Indra's Net - Holomorphic Fundamentalness by Cristinel Stoica

If you do view my contest paper, it has reference#1

http://vixra.org/pdf/1709.0438v1.pdf

which has more wording on the relevant ideas wrt your mysical net than my highly-condensed contest paper. Figure A and pages 1 and 2 of the vixra paper show that I referred to braids (or universes) of three 4D colour dimensions and also referred to the braids as fibre optic cables. In some sense, these braids are analogous to fields whereas the jewels in the net are (to me, at least) analogous to particles.

To come clean, my earlier draft of the document referred to balls of wool rather than optic fibres and I even have carried some strands of red, green and blue wool in my brief case for several years. But I deleted reference to wool to avoid comments about wool-gathering, woolly ideas and dropped stitches in logic. A mystical net is a much more presentable analogy than a tangled, random hotch potch of three balls of wool.

My model is not mathematical but builds up SM particles using SM eigenvalues of fundamental properties. To do this one needs to gather the appropriate strands of coloured wool together, taking note to get the time directions of the strands correct, and tie them together using cotton to have the appropriate number and types of strands to make correct eigenvalues for whatever particle is being made. Repeat by making cotton ties for all particles in the block universe, or is that four block universes? In between particles we have strands of wool heading, as fields, forwards and backwards in time(s), to the next particle node, which demonstrates wave/particle/wave sequentiality. Likewise(?), in the mysical net the crystals reflect on each other.

Wrt free will, it all seems gridlocked to me with puritan predestination unfortunately predominating.

The cotton knots above imply particle decoherence to a point which to me seem like Penrose's CCC nodes, but for particles rather than universes. I wonder if the gridlock implies no free will across CCC cycles? That is, is the next CCC cycle already predetermined within the net?

In a way, these colour universes remind me of nearby galaxies in space but the colour universes are nearby (and interwoven) compactified universes. I suggested that our spacetime [say a brown universe] is emergent and the three colour universes are more fundamental, but that could be an observer effect and really they are all equal partners. In a red spacetime their particles could appear as interwoven strands of green, blue and brown wool and they could claim the red universe was emergent.

In a 16D block, is complex number algebra sufficient to allow analytic differentability to obtain probability amplitudes? Wrt being unhackable, distributing the mystical net data across four universes where each has its own 'spacetime' does seem a good way of protecting the data. One can only get probability densities in one's own (one of four) spacetime universe.

Best wishes

Austin

Just to clarify. I did say that at first I thought that your mystical net was an odd idea merely tacked on to your essay but somehow making it into the title. It took me five weeks to see how I could make it more prosaic by analogy to my own model. I personally am anti-mystic, anti-Tao-interpretation, anti-predestination, anti-theistic, anti-Bellist and anti everything which is not completely deterministic. Also I am anti the idea of having spacetime constructed of solid 'wires' just in the same way that I don't regard my path through spacetime as a continuous, solid wire. You introduced the mystic metaphor in this thread, not me.

Thanks greatly Cristi...

One thing of interest pops to mind. Following another thread; I found myself reading your paper on semi-regularizability of Schwarzschild singularities, and continuing the solution through the horizon. I immediately got excited to share that my model reveals a similar picture. Approaching the Misiurewicz point; a sequence of self-similar forms gets smaller in scale, and in reverse-mirror fashion reappear on the other side in increasing scale but in opposite phase!

This makes the Schwarzschild event horizon like a reverse mirror which mimics the information that strikes it but recreates it in opposite phase - which is what gives such a BH the appearance of a perfect black-body. One can make a circuit diagram analogy as well; the inverting feedback amplifier commonly used in op-amp circuits. The virtual ground or earth created by the amplitude null that appears at the summing junction would therefore appear like the Schwarzschild EH, as shown in the diagram attached.

