Space and Time, Geometry and Fields: An Historical Essay on the Fundamental and its Physical Manifestation by Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron

Peter and Michaele,

Now I remember you folks from the last contest. Did we learn something about one-bombing? BTW, I did not criticize your mathematics. I stated that you did not include any mathematics in your essay. That was an accurate statement. In any event, I don't hold a grudge:-)

This is an excellent essay. It is As good as your previous one I'll say. I was able (I think) to understand roughly 75% of your content despite the fact that I have little education in Physics other than two semesters in college (basics plus Maxwell). I was generally not able to understand the material in Figure 8 since I know VERY little about particle Physics. I do like the idea of a coherence length though.

If I understand your main point correctly, you argue that interactions are fundamental and that they are governed by the ability to exchange energy and information. You also argue that this ability is limited by the properties of the vacuum.

It is very interesting to me that you verbalize many of my own non-verbal thoughts. You speak of a geometric wave-function and I propose Equation 4. You propose that space-time is the result of the interaction between electrons and positrons and I propose Equations 5, 5.1, and 5.2. You state that the behavior of the vacuum is determined by five parameters. I argue that the vacuum has five dimensions. (Perhaps this is simply a coincidence or perhaps it is a clue. I don't know for certain and neither do you. I suggest that you be less eager to dismiss things as numerology.) You mention the eight component Pauli wave-function and Equation 4 expands to eight components. (Again, this is possibly a coincidence or it could perhaps be more.)

The discussion of the historical development of these concepts is useful to me in particular since I have little knowledge of those things. The essay by Eckard Blumschein was also very beneficial for me. You did not mention the battle in 1895 between the Grassmann faction and the Hamilton faction.

BTW, how do you orient a volume element? Doesn't that require a "vector" that is perpendicular to the three vectors that produce the volume element? I think of that as a scalar instead.

You indirectly mention the "shut-up and calculate" mentality without even realizing that you do so. All in all, it sounds to me like Physicists need to study some Electrical Engineering. Engineers have to study Physics to learn the rules. Perhaps Physicists should study a little Engineering to learn the practicalities?

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Gary - thanks for the good thoughts, much appreciate the opportunity to share.

a brief aside - Does your comment appear properly formatted on your screen? On mine it seems all the carriage returns have been taken out and replaced by the letter 'n'. Have seen this elsewhere as well, in both the same and slightly differents contexts. A bug floating around somewhere, my impression so far is it enters via the fqxi gui. Broken links there work when accessed directly from chrome, and at the same time this phenomenon arose this formatting bug appeared.

Pasted that to Brendan, perhaps he has had other reports.

re the math, but of course the math is there, all that is needed to do the physics. One is required to take the geometric product of two Pauli algebras, of two Pauli wavefunctions. That gives the geometric structure of the physicist's S-matrix. Having the history is essential to the understanding. Perhaps to your mathematician's mind that doesn't qualify as 'doing the math', no argument here with such a view. Just took what I needed for the, nothing more. Have vague idea what quaternions and octonions are, but never played with them, so no real sense. So far don't see the need for the physics I want to do. Which is mostly condensed matter at this point. Practical stuff. Quantum impedance matching in quantum computing. So far mainstream appears to still be ignoring this, tho one never knows. No different than classical, gotta match to get the bits to move.

Brings to mind your mention of Hamilton/Grassman dispute. New to me, thanks for this. Got a good url?

imo your basics plus Maxwell is all you need to understand what Michaele and I are doing. It is just geometry plus fields. You have the geometric algebra, and the fields are just E and B. No connections in your head to undo.

gotta pause, gonna post and run. Will come back to eqns 4, 5, 5.1, 5.2,...

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the above information and links to info on your approach to impedance. I will try to understand it.

Special relativity means different things to different people (I know this from a year of discussions). In your opinion light is to define a 'preferred' reference frame. I cannot believe this makes sense in reality, and as I point out, the nonsense flows from space-time symmetry [i.e., light as 'preferred' frame] and vanishes with energy-time asymmetry.

You're also of the opinion that one needs to understand quantum gravity to appreciate your point. You claim to understand quantum gravity, yet I have an understanding that I'm sure differs from yours. I have a GA-based theory of gravity that leads to the field equations and also to the Klein-Gordon equation and other equations. Like you, I think there is much to be gained from re-formulating physics in terms of geometric algebra.

For many I talked with last year, the first statement that they disagree with tends to shut them down, rather than try to understand how their belief may be reinterpreted. Although quantum mechanics has probably a dozen interpretations, almost all of which yield exactly the same calculations, there is surprising resistance to a re-interpretation of special relativity that makes sense but differs from the received wisdom. I'm disappointed that you "didn't dig into the remainder of the paper", but with 200 essays it's hard to study them all.

