there is something of very relevant for the actions coupled in matters and the spectral analysis in considering this cold Dark matter encoded like a balance , negentropy entropy, heat cold, +, electromgantism gravitation..... the aim being to make like an einstein hilbert action and yang mills action but in chaging the senses of rotations of my 3D psheres and in considering the densities, volumes, rotations, oscillations.... and the topologies , geometries also are considered with this main coded space, the primoridal finite series of spheres and the two fuels, finite series also, the operators become relevant like this ricci flow and the deformations of spheres respecting a kind of poincare conjecture. All this to tell that in fact the newtonian mechanics is respected and that quantify this quantum gravity because the main codes are farer and that we must change so the distances , this electrongantism is like encircled by this gravitation.

Steve,

I like any work that helps connect standard theories - but have found that the fundamental geometry is systemically overlooked (I'll get into why later).

Here you mention "I consider fundamental objects {to be} the {ref?, need image} 3D coded spheres"

My early concern was with understanding quantum state algebra (s). I found a very straightforward way to map to the state algebra representation of the 8-fold way. But it has one "problem" - it has no mass or temporal (time coordinate) term. That precluded publication -for decades, really. Then comes Seiberg's causality criterion (2000, but I found it later) saying, in feeble terms, that isn't a "problem" that is a REQUIREMENT

It is complex to really be sure about all this, I have remarked that many consider the geometries and topologies from fields like with this E8 and the geonetrical algebras, so they consider that the geonetries and topologies come from these cosmic fields and quantum fields, my model is not like this, I consider this 3D spheres like coded and I deform them with several tool, in fact it becomes very philosophical this main foundamental objects, have we points, strings or 3d Spheres, we cannot affirm, but I have remarked in ranking a little bit of all that the spheres, spheroids, ellipsoids are everywhere, you live on a sphere, your turn around an other, you see them with spheroids, your eyes, the fruits, the glands, the brains also are in this logic of spherisation seeing the evolution of hominids, and the favorite sports of humans, this and that , in fact why this shape ? I don t know but it seems that they are simply the choice of this universe and that they permit to create all shpaes, they have no angle, they are the perfect equilibrium of forces, they permit the perfect motions also, in fact for me they seem foundamental at all scales and the universe is logic also is in this reasoning, probably that all at all scales follow this sphape and its deformations and complexifications of interactions and couplings. The thinkers can tell all what they want, we seem to live in a spherical universal logic, feynman told us that one day we shall see all the truth and we shall say all, oh my god how is it possible that we have nots een a thing so simple before, maybe the persons have too much focused on details and complexity instead to see this simple generality. You know I want to convice nobody, all are free to think like they want but it seems so evident these spheres and their codes and informations, the details become very complex when we consider the 3 main series that I cited, don t forget that I don t consider these fields to create the geometries or the spheres, I consider that all is made of particles and that these fields them are emergent with the 3 main series, the coded space and the two fuels. I don t consider this E8 , my theory is totally different, I like these geonetrical algebras but for me they are not the foundamental truths, now all they are focused on this E8 and fields, I don t understand why like the strings and yang mills , it seems odd , becxause the coded particles seem more logic, the causalities are not a problem with these 3D spheres and the 3 series of spheres , see all the combinations possible if they have the same number than our cosmological finite serie of spheres,regards

If I can Professor Lundberg, I am curious :) we speak about the causalities, what is your philosophy about this physicality, me I am frank I consider an infinite eternal consciousness, a kind of God of spinoza like Einstein in respecting the pure determinism of our physicality, so I consider that this infinite energy that we cannot define beyond this physicality codes and creates this puniverse from this central cosmological sphere that we cannot see in my model, it is there that we have for me a kind of super matter sending the codes, informations and 3D finite series of spheres to become what they must become, about the consciousness that becomes relevant because we are fractals of this consciousness, this center intrigues me a lot, maybe that this thing eternal have taken an eternity to create it ....it is very philosophical but without a general philosophical causality we cannot encircle this universe at my humble opinion but a sure thing nobody can affirm the real universal causality

Well, there is also a 1-1 correspondence to geometric objects (as you seem to seek), which I identify with. Here I don't just code quanta in, but recognize that each fundamental geometric representation has its own state algebra (that of a sphere being too simple - sub-sufficient). But each object also has two (exactly two) properties: area and curvature. These of course require quanta and metrics.