All the Best,

JonathanAttachment #1: 2_MandelAmp2.jpg

As i am not competent to enquire and seek further details on your excellent essay.But may i request you to see a manuscript i have just attached on my essay title ' Inconstancy of the Physical Constants.....' May i just request you to spare sometime to look at that manuscript as i desire your response to the same to continue my thinking in such a matter further!

Cristi,

Every essay contest, when I see your entry, it goes towards the top of my list, for you always have something enlightening to say. I know nothing about Indra's Net, will look into it for context here.

I wish you would have gotten into more detail on what your expectations were for holomorphic functions for Geometric Algebras over the field of complex numbers across dimensions.

My interest is Octonion Algebra, where there are seven complex subalgebras. If the Cauchy-Riemann equations were applied for all, every irrotational field component in their expected form would be identically zero, which just would not do if one wants to cover Electrodynamics and Gravitation with potential functions.

You mentioned to Geoffrey Dixon some apparent belief one would need non-associative Physics to justify use of a generally non-associative Algebra such as Octonion Algebra. I think he came back with the quip it is a feature and not a bug. This is true, and it is required to allow it to be a division algebra. Nature is not saying use Octonion Algebras only if you have non-associative physics, since really it spans multiplicative associative, non-associative, commutative and non-commutative properties intrinsically, and not only spans but precisely tells us how they play together in the greater whole of the full complement of basis products. Nature is more likely telling us Octonion analysis can go where essentially matrix based associative algebras like tensor and spinors can't go, with little to no limitations going the other way.

If you get a chance, look at my essay, it is called "Truth".

Rick

Hi Cristi,

"The entire state of the universe is therefore encoded in a single class of germs."

Is there a least germ? (There is, In Indra's Pearls.)

A wonderful, imaginative essay! My essay here.

All best,

Tom

Christi,

I think that Fundamentalness is something which we can investigate systematically as scientists but not as the poets...

My modest attempt is made in essay entitled as "Fundamentalness of Homochirality".

Thank you for essay

Michael A.Popov

Professor Stoica,

[First my pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt ] The positives for your essay are:

-- This is one of the best and most accurate quick summaries of both the basics and the edges of particle physics that I've seen. You manage to get to Clifford algebras in just a few pages, and to do so in a way that I think gives general readers a fighting chance to follow your points and arguments.

-- Your knowledge of the underlying physics and math appears to be both precise and well-researched, though I admit I did not try to check up on a few assertions with which I was less familiar. But your expertise is persuasive, and you clearly know what you are talking about.

-- I admit it: I really liked that you went towards geometries and topics such as Clifford algebras towards the end of your essay, rather than taking the Deep Dive into the Planck world that is so common these days even after 40 years of abject failure. That to me says you are facing the problem in a clear and thoughtful way.[1]

----------

Negatives for your essay:

-- I was really looking forward to seeing where you were going with your holomorphic (holographic?) Indra's net idea. But alas, your essay seemed to keep deferring that part in favor of summarizing the history of particle physics, until Indra's net became just a page of mostly definitions and assertions at the end.[3] Since I pretty much "got" your holographic encoding idea way back when I first read your title and subtitle, the paragraphs defining what you meant didn't really add much, at least for me.

-- You did at least take a good shot at justifying why an essay on your particular concept for unifying physics was "sort of" an explanation of what fundamental means, which of course was the real question of this essay contest. But for comparison you might want to take a look at the superbly on-target essay by Crowther, topic 3034.

----------

Thanks again for a really nice read! I am already planning to keep a copy of your essay in my library, and to explore all those summary points you made in more detail.

Cheers,

Terry Bollinger (topic 3099)

--------------------

[1] I am not much impressed by any version of Planck-level physics, either quantum gravity or its offshoot of string theory, mostly because Planck level physics postulates energy levels that likely do not exist anywhere in the real universe, which in turn means they are not subject even in principle to validation or falsification.

