Steve, what do you mean by "infinite consciousness creating this physicality" ?

I am not disputing what you said. I am merely asking for clarification

Hi sorry to both of you, the strings and witen and Einstein have really created a prison, the thinkers cannot consider a deeper logic now and the majority try to explain our unknowns only with the photonic electromagnetism ....it is odd generally, see well the problem considering the evolution and the philosophy and ontology about the strings like if something that we cannot define oscillated the fields, waves to create this physicality. Why so this thing beyond our understanding don t stop with an instantaneous oscillations and resonances the human stupidities ? you see well that we have a general prpoblem with the strings-...

Hi Professor Beckwith, I have just considered Before this physicality a kind of inifnite eternal consciousness , en energy that we cannot define, I understand that the sciences Community is divided and that the others consider that we cone from a mathematical accident like if we had an infinite heat Before this physicality and the probabilities and statistics so have created a physicality. But for me it is odd we need a kind of creator of codes and transformations matters energy. What I find relevant is that all our best past thinkers like Newton, Tesla, Einstein, Borh, Heisenberg,Maxwell, Galilei, Euler, Fermi, Lie ,Cantor, Godel and so more had understood that something codes and exists beyong our understanding, for me humbly we cannot understand generally this physicality in evolution without this paramter but it is just my opinionb of course, we cannot prove our philosophy in fact but it seems so evident generally, Einstein said that God does not play at Dices, we can consider this parameter in respecting the pure determinism like a God Of Spinoza, best regards

A thing important Dr Beckwith is that it is difficult I recognize to convice the thinkers about our own philosophies, in general we cannot change the philosophy of persons because lol we are all persuaded and that we have encoded our informations and conclusions. But frankly when I see this generality of our physicality, how is it possible that all this universe comes from nothing or a mathematical accident? it seems anti deterministic considering the main causes and informations, this universe is a system in evolution and complexification made of particles and fields, Waves creating geometries, topologies, matters and correlated properties, it d be very odd to consider that we come from nothing. Of course all this is philosophical and ontological but maybe it is simply easier to understand this physicality about these transformations matters E with this parameter coding , I have thought a lot about this , why we are and why this thing have created this physicality ? maybe simply this energy was alone , it is very simplistic of course but maybe we create an incredible thing simply evolving towards an unification of something. But we cannot prove nor me nor the others persons seeing differently, all what we can is just to encircle with our limitations this physicality with determinism in tryiong to complete with rationalism and logic our laws, axions, equations, it is a kind of wisdom maybe to recognize this and humility.

ps I accept and respect all the others philosophies of course , we cannot affirm in fact and can share ideas , extrapolations

Hi Andrew, Interesting essay. The major violation of the maths percentage didn't matter as measured in absolute terms it passed! But your limited text did get your propositions across well.

I certainly agree a good marriage of experimental data with theory built from on sound logic is the ONLY way ahead, and often forgot. But is that not a problem when logic itself is beset by paradox? I suggest how that can be overcome in my own essay, with improved foundations.

I confess I'm no fan of 'gravitons'. Are they not just a dubiously founded theoretical 'placeholder' substitute for a better derivation of 'action-at-a-distance'? Again I suggest a more consistent option, and using your own methods!

I agree your excellent analysis that using the approach you outline does mean the limitations you identify are, in terms of advancing understanding; "all we can do" and "the best we can hope for" and certainly that we need a "fundamental re-think" of how we relate data and thoeretical models, using "robust experimental platforms" to avoid, or rather; escape from current! ..dead ends.

But do you not think the data is there when we chose to search? I did and found it! much buried in massive sets, but lets just take the peculiar CMB anisotropies. Will not a theory producing those as well as more familiar data be 'a priori' likely to be correct? That's what I've done but ignored or dismissed in our current belief based system! Nice you seem to agree that needs changing but how is it done?

I think you'll like my essay, though an entirely different approach and theoretical construct to yours. I'll be interested in your comments.

Luckily content isn't a scoring criteria so that won't affect me scoring yours well.

Best of luck in the contest.

Peter

    Thank you, Peter. And if you wish to find the mother of all dead ends, view Hilbert's presumed axiomization of physics, which he thought eliminated the need for experimental data

    Godel destroyed Hilbert over it, and a lucky thing too

    However, Peter, this virus as to axiomization of science has gone back and forth since the Aristotle- Plato exchanges and shows no signs of slowing down

    Andrew,

    Your answer was exquisitely clear:

    "This essay is focused upon the idea that certain inputs into physical models cannot be LOGICALLY deduced but have to be used to get connections to the actual physics. It is an old argument which is a repose to Hilbert who really believed that physics could be made purely axiomatic , with logic thereby removing the need for experiment. Godel pretty much destroyed that argument, on the part of Hilbert, and I am raising it again as to the issue of the graviton itself and e folds of inflation."

