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 Suisse,

Your ideas and thinking about History of Mathematics and Wavefuction are excellent for eg...

' It appears that only with such an approach, with a geometric wave function, can the foundational contentions of It appears that only with such an approach, with a geometric wave function, can the foundational contentions of the quantum interpretations community be resolved. It seems that such a resolution is essential to permit one to begin to coherently address the much more subtle emergence of sentience from the interactions of wavefunctions. the quantum interpretations community be resolved. It seems that such a resolution is essential to permit one to begin to coherently address the much more subtle emergence of sentience from the interactions of wavefunctions.'

A Good idea, I fully agree with you............

..................... I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at the essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

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 Pete & Michaele,

I very much enjoyed reading your essay - it was a treat to read some intriguing physics written in the right language, that being geometric algebra. Thanks, Pete, for pointing me to it. I gave up grabbing lines I agreed with, but here are three:

* Appearance over nearly a century of growing numbers of quantum interpretations demonstrates the lack of proper physical understanding of fundamental phenomena.

* Phase is not a single measurement observable

* There is no role for an observer within coherent quantum systems, within a wavefunction.

Yay, yay, yay say I! And for a [apparently very compatible] distributed computation type view, others readers too might want to check out my version of the story in my essay Causality & Teleology.

-Mike Manthey

Peter,

I must say that I am very disappointed. You made the following post in my forum:

"Several of the contributions to our contest are in that geometric language, including those of Michael Manthey Manthey FQXi essay and Michaele Suisse Suisse FQXi essay."

I was expecting an essay that actually used GA rather than simply one that describes its potential application to Physics. If Physics were about writing essays then I would give you a 10. The essay is elegant. However, Physics is not about essays. Physics is about making correct calculations and making testable predictions. Your essay has neither. This is particularly disappointing since you are presumably competent in the use of GA.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

the only thing i can conclude from your comment is that you didn't understand what you read. The algebra of the physicist's S-matrix of figure 3 is GA. The wavefunction is comprised of the fundamental geometric objects of the geometric Clifford algebra of 3D space - one scalar, three vectors, three bivectors, and one trivector. This is pure Hestenes from his 1966 book, Spacetime Algebra, very basic stuff.

Similarly, if one models interactions by taking the geometric products of wavefunctions, that yields a 4D Dirac algebra of flat Minkowski spacetime. Again this is basic spacetime algebra.

If you take a look at this paper co-authored with Michaele Suisse

"Geometry and Fields: Illuminating the Standard Model from Within"

you might find it a little easier to see the connection between the math and the physics.

Pete

Peter,

Many thanks for the attempted clarification.

Allow me to clarify what I mean by the words "calculation" and "testable prediction".

In my essay, I calculated the diameter of the proton from first principles using quaternions combined with the wave equations. The calculated value is within roughly 1% of the value produced from measurement using muonic hydrogen.

The above calculation was based upon an apparent coincidence concerning the mass ratio between the proton and the electron. There was a tiny deviation in the value that required explanation. That led me to what I presented as Equation 2. It is a variation of the aether idea. It is testable but not as direct relative motion but rather in the effect upon the Mp/Me ratio.

This is my understanding of physics. Hypothesis, prediction, experiment. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I have read your essay three times now and my opinion is not changed. It is elegant. The history of the development of the ideas is accurate. Clifford's early death set the field back 100 years or so ... no doubt. The tables you present are quite nice and capture all the major ideas presently known. Again ... a very nice, elegant essay.

BUT ..... the closest you come to presenting any GA is in the second paragraph on page 3. Using vectors and quaternions, the first term should be the negative dot product and the second term should be the cross product.

What I was hoping to see was a masterful presentation beginning with a GA version of ... oh, let's say the Maxwell Equations followed by some manipulations to produce something interesting and unique that could be clearly identified with some measureable, physical entity ..... I'm sure that you can see my disappointment.

So, if you're going to tell me that you have an essay written in the language of GA then you need to actually use some GA. I do appreciate the extensive list of references though and yes, I have a copy of one of Hestenes books.

BTW, the last two community scores that I received were a one and a three. One of them was from you. Rather than raising me from a 4.3 to a 4.8 as you claim, the last vote lowered me from a 5.0 to a 4.8 ... it was a one. Thus far, I have received 5 scores of one and 3 scores of two ... all given with no comments. Therefore, 40% of my votes are strictly down votes. So, perhaps you can excuse my annoyance. BTW, I scored you with a one:-) Perhaps one day FQXi will alter the scoring rules.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

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

This essay deserves better..

It is actually one of the best, in terms of writing quality and the quality of the idea presented, so I must assume that people simply don't understand what they are reading, or its significance. A colleague was talking to me just the other day about the incompleteness of Dirac's matrix treatment, and in Fig. 3 you show how this may be amended to show possibilities nature allows while Dirac (and many others) would have missed it. Good work. I'm guessing most folks don't even see that's a significant observation.

I'm also guessing a difficulty people have is unfamiliarity with Grassman's prescription that we consider geometric primitives on an equal footing - a point and line for example - since most were taught that points define or comprise a line, so they must be somehow more primal elements. In a simplicial manifold, the vertices, connecting lines, and resulting surface are all equally real. But the equal basis of geometric elements is important to the GA program, and is part of what gives it it's power. It is a bit peculiar however, to approach things that way, so it will only look right to more Math literate people.

More later,

Jonathan

Oh it seems also..

Most who have read this didn't even see that a GA-informed look at QM admits a range of mechanisms by which consciousness and intentionality can enter the picture we would not see otherwise. Again; good work. I hope a few more notice this paper, who can actually appreciate it, before the bell is called.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Interesting and thought-provoking essay, even though I am not quite sure, whether it is very closely related to the main theme of the essay contest.

Jarmo Mäkelä