Is Causality Fundamental?

Steve,

I have to comment that the design of the universe is simple from one point of view, but so very abundant in other ways. Yes, I agree there is something like an aether. But it my opinion, it's more like a constant flow of gravitons that emit from a point, from every point in space, and expand at the speed of light. I think these gravitons have quantum states built into them. They fill all space with fields for all the standard model particles. Physics constants are built into these gravitons. When gravitons get big enough, they overlap and contribute to spacetime geometry.

My idea of an expanding graviton is that either it will become part of a quantum system and actually be what the wave function is describing, or it will expand beyond the quantum system, overlap with other gravitons, to become spacetime geometry. A graviton is made of quantum states that are subject to momentum, energy, operators. They idea is that spacetime geometry is made of quantum states.

Of course, the only really useful thing about a new model is if it can solve a problem with the old model. Right now, there are lots of problems in spacetime with relativity and quantum charge. Your model should solve all of these problems if it is to be useful. Can your model solve the problems of quantum gravity and quantum charge?

During the big bang, leptogenesis occurred at some time t_L; baryogenesis occurred at a time t_B. In my model, the fields for electron, gluons/quarks, etc., are created by the overlap of expanding gravitons. Since gravirtons have a radius r = ct, I would expect gravitons at time t_L to create a lepton field, and at t_B to create a baryon field.

At some time t_STC (which may be 1 second and longer) gravitons will overlap to contribute to the spacetime continuum. The Einstein equations, IMO, represent gravitons in equilibrium. When gravitons are not in equilibrium, they can be used to create artificial gravity fields (which was the whole reason for creating this graviton model).

One expanding graviton, of radius r = ct, has a surface area of 4pi r^2, which is a virtual photon, unless excited with energy; THEN, it's a real photon. During the big bang, when particles and charges were created, energy was stored in standard model fields that are made of n different gravitons. One could calculate the n (number of gravitons) for each type of particle field. Charges would also be caused by energy that is stored inside of the n-gravitons (of each kind).

Hello , dear Jason, your general analysis is interesting, that implies a kind of gravitational aether , I consider this also in my model. We need indeed a main gravitational cause and that permits to balance even our standard model and this cosmological scale also.

A new model will be useful if and only if it can explain something that the old model cannot explain...

Like why the universe expands? Why the speed of light is invariant?

Rob McEachern,

Well, you'd have a Nobel Prize to OVERTURN to prove that anti-matter doesn't exist. While we can merely _sample_, or see effects of, it via high-energy physics (where it is required of the formulation, to model many effects - not merely a 'data-match').

Black Holes actually _preserve_ matter (information, if you must) for release in a negative-time-going universe. This is how the universe achieves its initial state, and a FUNDAMENTAL issue for cosmology as well. It is important that a cosmology be causal, which NBWF achieves - but Steinberg's theory is NOT.

I actually presented+published work entitled Causal Particle Theory at DPF 09: https://indico.cern.ch/event/41044/contributions/1866467/ which was eventually included in http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0205176 .

Steve,

I'm sure if you studied Black Hole astrophysics you'd be aware that time slows for objects approaching the horizon. Now, a fundamental problem lies in _preserving_ information in BH - which can only be done by considering that _preserved matter_ (in a BH) stops experiencing time.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0007100

Anyway, it should also be obvious (and taught in every elementary school geometry class) that a tetrahedron is the simplest geometric object space-filling in 3D (note- spheres have only 1D - radius)

This SHOULD be very intriguing ---

1st it explains the factor of 1/4 on the Beckenstein-Hawking area-entropy law,

2nd, a tetrahedron is bilaterally assymetric. Well, SO IS THE GALACTIC ANNIHILATION FOUNTAIN. Think about that real hard... there is NO other valid explanation for the electron-positron annihilation radiation from our own galaxy (and all others).

Hi Mr Lundberg, wellI don t agree about the tetrahedron, it is just a play of geometrical algebras and they are not foundamental objects, the choice of this universe probably for the quantum particles are spheres and they can be deformed with many mathematical tools, we don t see in nature these tetrahedrons, the spheres 3D, spheroids, ellipsoids are everywhere you live on a sphere, your turn around an other , many examples foundamental are there, the eyes, a water drop, the fruits, the glands, the waves and many others, the tetrahedrons are not there them, they are just a play of maths like these geometrical objects and lie for example, fruthermore the philosophical origin considering the fields are not proved and is just a fashion for me for the strings theorists or others like the geonmetrodynamics, the coded 3D spheres are more logic and it is not a problem to deform them with an intinsic ricci flow, and you can utilise the oher tools like the lie groups, algebras and derivatives or the clifford algebras and correlate with the topological and euclidian space and link with the poincare conjecture, your tetrahedrons are like all the persons persuaded not foundamental and all persons having some basis in sciences, maths and physics can recognise easily that these 3D spheres have a lot of probabilities to be the foundamental mathematical and physical objects, I know that the vanity is enormous inside the sciences community and that all we are persuaded, but your terahedrons and its philosophy with fields are just for me limited and lacks of generality, furthermore the faqct to tell this iabout the elementary school is totally odd, where have you learnt this ?? because the spheres have no angle, are the perfect equilibrium of forces and permits to create all shpapes, your tetrahedronms are just like all the others a sphape that a sphere can do in inserting angles, are you fascinated by the egyptians and the pyramids lol ?? there is nothing of odd with this sphape and the pyramids , we must be deterministic and not confound. About the BHs I know well the works of Hawking and like the relativity I know how we can interpret this time in the relativity and how we can decrease the internal clocks , the event horizons and the informations are just at the surfaces but we don t know reall what we have after this bridge inside these BHs and so for me it is not sufficient to analyse just the surfaces and how act these informations there, we need to know really what are these BHs inside and nobody knows still, we cannot see due to this relativistic problem. So in conclusipon all rational thinkers can understand and see that the spheres seem the foundamental roads at all scales and we have probably coded 3D spheres quantum instead of fields like origin, we have not strings at this planck scales, nor points nor tetrahedrons and all elementary students or thinkers can see that this shape is the choice of this universe. To you dear thinker, don t be persuaded, doubt about these foundamental objects and about the universal philosophy, regards dear thinker,