Also, there is this problem that at the Planck limit everything sort of falls apart in ways that make almost anything possible, just as in logic you can prove anything from a false premise. For example, if in string theory you accept the pathetically procedurally incorrect (ask any mathematician) assertion that 1+2+3+...=-1/12, well, pretty much anything can follow mathematically from that point on. Even worse is what happened in 1974, when Scherk and Schwartz [2] took the Deep Dive from real, genuinely interesting, highly constrained hadron-sized string-like vibrations (see Regge trajectories) down to Planck level of gravitons, based solely as best I can tell on the observation that these hadron vibrations were spin 2, just like the hypothetical graviton.

That had to be one of the least justified and most unscientific leaps of theoretical faith of all time, but quantum gravity was "in" at the time, so the Deep Leap was accepted almost without question. And the result? Well, the string-like vibrations at the hadron level were incredibly constrained and likely (research was mostly abandoned) led to no more than a handful of solutions. By removing all such silly experimental-reality-based constraints and upping everything else -- energies and dimensions for example -- to the max, the placid low-energy strings of the hadron scale became little unleashed monster capable of absolutely anything, including the 10500 minimum estimate of the number of vacuum states possible in string theory. S&S's deep leap of faith ended up distracting generations of good minds away from real, experimentally attached physics, and plunged them instead into the utterly unverifiable and magically malleable mind-muck of the Planck limit.

Other than all of that, I like quantum gravity and string theory just fine... :)

----------

[2] Scherk, J. & Schwarz, J. H. Dual Models for Non-Hadrons Nuclear Physics B, Elsevier, 1974, 81, 118-144.

----------

[3] I still think you have a really interesting idea going on there. You may just that you may need more time developing it. I noticed that you did mention the holographic principle in your very last sentence, while carefully avoiding the word "strings". Since I do not personally think that string theory per se is even relevant to the mostly geometric holographic principle, perhaps your future directions in this area could end up defining a version of the holographic principle that is not needlessly tied to the perplexing paradoxes of Planck level physics. That would be nice, since I strongly believe that the link between string theory and the general concept of a holographic universe is not much more than an accident of people and timing.

Dear Cristi:

I fully agree with your conclusion - "And there is no need for a mechanism to unfold the state of the universe out of the germ, since the germ already contains everything that happens in the universe, including the observer experiencing separation in space and the flow of time. .....No additional mechanism is needed to unfold the germ, unfolding itself is part of the enfolded."

The fundamental wholesome reality of the universe can be represented without an explicit notion of separated space-time. The same conclusion is unfolded in my paper - "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light". that describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell's theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The manuscript not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Thanks Cristi, here's the skinny version...

Are you familiar with Steven Carlip's ideas on spontaneous dimensional reduction? He claims it is a generic feature of a broad class of theories. Seeing this same behavior; I assert that the Misiurewicz points in M teach us about dimensional reduction, with the specific point of focus in my recent work being the one location that appears to model pure gravity (and which turns out to have exact analytical solutions).

Accordingly; this point displays an analogy with Schwarzschild horizons, but also with BEC formation. At various times when studying that spot, varying the algorithm to reveal hidden details; I saw a clear resemblance to one or the other but was reluctant to make a linkage. Since discovering the recent paper by Dvali and Gomez, and follow ups; I've found a lot of work presses that BH event horizon/quantum critical point analogy. So I am now running with that.

Thanks for your curiosity, JJD

Hello again Cristi,

I hope you notice the hidden remark above answering your question 'how does this work?' in relation to the continuation of solutions through the horizon. I briefly explained the Misiurewicz point analogy. I have just learned too, from Bill McHarris, of a recent paper by Susskind treating gravity as a phenomenon of quantum chaos, which appears to have a strong analogy to the work I am presenting in my essay. This paper builds on other work by Shanker, Maldacena, and others on a quantum chaotic limit. It obviously ties in with the progression to chaos in the logistic map as I reference relating to M.

All the Best,

Jonathan