    That is a much deeper goal than is apparent in the equations themselves. I certainly agree with you, and toast your smoking of Hilbert.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Andrew,

    I am very happy to see you continuing your program to apply Klauder's enhanced quantization in an original way. Very interesting and topical your connection between the e-folds and Gödel's incompleteness theorem. I wish you good luck with the contest!

    Cheers,

    Cristi

    17 days later

    Your paper is interesting, and it would be curious if the mass of the graviton were related in some ways to the entropy and maybe efolds of the inflationary cosmos. Of course detecting the mass of a graviton m_g ≈ 10^{-62}g is a daunting proposition. I think the putative mass of the photon in a Proca equation is bounded below 10^{-80}g at this point. The QED field is relatively strong interacting, so these measurements can be made with some degree of precision. If I recall these involve measurements of the geomagnetic field and of late the Jovian magnetic field. An analogous measurement would have to involve the Lense-Thirring or frame dragging effect.

    I am not sure where the mass of the graviton comes from. I tend to like conformal gravitation, and if the graviton has mass this would break conformal symmetry. So, there must be some mechanism whereby the graviton gets its mass. There would be some process, such as a Ginsburg-Landau mechanism, where the graviton would acquire mass. However, as with such processes this would imply the absorption of a Goldstone boson in the field. Hence there could in fact be a spectrum of massive gravitons. Such things do occur in N = 4 and 8 supergravity, where there is the breaking of symmetry and the occurrence of massive gravity. The breaking of E8 symmetry with the 8 principal weights for gravitons gives a Zamolodchikov spectrum. Of course, there is a little problem in that this spectrum is near the Planck scale. However, that might be rectified if there is some STU duality between two copies of E8 in the heterotic E8Г--E8. In some sort of S-dual setting between two sets of masses m_g and m'_g, m_gm'_g = constant. The large massive gravitons are dual to the tiny massed gravitons.

    That is a speculation of course. I suppose that was why I give your paper a 9 and not a 10. The occurrence of a graviton mass involves some serious implications for quantum gravitation. I suppose this is a missing gap that seemed problematic. However, overall your paper is interesting, and it would be curious if there is some connection between graviton mass and the initial entropy of the universe.

    Cheers LC

    This is a bit abstruse Andy...

    However I'm somewhat familiar with your research program and sources. So I'll begin by explaining first that you are working in a framework where the graviton is minimally-massive. That is; it has a vanishingly small mass, but this contributes to things like cosmic expansion and the reheating phase where by assuming the graviton has mass, you can explain the missing piece of the universe normally attributed to dark energy and dark matter. I should also mention that this work ties in to Jack Ng's infinite quantum statistics, and employs Klauder's enhanced quantization as a kind of CFT.

    It is brilliant to connect the graviton's mass in this case to uncertainty. But the way you connect it back to the organizers' questions is tenuous. You do not clearly explain how the one regime connects back to the other, although to me it is fairly clear. The reader would need familiarity with your prior work, or to be conversant in minimally massive gravity, to grasp some of your points. So you get a high grade from me but not full credit. I hope these comments will help you or your readers to clarify some of the issues.

    Is there something more you can add here, to help us connect the dots?

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

      I should add this..

      There is a crucial insight here, in your essay, that I'd like to highlight. Your main point speaks to the notion that the Math can't tell us everything we want to know; we need physical input. I like the example Mary Boas gives in her Math for the Physical Sciences book, on the Calculus of Variations. If you observe that the 1st derivative of the equation goes to zero; you know it will be a maximum, a minimum, or an inflection point. But you can't tell which from the Math alone. You need to know the physical parameters - the set-up - or all you know is it's one of the above. Is this relevant to your analysis?

      Regards,

      Jonathan

      It seems to me there are various problematic aspects with the ideas discussed here.

      For one, it has long been known that theories of a massive graviton suffered from serious pathologies, including a Boulware-Deser ghost and a discontinuity with general relativity in the limit where the graviton mass goes to zero.

