Hi, I beleive the same, I have just spoken about this paper because several general tools are interesting, but I don t agree with the MWI ,regards
The Nature of Time
.... Well, at the moment of creation, there was this process whereby the value of the Planck toggled in order to make place for more stuff... In other words, when the proto-atom was filled, the Planck slid, under constraint, from a normal distribution to a quantized distribution and to, the next Planck value.
For the new process/new Planck value, the proto-atom appeared empty.
It was filled again and so on, x times. So, I believe there are a number of overlapping universes 'above and below" ours with different Planck values (differnt span/aplitude of time rate)... How many ??? This one is pure hunch; around 240 . Some number in Garrett Lisi's E8 and in cristallography...
Marcel,
Well like you tell, first of all nobody knows what we have like foundamental objects at this planck scale and what is the nain origin of our universe , secondly the model of Lisi is about the E8 and consider the fields and geometrical alg to create the topologies and geonetries with these fields in oscillating points of strings at this planck scale in 1D , it is an assumption not proved , the vaccuum it is the same nobody knows its origin, all what we have like mine are assumptions that we cannot affirm, thirdly the standard seems not complete and we cannot affirm that we have only photons like primoriudal essence and about the begining of this universe, nobody knows what is theis inflation and a before inflation, even the BB is an assumption , to you dear Marcel
I know even a person having developped farer the E8 with 2 E8 and he has created the TGD topological geonetrodynamics and he consider the cosmic strings and his maths are relevant but all this is an assumption but respectable , but it is an assumption because we cannot affirm that the fields are the main origin like if we had only photons and strings inside and oscillations to create our reality, the cosmic strings it is the same it is an assumptions like the 1D towards the 11D
I am in contact on facebook with this team of Klee Irwin working on this E8 , with Lisi and Ray Ascheim and David Chester more others, I have discussed a lot with them, their model is an assumption because we cannot affirm I repeat the foudamental objects and the main primoridal origin of this universe , the other facebook contact of this TGD is the professor Matti Pitkanen he is relevant but his model is an assumption also, but his maths are very interesting,
I have corresponded with Matti Pitkanen for what, 20 years??? It is still calculations ... I proceed by logic applied to the metaphysical requirements of substance and cause.. Say hi to Matti for me..
Marcel,
He is relevant in this E8XE8 he has gone farer than the others for me and I respect him and his works a lot , I will tell him hello from you, he lives here in Finland also like me now I have immigrated and I live with Ulla Mattfolk in the forest in a farm and we produce vegetals, Ulla has very interesting general ideas and is a wonderful person
Dear Marcel, the main problem seems philosophical about this primordial origin, and these foundamental mathematical and physical objects, we have mainly two roads, the fields and oscillations or the particles coded for the main essence and the points,m strings of 3D spheres for the objects, but unfortunally we cannot prove these deep questions due to a lack of knowledges , we cannot see nor these scales nor the philosophical main origin, so all are assumptions simply. But we can try to see the emergent effects and try with maths in correlating the numbers, the fields, the particles, waves and others in a king of probabilistic partition to try to extrapolate the truth but it is so difficult and so beyond our understanding at my humble opinion, we need to know more and utilise the good mathematical tools
points, strings or 3D coded sphers, sorry I made an error in writing , not of but or
...You are lucky to have a Ulla; take good care of here. My Lucie is just that and still after 42 years. We had a bubble/party yesterday with my 3 sons and 3 grandchildren.. That's what a grandfathers day job is about...
Marcel,
Yes indeed I am lucky , I take care of her, I love her a lot, I have immigrated 11 months ago, she is happy also with me, we have the same tastes in life, we are in all humility persons universal and altruist and so we are on the same wave lenght, that helps, we are happy with our animals, sheeps, goats, hens, porcs and all our plants in this forest, we live a happy life, she has 4 children , I wish all the best in your life and a happy life with your familly like grandfather, me unfortunally I have lost all my familly, mother,father, godfather , grandmother are dead, my mother 5 years agon, my godfather a suicide 3 years ago and my grandmother 2 years ago, I am alone with two dogs I was in a kind of depression and so sad, here in finland with Ulla I am a little bit better because my life has been very difficult even when I was a child, I was even adapted and I have known this at the funeral of my mother, my father drunk when I was young and was odd with my mother , he is dead when I was 19 years old, I have been educated in the street also with my friends, more a coma at the age of 21 due to epilepsy when I was at university in second in geology I have stopped it before the third because it was difficult after , it needs one year to be better, I take meds now and it is better, I am sometimes sad due to this past but I am better here with ulla, take care,
lol I write too quickly, adopted , not adapted :)
If you read carefully my poster... you know there are no particles.... just waves, linear or circular. This is 50 years lost looking for little balls, point particles etc. Yet, QM says all is made of waves! Where did the maths go wrong? As for the spheres, I believe they are Wheeler's quantum foam. An initiator creates the sphere centered on (our) h/2 Planck; it breaks into eight quadrants, each quadrant acting as initiator of more spheres. A process Spontaneous and generating = explosive. The BB was just the beginning of a process still happening right now which we call time. We live in it and are made of it. The universe does not Exist per se; it happens.