I'm fairly knowledgeable about GA and I do not see an E8-type assignment of GA product terms to the standard model as meaningful, so we do agree on the significance of GA, but not on all physics. I'm glad you are happy to hear about John W. Arthur's "Understanding geometric algebra for electromagnetic theory". I suggest after you read this book you may wish to reread my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi peter cameron

Nice addressing of history of geometric Algebra, interpretation of Clifford algebra and generalization of impedance quantization ..... The resulting geometric wavefunction model permits one to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent..... very good... By the way...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....You may please spend some of the 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

Peter,

Nice job in explaining the important fundamental errors hiding the fundamental truths we've discussed before. Sadly it's still unlikely the gatekeepers of doctrine will slap their foreheads and say 'Doh! ..Yes ..of course!' but how even a hint of that's achieved I really wish I knew!

I confess I'm still not familiar enough with that side of physics but now suspect our work may have a lot closer connections than I'd realized. I describe an ontological mechanism for EM wave interactions with fermions which successfully (are you sitting down?!) seems to precisely reproduce QM's predictions classically. A way to unify QM with SR then reveals itself. So of course I have the same problem as you!

I wonder if a combined description may be more powerful. I'd need you to look closely, ask any questions, and and give me a view. Gordon Watson's essay is consistent and Declan Traill's provides the matching computer code and plot.

Your correctness fundamentality, import and rigorous argument mean I have yours down for a high score. Very well done. I hope you agree the same of mine.

Very best of luck in the contest and looking forward to discussing.

Peter

Peter,

I completely lack the formal education in physics and electrical engineering to do more that intuit your essay. That said, I do sense some essential agreement with one of my more elementary observations; That energy and form(as in everything from math to mass) are opposite sides of the same coin. Energy as medium and form as message. such that while there is not platonic realm of information/math, any dynamic is going to manifest form.

As I've observed elsewhere, the basic premise of geometry as dimensionless form is self negating, as it is a multiple of zero. A dimensionless point is no more extant than a dimensionless apple, but insisting on some infinitesimal dimensionality creates more conceptual problems, so, as pure abstraction, it is more efficient to make it dimensionless. As such, though, it becomes message without a medium. Sort of like taking a picture with the shutter speed set at zero.

So while our minds work best with abstraction, some of what is distilled away is still essential.

On a personal note, thank you very much for your seeing some sense in my observations about cosmology and time, as about 90% of the responses I get from people with strong math background is vehement rejection and insistence I make no sense, so having a few who do see the logic stands as proof some of these ideas are not total gibberish. As i said, I originally came at physics from an amateur sociological perspective; The physics of politics, so to speak, but found quite a lot of politics of physics.

If any of these ideas are useful, feel free with them. As most of my input is open source, my output might as well be also. The world seems headed for a significant reset anyway and hopefully it will have some benefits to go along with the likely negative effects.

Regards,

John

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/5763

My essay is a call for researchers to remember the identity of space and matter of Descartes, and to continue his theory of everything in the light of modern achievements of physics.

I think of wave function as on the oscillations and rotations of physical space, which for Descartes is matter.Rate The Descartes

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris

impedance, impedance, me I want well but ?

Hi Peter and Michaela,

Great review of geometric algebra in here!

I was a little curious about your claim that phase cannot be given by a single measurement on account of its being relative. Can you not get phase information in a single measurement? It is of course true that you need to measure the relative phase of two things (so it is not absolute), but is it not a single measurement nonetheless: phase difference?

Best

Dean

Dear Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron!

Descartes wanted to do physics as geometry. The physical space according to Descartes is a matter which rotates and oscillates as a wave. I'm sorry that you didn't see my essay the wave function. It there divides into two subfunctions, one of which contains the angular momentum of rotation, and the other energy fluctuations. The ratio of the modules of these functions are included in the factor of Lorentz. Thus, shows the relationship of the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics. Visit my page and leave a rating. FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Hello Mr Cameron, Thanks for sharing this work on vixra,

I liked your planck virtual particle, but I am insisting on the fact that we must consider this quantum weakest force in a different logic than our electromagntic force, we see easily that with all the works trying to find it , we have not found it this frce at 10exp-67newton, we have problems with all the methods utilised, I am suggesting simply to insert this matter not baryonic, this DM, I don't understand why all searchers try to find this force in fractalising our electromagntic forces, we have problems of equivalances.This DM in logic can answer and I don't understand why so many scientists forget this matter ? The standard model seems encircled by this gravitation, the photons are just like a fuel if I can say.It is odd.If it was the case that this force is an emergent electromagntic force or a fractalisation of this electromagntism, so it d be accepted by the sciences community and recognised, since that I see all these works trying to reach it, we have not had a correct explaination, just because I beleive humbly this DM is forgotten simply.Now I respect your works and I liked your papper on vixra and essay.But this QG is not found simply.But it is a wonderful attempt , general and relevant to read .

Best Regards