      Nowadays when considering such a thing one is drawn to rely on specific schemes that manage evade those problems such as de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley model or bi-metric gravity theories ( i.e. theories with two spacetime metrics). In any event, all those proposals are based on specific action functionals which differ substantially from the standard Einstein Hilbert action with a cosmological term, as used in eq. ( 1) and eq. ( 2) in the present work. In fact nowhere do we find any hint of what the "new action principle of the massive gravity" under consideration here is supposed to be.

      On another hand, and on a different aspect I am also quite puzzled by the following statement:

      "I also argue that this limit (i.e. a question concerning the link between experimental results and the actual number of inflationary e- folds) and is a physics counter part to the Godel incompleteness axioms, i.e. where in [14] the emphasis is upon the incompleteness of axiomatic logic, which Godel stated doomed Hilberts dream of a fully axiomatic treatment of physics [15] ."

      The point is of course that as far as I know Hilbert never dreamt of a fully axiomatic treatment of physics ( which in contrast with math requires complex interpretative discussions involving ontological as well as epistemic issues). Hilbert certainly dreamt of a fully axiomatic treatment of mathematics and that dream was shattered by Gödel's famous results.

        First of all you are incorrect as to Hilbert. he ws NOT a fan as far as experimental physics. I have read his correspondence, and he did try to largely axiomize physics. So you are factually incorrect

        Secondly, I am aware of the massive Graviton scheme you mentioned and I used "enhanced quantization" as a way to do the problem

        See Klauder here

        2015 Klauder JR. Enhanced quantum procedures that resolve difficult problems Reviews in Mathematical Physics. 27. DOI: 10.1142/S0129055X15300022

        I disagree with the Bimetric Gravity approach.

        And I think you missed the main point of my essay. Which is that certain inputs have to be experimental. Here is a story I can share which had to do with what is called the Clausius - Clayperon model of Dark Matter and Dark energy

        It has, roughly density = - constant/ [(pressure)^alpha]

        Starobinski whom I have met repeatedly in Marcel Grossman 13 and 14 in about 2000 or so did research with the Clausius - Claperyon relationships in early universe conditions and matched data sets with an alpha = .857 or so.

        In String theory, if alpha = 1, it is in fidelity with respect to that theory.

        Starobinski had a different value which matched experimental conditions, but was off from the String theory mandated alpha = 1

        What you missed is that although our models are in certain cases useful that we do NOT have the ability to avoid experimental inputs, and that this one about the Clausius - Claperyon relations as to a joint Dark Matter - Dark Energy model is a classic mis match between string theory predictions and data sets.

        If the alpha were = 1 in early universe conditions, the early universe in terms of Dark Matter and Dark energy would be very different

        See Introduction to Cosmology 3rd Edition

        by Matts Roos

        Here is my example

        Here is a story I can share which had to do with what is called the Clausius - Clayperon model of Dark Matter and Dark energy

        It has, roughly density = - constant/ [(pressure)^alpha]

        Starobinski whom I have met repeatedly in Marcel Grossman 13 and 14 in about 2000 or so did research with the Clausius - Claperyon relationships in early universe conditions and matched data sets with an alpha = .857 or so.

        In String theory, if alpha = 1, it is in fidelity with respect to that theory.

        Starobinski had a different value which matched experimental conditions, but was off from the String theory mandated alpha = 1

        What you missed is that although our models are in certain cases useful that we do NOT have the ability to avoid experimental inputs, and that this one about the Clausius - Claperyon relations as to a joint Dark Matter - Dark Energy model is a classic mis match between string theory predictions and data sets.

        If the alpha were = 1 in early universe conditions, the early universe in terms of Dark Matter and Dark energy would be very different

        See Introduction to Cosmology 3rd Edition

        by Matts Roos

        We can agree or disagree about Hilbert. But I stand on what I said about him.

        As to what approach I used, it was Klauders "enhanced quantization". Go look it up

        As to the fidelity of models as to matching experimental conditions

        about the damn Clausius - Clayperyon equation and DM- DE to make a point that at a certain time one is compelled to use experimental inputs.

        I discussed this with Starobinsky and he made the point that the String theory result is close, but no cigar.

        If alpha is not equal to 1, then the connection to string theory is completely lost. But the data has alpha = .857 or so, not 1

        At a certain time one has to admit that models have to get their motivation from experimental inputs

        That was the point of my essay

        You are hung up on Hilbert and I think you missed the main point which I put up above.