Imagine my surprise, when I went to APS 2009 (I rarely bother with APS mtgs...) to hear Prof Hartle give the Einstein Prize talk - and he used an equation of the EXACT SAME FORM for {fuzzy} instantons.

I my theory, they are simply NOT fuzzy... just very very FAST.

...via classical causality? meaning as in classical mechanics?

The quantum world is held in balance with a negative-time-going duality, but it does require a causal formulation in order to be consistent with the REST of Physics

interesting, well like you told, you have not answered about your philosophy , and I beleive that you have not taken into account the deformations of spheres and an intrinsic ricci flow and the poincare conjecture, these spheres are not too simple, I d like to have your idea about the foundamental objects, do you consider points and algebras and why and what is the cause so philosophically, what create these geometrical algebras , a mathematical accident due to what ? the curvature is natural for me with these spheres , the instantons are for the motions if my memory is correct and consider still these fields like the main essence, but it is a hypothesis not sure, it is pure mathematicas of fields, nothing of exceptional, don t confound the emergences and the comportments, behaviours of fields with what is the main causality if I can say, so you like the yang mills, so you consider these geometrical algebras, so you consider cosmic strings or fields like main origin , and if yes, why and how can you be sure ? in other words, what is the cause of these fields and why , the effects of fields are one thing, the real main cause and foundamental objects an other for me,

the problem is that all are too much focus on these fields, so they conclude with the E8 , or yang mills, or others to create the geonetries and topologies, but they cannot affirm nor the main causality, nor the origin nor the foundamental objects, the fields can be explained with the two fuels and the space and these series that I explained and so the couplings and so the fields, but the real interesting thing is what is the main origin, causlaity and what are the foundamental objects at this planck scale maybe even, points, strings, 3D spheres and why

of course these fields seem inmportant because they exist and we can try to explain their effects and try to fractalise them and try to encricle their causes, but philosophically speaking we cannot affirm their origins, nor from what simply, a foundamental problem for me are the dimensions, I don t agree with these extradiemnsions and it is due to fields, yang mills and strings still, they begin with a 1D and extrapolate towrads 11D or 12 D now, it is due for me to fact to consider only a photonic space time and photons and fields and so nonpertubatives analysis in gauge theories, so they create the various dimensions, but it is odd

the foundamental problem is philosophical so in resume, and due to strings theorists and their maths now, and all they are focused on this , hop hocus pocus, they consider only photons like primordial essence and hop they put strings inside and hop the instantons and yang mills and the E8 and hop the extradimsensions and hop they have all understood about this universe and its causalities, you beleive really that it is this the truth lol, for me it is simply a fashion due to Witten and Einstein and even if they are relevant, they have created a prison for the thinkers and now they turn in round inside this logic forgetting to think beyond the box and insert deper logics and parameters, it is the reason why they cannot even explain our deep unknowns, you know

There will be... 1st ask yourself: "What is the simplest geometric space-filling 'object' in 3+t dims?"

or, more obviously, in only 3D, with the question: "when or where is time stopped?"

the time stopped ? where and how and why, I d like to know more because inside this physicality, the time is real and cannot be stopped, and what is the simplest geometric space filling object ?

see also that these 3D spheres and their volumes can be ranked in homotopy groups due to deformations and this intrinsic ricci flow, not need of an external field to create this, but just instrinsic codes and informations inside the spheres,

Professor Lundberg, all this to tell that I can recognise several interesting mathematical tools for an understanding of these fields but I speak about the foundamental objects and tha main origin of our universe, these strings and all the philosophical extrapolations linked with them are pure assumptions, it is only simple than this, we are not obliged to agree with this fashion of strings simply, and yang mills or the geometrical correlated algebras or the extradimensions, sometimes it is well to think differently and try to be simple and general, these strings furthermore have a problem philosophical considering the evolution and the main cause but it is an other story, of course I know that we are all persuaded and that this vanity inside our theoretical sciences community is enormous but we can also recognise when we have an assumption or a proved law, axiom or equation and these strings are an assumption simply, they are nor proved nor sure , the same for the 1D towards the 11D Aand the yang mills theory ,

