The orthomodular lattice is like classical logic defined by ~25 axioms. It is a skeleton that can get many realizations. Each separable Hilbert space features a set of closed subspaces and this set has exactly the lattice structure of the orthomodular lattice. This the elements of the orthomodular lattices are represented by closed subspaces. Together these subspaces span the whole separable Hilbert space.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project#Relational_structures
Hi Hans...
Thanks for the links!!!
Apparently your model does not emerge from a single Origin Point Source of Energy.
I am therefor unable to bridge the gap from the Spatial minimum unit of Energy (QE) concept which I derive from the Spherical Origin Singularity of the UQS lattice... i.e. lattice of M4 Orthomodule of type:h=w quantization... to your more complex generalized lattice concepts of Energy.
However, the more I examine your lattice approach to "Structure in Reality", the more I am convinced that complex generalized concepts of Energy derived from a lattice quantized by an M4 Orthomodule of type: h=w, will eventually bridge to the UQS minimum unit of Energy (QE), and you have developed some "foundational" lattice concepts that may apply to the resolve of minimum quanta of Energy (QE) distribution, as I move outward, pulse by pulse, from the UQS Origin Singularity with my digital Emission SIMulation.
Thanks for sharing what is obviously a lifetime of work and dedication!!!
Respectfully,
S. Lingo
UQS Author/Logician
www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com
Hi Hans van Leunen
Sue Lingo wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 02:04 GMT said ..."Your initial statement "The name physical reality is used to display the universe with everything that exists and moves therein." is appreciated as a attempt to clarify semantic interpretive errors... but what fundamentally constitutes Physical?... motion??"
I am thinking of giving "Gravity" as possible answer for the cause of motion ... in your essay "Structure in Reality" dear Hans van Leunen..... Whay do you say?
By the way I highly appreciate your essay and hope and request you please spend some of your valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :
-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 GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied
Best
=snp
Dear Hans,
Your essay is well written, and I like that you approach the structure in reality. In particular the hierarchy of various mathematical structures one in top of another that you illustrate in the Hilbert Book Model is very close to how mathematicians view the things. Another thing I appreciate is your emphasis on Birkhoff's and von Neumann's quantum logic, and on quaternions, which seem to arise in the most diverse places in physics. I wish you good luck with the contest!
Best regards,
Cristi,
I thank you for your nice comment.
I do not claim copyright for my documents. So you can use what you want. The pdf files that occur at http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen will also occur as docx files on my website http://www.e-physics.eu .
Greathings,
Hans, retired physicist
Another remark,
The orthomodular lattice emerges into a structure. That structure can archive dynamic geometric data. However, that structure does not hint at the origin of dynamics and to the fact that this dynamics is rather coherent. It appears that stochastic processes generate the hop landing locations and that the characteristic functions of these processes ensure the coherence of the dynamics. The fact that this characteristic function equals the Fourier transform of the location density distribution of the hop landings indicates that universe is controlled via quaternionic "holomorphic" means.
In odd dimensions, quaternionic functions feature impulse responses that are shock fronts. The spherical shock fronts integrate into a Green's function.
Dear Satyavarapu,
Most of these claims require the support of a foundation from which these claims can be derived.
Most claims are quite a high level. It will be a hell of a job to derive them from fundamentals.
The gravitation field represents our living space. It is coupled to the electromagnetic field via the geometric centers of the platforms on which the elementary particles reside. The two fields differ fundamentally in their start and boundary conditions. Still, they both obey the same basic differential equations.
Our living space embeds the elementary particles and this embedding deforms our living space. The elementary particles inherit their electric charges, color charges and spin from the platform on which they reside.
Since the platforms couple the two fields in a very intimate way the "electromagnetic radiation DOES NOT PASS grazingly near gravitating mass".
Elementary particles are elementary modules. Together they constitute all other modules that exist in the universe. Some of the modules constitute modular systems.
Dear Hans,
Thank you for your reply...
...............Your observation...............
Most of these claims require the support of a foundation from which these claims can be derived.
Most claims are quite a high level. It will be a hell of a job to derive them from fundamentals.
.............. Reply..........
They are not claims, they are sort of assumptions of Dynamic Universe Model.... Based physical observational data in the universe
................your observation..........