        Dear Andrew,

        I am not a fan of bosons as fundamental force particles (except for Higgs), and can provide alternative suggestions for photons, gluons, and W/Z bosons. Nor am I a believer in gravitons, as I have formulated my own 'action at a distance' theory of gravity using strings of what I suppose are Higgs particles, although I call them ginn (or aether particles). Because I have a working particle theory I decided to do a back of the envelope calculation of their (string) gram equivalent mass and got a number 10-34 g which is some 28 orders greater than the 10-62 g you mentioned for the graviton.

        Regards,

        Lockie Cresswell

        Different ways to estimate graviton mass

        Alexander F. Zakharov, Predrag Jovanovic, Dusko Borka, Vesna Borka Jovanovic

        An experimental detection of graviton is extremely hard problem, however, there are different ways to evaluate a graviton mass if it is non-vanishing. Theories of massive gravity or theories with non-vanishing graviton mass initially have a number of pathologies such as discontinuities, ghosts etc. In last years theorists found ways to overcome weaknesses of such theories meanwhile observational features are also discussed. In the first publication reporting about the discovery of gravitational waves from the binary black hole system the LIGO-Virgo collaboration obtained the graviton mass constraint around 1.2Г--10в€'22 eV (later the estimate was improved with new data). A comparable and consistent graviton mass constraint around 2.9Г--10в€'21 eV has been obtained from analysis of the bright star S2 trajectory near the Galactic Center.

        Comments: 6 pages, presented as an invited talk at the XXXI International Workshop on High Energy Physics (IHEP, Protvino, Russia)

        Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)

        Journal reference: International Journal of Modern Physics: Conference Series, v 47 (2018)

        DOI: 10.1142/S2010194518600960

        Cite as: arXiv:1712.08339 [gr-qc]

        (or arXiv:1712.08339v1 [gr-qc] for this version)

        Bibliographic data

        [Enable Bibex (What is Bibex?)]

        Submission history

        From: Alexander Zakharov [view email]

        [v1] Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:33:09 UTC (27 KB)

        Hilbert's plan might have worked...

        Had there been a detailed knowledge in his time of fundamental mathematical objects like E8 or the Mandelbrot Set. Now we have a vast array of knowledge about specific attributes that was lacking in that time. We could only guess that something like the Monster group existed at first, but now we know a lot about it. This kind of knowledge will over time provide a linkage that evades Gödel. Once discovered; these objects reveal fundamental patterns in Math itself. We might not guess at their form, but once seen it can be grasped and used as a pivot point.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        If he had known about E8, as an example it may have worked, but he had insufficient development

        Hi all, this discussion is very interesting, but If I can, we arrive still about a very important philosophical problem , what must we consider even if that can converge like philosophy. The strings consider that all comes from fields with the 1D main field at this Cosmicscale connected with 1D strings at this planck scale and so after we create the 11D with the different geometrical algebras, and so we have these gravitons wich can converge with the supergravity, the Mtheory and branes. But if the main philosophical origin is not correct, so all the geneality also is not correct. Like you know I consider particles coded and 3D spheres and 3 main systems of finite series , one for the space and two fuels, photons and a cold Dark matter, but I have the same problem, I cannot affirm or prove but we are all persuaded lol of course, in all case it exists maybe a kind of convergence with the 3D spheres in motions and oscillations with these fields, maybe even a kind of conjecture probably with Poincare and Thurston. But it is really the main philosophical origin of our geometries, topologies, matters, properties and fields the real problem. Maybe these strings are a kind of fashion and that it was the only one theory taken into account, but observe well the generality of this universe, we have probably pure 3D spheres coded at all scales, if the particles are 3D spheres, so we understand why the universe is a pure 3D and all the Chemistry, biology, mineralogy, it is like a foundamental for me this 3D and the rotationg oscillating 3d Spheres. Of course I must prove , but it is not easy due to limitations in technology and knowledges. I like this E8 also for its geometry and beauty , it can be relevant to insiert these finite series of 3D spheres instead of points or strings at my humble opinion and like said Jonathan we can utilise these relevant Clifford algebras for the rankings. I know that it is difficult to change a philosophical line of reasoning because we are all persuaded and we know also that our Community is the most vanitious Community on this Earth probably lol, me too I am not perfect and I am persuaded but with humility it could be well to see the convergences and conjectures between fields, Waves, particles , like a deeper analysis of this wave particle duality in fact.

        An other point that I have remarked to conclude also is that this evolution seems essential at all scales, it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation, the optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere, this evolution seems important, the biology evolves and the consciousness also even, but I ask me how we must consider this evolution at this quantum scale because it seems that we have stable series and others no, maybe this quantum scale is also under an evolution but how, where and why , it is the question.

        Friendly