My point is, quantum theory IS classical physics. It has just been completely misinterpreted, as was suspected ever since it was created, a century ago, due to physicists utterly confusing Shannon's conception of information, with there own misconceptions. Classical, World War II era, RADAR signal detection processes, applied to entangled, polarized objects like coins, perfectly reproduce the so-called "Bell Correlations", with detection efficiencies that are supposedly, theoretically, impossible to obtain, in the classical realm; but they are, in fact, perfectly and easily obtainable, by exploiting Shannon's insights into the nature and behavior of information. The problem is, physicists have never recognized, that in addition to the well-known detector inefficiency problem, another far more consequential problem exists, that has gone unrecognized for an entire century - real detectors will always produce frequent "false alarms" (AKA bit-errors), under the test conditions required by every "Bell" test - just as Shannon predicted, long before Bell ever even derived his theorem. In other words, Bell's theorem (as well as other aspects of quantum misinterpretations) is based on idealistic (unreal) assumptions, that have no relevance whatsoever, to the real world; we do not live in an idealistic world, composed of "perfectly identical" particles and "perfect error-free" detectors.

Rob McEachern

Our actual standard model considers these yang mills theory and the gauge theory and we can link with the good works of Feynman and his diagrams, all this is relevant for the fields I agree , but what I tell is that the thinkers have considered the strings and superimposed them to try to go farer and so they utilise different mathematical tools to better understand the fields and the couplings with the lie algebras and groups like this E8, but these extyrapolations mathematical are not always true , we know that we have the standard model and the 3 main forces known and one that we search , the quantum gravitationand I have reached it in considering a different logic and different encodings in our nuclei than just these photons in a simplistic analysis, they had a problem of quantization and renormalisation because there is a problem simply , they can utilise all what they want and even the non commutativity they cannot reach it with the yang mills theory, the lie alg , groups and a 4D dimensionalities and even with the instantons, it is only simple than this, it lacks something to superimpose and if you consider a cold dark matter encoded and my spheres , in all humility it is possible because we can respect this newtonian mechanics because the main codes are farer and this gravitation is the main cheif orchestra, it is not necessary to modify this newtonian mechanics or insrt an entropical gravity like told Verlinde, we just consider a new road and a new chief orchestra, see the 3 series of 3D spheres coded ,one space for the main codes and the two fuels that I explained and when the merge they create the topologies, geometries, matters, fields and properties, the fields are not only electronagnetic siimply , now consider in all this these lie alg, groups and derivatives, more the clifford alg and this ricci flow intrinsic more an assymetric ricci flow to explain the uniques things also inside these series, finite , odfdly they have like the cosmological spheres and their finite serie the same number than the dirac larghe number when I have calculated approximatelly this number , the gravitation encircles this standard model and the photons so are not the only one piece of puzzle in considering the primordial origin. This reasoning implies furthermore a fith force due to a serie of quantum BHs farer than these nuclear forces , and the quantum gravitation converges, and now we can consider all the properties of these series and the senses of rotations, the volumes, the densities, the couplings, the exchanges,the mass, this and that... I have also considered the hopf fibrations of their surfaces to rank the quasiparticles. A more developped Lagrangian appears and the gauges fields can be improved with this matter non baryonic encoded in these nuclei also , in fact that changes all even if our standard model is correct, it is not complete, the U(1) SU(2) SU(3) more this gravitation in the cold of spin 2 in fact and more SU(4) for the fith force but these two new forces are different and even the 3 known them need to be improved in considering this space and this cold dark matter for me. The most difficult now is to encircle all this puxxle and the couplings, even the strong force we need to know more,m even the gluons problem , it is due to fact that all has a deeper meaning than just these photons and this spacetime relativistic if I can say, that implies that we have more than a luminiferous aether, we have a gravitational aether more an aether of space with the main codes and also probably an aether of consciousness without physicality if this infinite eternal consciousness is everywhere but it needs a central cosmological sphere to organise all this, that is why we have probably there a super matter , after it is just fractalised and distributed. The mass gap problem also can be solve in this reasoning and the feynman diagrams can be improved and completed also. The non abelian group and non commutativity more this general reasoning solves all this with the good mathematical tools , I work about this but it is not easy alone I must say, but I evolve. See well this gluballs problems with what I told , see well why we have a deeper logic governing this standard model.