MM
We cannot affirm you know, you consider before the hypothetical BB and infinite heat and so after you have considered the photons and their oscillations and so thhat the waves and fields create our reality, it is an assumption, you cannot affirm and for me the particles coded are a better explaination because we can have particles without fields but not the opposite, the problem seems philosophical, I beleive that the main problem is the fashion of strings and a problem of interpretation of the waves particles duality, the fields and waves like main origin futhermore have a big philosophical problem considering the evolution because why we evolve ? and why the oscillations cannot stop the sufferings or others if a thing exists beyond our understanding, my model respects the waves particles duality because these 3D spheres are in motions ortations but oscillate also, but like I told, qwe cannot affirm , nobody can affirm, when we affirm these things it is not a humble compiortment because we need proofs, the waves , fields like origin of all are not proved simply , so maybe you could try to ptove your idea and try also to consider these coded particles and the supermatter that I have explained in this central sphere, it is this the secret for me and the 3 main series of coded 3D spheres
I insist on the fact that we cannot affirm but we must prove, when we affirm assumptions, it is odd for me, we must dpoubt and try to prove and doubt even about our philosophy , because nobody knows the truth, nor about God or not, nor about the primordial origin of this physicality nor about the foundamental objects, I have remarked that the philosophy of fields, waves like origin come from simply this, the thinkers have considered an infinite heat before this BB and after they oscillate it simply and after so they create the fractalisations with the geom alg of this reality and its topologies, geometries, matters and fields, it is an assumption simply because we don t know if this infinite eternal energy is a heat or a consciousness or others and how this thing that we cannoty define transform and code the E to create this universe, we must be humble and we cannot affirm even if we are all persuaded, we must recognise that we don t know simply, if we affirm, it is a vanitious comportment
the BB also is an assumption even if we have some interestinmg datas about the CMB and the inflation but we cannot affirm simply still, furthermore there are problems philosophical still about the fact to consider only photons like primoridal essence. We need a deeper logic superimposed to balance all our actual model and its electromagnetism and heat, see well my humble reasoning that I don t affirm about this cold dark matter encoded and permitting to balance
You know dear Marcel, I know that it is not easy to doubt and change a line of reasoning because we are humans not perfects and that we are all persuaded and inside the sciences community lol it is probably the most vanitious community on this earth, but a sure thing even if we are all persuaded is that we can just accept the proved laws, axioms , equations and never we can affirm things not proved by rigourous mathematical proofs or experiments, if we affirm when it is not proved, so we are not deterministic thinkers, I am sorry but it is a fact, you cannot affirm that the waves are the main origin and that the particles don t exist, it is for me odd and just in your head, you must like all prove what you affirm, I make the same for my theory ands these spheres, I don t affirm and I try to prove. We can discuss of course and share ideas but we cannot affirm these deep unknowns, we cannot make this because if we make it, we nourrish simply our vanity and we lie also
In fact in resume we can have our philosophy or others, but after all who are we to affirm assumptions ? we cannot do this, the same when we speak about the main essence of this universe, have we a kind of god of spinoza or are we from a mathematical accident or others? we don t know, that is why we cannot affirm and we can just discuss in respect about these things without concluding things that we cannot explain, the same for the waves or particles like main essence or others assumptions. I repeat but nobody knows this universal truth and a thinker affirming assumptions is simply a person too mucgh vanitious thinking he has understood the universal mechanics better than the others, Hawking considered no god, einstein considered a gdd like newton, Max Tegmark consider a mathematical universe, others have their own thoughts but nobody know the truth, I consider personally an infinite eternal consciousness, an energy that we cannot define creating this universe but I don t affirm even if I am persuaded in having generalised the sciences and my encoded informations, we are limited in knowledges and proofs simply and we must accept this with humility, never we can affirm things not proved, it is only simple than this
Steve,
I got your message. So, let`s add IMHO. Still, no particles. The quadrant diagram system shows perfect parity across h/2, structure and charge signs. This explains why quarks can't be isolated.. they are wave quadrants, not particles. It shows, it does not prove... But Quark masses do not add up to the mass of the nucleons..
It is like all the proof are there in the long troubles they have had with both quarks and the magnetic monopole.
Consider this; I posted at CERN Youtube and Perimeter Institute Youtube. There are others people posting all sorts of theories .. they are still there. My posts where removed or not published (moderated off). There could be lots of reasons for this, but then it begs the question. Why?
I got also your message, but you cannot affirm that the particlez are not real, you just consider that all is made of waves, and for me it is not true, we must accept that we don t know and that we cannot prove, you can tell all what you want it is a fact, the particles are a reality , that is why we have our standard model and their origin , if they are fields or particles is not proved, the diagrams don t change the things, it is just your interpretation with waves quadrants, you have not proved what you affirm in fact unfortunally. The waves and fields for me come from the particles because they are in motions and oscillations in a kind of superfluid aether made also of particles so we have contacts, it is only simple than this like when you put a stone in the water, we have an effect and so waves, we cannot have waves without particles, on the other side in a kind of system without motion we can have particles without waves, see well this important difference, the origin for me of this universe is made of particles creating waves and fields, not the opposite, but I cannot affirm, like you you cannot affirm, we have just models hypothetical. Your model is removed maybe simply because it lacks mathematical extrapolations and proofs , I don t know