The gravitation field represents our living space. It is coupled to the electromagnetic field via the geometric centers of the platforms on which the elementary particles reside. The two fields differ fundamentally in their start and boundary conditions. Still, they both obey the same basic differential equations.
Our living space embeds the elementary particles and this embedding deforms our living space. The elementary particles inherit their electric charges, color charges and spin from the platform on which they reside.
Since the platforms couple the two fields in a very intimate way the "electromagnetic radiation DOES NOT PASS grazingly near gravitating mass".
.............. Reply..........
Why not, Many experiments were conducted alredy for the last 100 years....You are confusing probably, Shall I say Light rays?
................your observation..........
Elementary particles are elementary modules. Together they constitute all other modules that exist in the universe. Some of the modules constitute modular systems.
.............. Reply..........
I did not understand your point.... Please clarify....
Best
=snp
Dear Hans
Dynamic Universe Model is totally based on experimental results or observations only.... They are not claims, based on observations.... any one can verify....
Predictions are on mathematically derived.... Many came true, This one is new...
Best
=snp
Dear Fellow Essayists
This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Hans,
I do hope you may look at my complex sequence and advise if you think quaternions may apply & help express it. (It's rather like Diracs QM equation with 2 pairs orthogonally inverse).
Yes I still enjoy student interaction. In August with a Delft student crew I won a Race from UK to France, discussing physics much of the way, and the 6 inertial frames we were dealing with (4 evolving); Earth-centric, Sea Bed, Water, Ambient Air ('wind'), accelerated air flow, Boat. 'Apparent Wind' is a critical concept.
I assume you can't reconcile Alan Kadin's 'no Hilbert Space' comment?
Very best
Peter
Joe,
The Hilbert Book Model tells a different story.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project or
The Incredible Story About the Reality; http://vixra.org/abs/1801.0033
Hans
Good to hear from you again Hans!
Interesting - and short - read. I agree that a discussion (only) of fundamentals should be kept short!
I see that you are still very interested in Hilbert's work (e.g. Hilbert's Program) and of course Hilbert Space. I once gave a talk at MathFest 2011 on this general subject. I must then point out that his definition of completeness is not considerable, but that "consistency" is crucial. So in many ways we must consider Takeuti's proof that a consistent mathematical system must be finitary.
This opens up the discussion to include representation theory.
It is not at all clear to me what sort of finite particle a quaternion algebra might represent, though. And whether the formulation (or geometry) is causal. But it is clear that the No-Boundary Wave Function is causal and its variables easily assigned to finite-geometric metrics.
Feel free to investigate these fundamental ideas further
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092
best,
Wayne
Hans,
You cogently and economically describe a "Structure in Reality." You paint a vivid picture of a creator leaving us alone in the words: "After the creation, the creator leaves his creatures alone." My concern is that those elementary particles we have discovered might not include dark matter and dark energy, that is if they really exist. I like the way you have concisely put together this imagined dynamic creation on a bed of Hilbert space. Worthy of a good score.
Good luck.
Jim Hoover
James,
Please read "Nature's Basic Dark Quanta", http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0241
Hans
"The requirement that experiments must verify everything is sound-ready crap. Much of the physical reality is inaccessible to measurement. In that case, deduction remains the only way of approach."
I agree, this is undoubtedly true although many people find it more convenient to deny it. Thanks for an excellent essay. My only criticism is that it is a little too short.
Philip,
I combined a few papers in "Structure in Physical Reality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0086 which is a 10-page document. Further, https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project contains all details of the project and that comprises the mathematics, which is applied by the Hilbert Book Model.
Dear Hans,
I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.
It is so close to me. «From the ground up. The other way suggests the existence of a potential candidate for the foundation of physical reality. The method supposes that this foundation has such a simple structure that intelligent people have already added this structure as an interesting structure to the list of discovered structures. For them, there existed no need to seek the foundation of reality».
I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
Dear Hans, ...(copied to your and mine)
Thank you very much for your attention and explanations.
I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
Hans,
I hope you get to read and comment on mine as I did yours. I'd value your assessment, but if you do so please read the last half carefully to reconstruct the classical mechanism.
I generally manage to ensure I assess & score all who do so on mine. Hope yours get into the finalist group.
Very best.
Peter