Does any of this lead to new physics? I mean, is it so unlikely that someone might ask if wave functions are actually foundational in such a way that they could be the building blocks of spacetime? It's like the physics community has hypnotized itself into thinking that quantum mechanics is impossible to understand and it's all about live cat/dead cat superposition. But that is all completely missing the point.

You've got this wave function thing that is calculated; maybe what is being calculated is actually foundational. You have

[math]p_x = -i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}[/math]

and

[math]H = - i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/math]

which are operators that help you calculate the possible eigenstates that can be measured. There is no live cat/dead cat operator. You have something that behaves like waves and has properties of momentum and energy, with time/position built into it.

It just seems like there is an opportunity to interpret physics in a more creative way. Does it always have to be about mathematics? Maybe if we made casual observations such as: wave functions are real things that should be added to the standard model, maybe then we might make a break through.

There is too much rigidity in the physics community to come up with any creative ideas. As a result, physicists are more concerned about calculating when the universe is going to undergo heat death, then they are of coming up with new technology or new insights into physics.

Wavefunctions are no more real, physical entities than Ptolemy's epicycles. Nor does it "always have to be about mathematics." Quite the contrary. The problem is exactly what Einstein et al suspected, long ago: all the mathematical theorems etc. are being founded upon and subsequently derived from, inappropriate, idealistic, unrealistic, physical assumptions, that are false assumptions about the real world. In other words, the math is correct, but it is not describing what all the physicists have believed it to be describing. It is not describing the behavior of any matter at all. It is only describing the detection process itself - which is entirely based on energy detection, which is why only the wavefunction-squared and not the wavefunction itself corresponds to any observable. This is also the origin of the spurious belief in a "negative-time-going duality" or retro-causality, mentioned above by Lundberg. A "matched filter" detector is constructed by convolving a conjugated, time-reversed copy of a signal with the signal itself; in the Fourier transform (wavefunction) domain, that means "square the wavefunction".

Put simply, quantum theory is not describing any "drug" (matter) or even its behavior. It is merely describing a faulty "drug test", to determine if the drug (matter) is present at some particular points in space and time. That is why the presence of an observer matters so much - the theory is not describing what is being observed at all, it is only describing the detection statistics of a faulty "drug test" being performed by the observer.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

Wave functions are real! Lack of progress in physics is what happens when you have a wrong assumption. There are thousands of cosmologists who are literally wasting their talent and careers on topics like "the heat death of universe" because a wrong assumption like yours (physics community) makes it impossible to understand what spacetime itself is made of. If you can look at a wave function, even a simple wave function of the form,

[math]\psi(x,y,z,t) = Ae^{_i(k_x x k_y y k_z z - \omega t)}[/math],

and see that it is a real thing that has physics constants built into it and has been proven to exist because virtual photons have been proven to exist, THEN, we can start to talk about what spacetime geometry is made of.

We could be controlling gravity (spacetime curvature) to create propulsion WITHOUT USING LARGE AMOUNTS OF MASS! But we can't make any breakthroughs of this sort until we abandon false assumptions.

It is pretty safe to say that we do indeed live in a causal universe and so the title has no meaning. The real issue is whether a causal set of precursors and outcomes makes up the causal universe. Sorkin and Dawker have shown that quantum gravity is consistent with a classical causal set, but no one has yet shown a quantum causal set that is consistent with reality.

Now these two projects are implementing quantum phase correlation and superposition for graph nodes along with hidden nodes to show that quantum charge is consistent with a quantum causal set. It is not quite clear that this is possible without some further assumptions about the nature of physical reality.

It is not possible to unify gravity and charge with constant speed of light in space and time. This is because space and time both emerge from the matter action of the causal set and so the speed of light has a different meaning in the causal set precursor to space and time. In effect, it is the acceleration of light that then allows unification of gravity and charge in the matter-action causal set that is the universe...