ps the 1D radius comparated with the 3D of tetrahedrons is really odd , see what I told about the 0 angle and the perfect motion and the equilibrium of forces and the ricci flow please , if a kind of eternal infinite consciousness has created an universe, this thing has chosen the spheres 3D to create all shapes simply, not need to discourse about the maths and physics to see a so simple evident truth, feynamn said , one day we shall see all the truth and we shall say oh my god, how is it possible that we have not seen a thing so simple before ???my friend on FQXi Dr Ray Munroe, he is dead and I am sad told me steve I don t understand how is it possible that we have not thought about this when I have shared my theory here, and he told me in private many are going to be jealous and irritated you know but don t be troubled, it is a good sign he told me, I know the human nature and its vanity and that all we are persuaded but the fact to not recognise that these spheres and spherisation seem correct is odd, this vanity destroys this planet simply, a little bit of humility is better , and I suggest to thinkers to focus on these spheres instead of strings or tetrahedrons even if they are fascinated by the pyramids lol :)

I don t want to destroy the strings theorists me or the geonetrodymanic theorists or the E8 fascinated thinkers or thebtetrahedrons now, but please let s be deterministic and rational and let s rewcognise that these 3D spheres seem foundamental at all scales, and that this philosophy of fields like origin like if god oscillated only photons has sufficiently been , me I want well, but what is this fashion of strings and fields like origin ??? is it a lobby now , I can recognise some interesting maths for the fields but lets be serious a little bit also, I repeat, these 3D coded spheres can create all geometries and topologies with the 3 main system of finite series that I have explained, 3 aethers, one spae and two fuels, and the codes are inside these particles, not need of a 1D external field like if we had photons and strings in 1D inside oscillating like if we had an infinite heat, is it a joke ??? this infinite eternal consciousness codes the spheres and the informations correlated and create the physicality it is so simple. For the tetrahedrons lol the egyptians have chosen this shpape because they were fascinated by the sun a sphere and that this shpae the tetrahedron permits to have the maximum rays of light, that is all , nothing of exceptional or foundamental, just a shpae chosen by a civilisation fallen down like the romans due to this vanity, lack of consciousness and odd tools utilised in the governances.

3 simplex 3 simplex, me I want well, but nothing of odd and special you know and euclide could agree with me , and POINCARE also it seem to me, furthermore when you rotate all the diffrent shpaes like the squares, triangles, tetrahedrons or others in all sense, what is the sphape appearing???? that tells us a lot, the spheres and the rotations are foundamental and I repeat but an intrinsic ricci flow in these coded spheres can create all geometries, we just put the angles and the sides ,

Steve Dufourny,

My 'philosophy' here is soundly based on the duality between geometry and algebra... I refer to this as an algebraic representation (a noncommutative Lie algebra) and a geometric representation (I now call it Band Theory but long called it tri-partite string theory... I can be forgiven for ignoring energy [someone referred to it as 'action'?]). The latter looks like a mono-curved 'dorito' chip with QCD coloration and ortho-normal orientation (!), with, of course, relativistic spin. They are ONE-to-ONE with StdModel QC/ED

http://vixra.org/pdf/1510.0382v2.pdf

Wayne

This seems like an odd question to ask, since particle theorists have been ignoring the subject for decades. In fact, a causal formulation cannot be published simply because of their obsession over noncommutative algenras that do NOT meet Seiberg's causality criteria:

N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, "Space/Time Non-Commutivity and Causality", hep-th/0005015v3, May 2000

In fact, I was one of a very few participants in FQXi essay asking "What is Foundational?" a couple years ago who replied with CAUSALITY as one of five fundamental requirements of a self-consistent theory applicable across all physical scales.

Wayne

"Can your model solve the problems of quantum gravity and quantum charge?"

YES, it did that decades ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9712042

Wayne,

There is no negative-time-going universe. The concept originates entirely from studying (and misinterpreting) the properties of mathematical equations, not the study of any observed nature phenomenon. And its appearance in the equations of quantum theory, that are supposed to be describing nature, results entirely from its unrecognized use in describing the detection of matter, rather than in describing the matter itself.

It has nothing to do with the existence of anti-matter. Matter and anti-matter do not coexist, for the same reason that drivers obeying the traffic laws of the United Kingdom, do not coexist with drivers obeying the laws of the United States; they tend to obliterate each other in head-on collisions. But there is nothing to prevent them from existing separately, in their only little "universes." The "Laws of Nature" are no more universal, than the "Laws of Man", they both merely describe, rather than cause observed regularities; they are themselves merely effects, being caused by the pervasive tendency of "natural selection" to obliterate all things that fail to "go with the (prevailing) flow". In other words, it does not matter what the laws are - they may differ from place-to-place or time-to-time. It only matters that everything obeys them, in a particular place and time, whatever they are. That is the ultimate "cause" for the existence of any and all repeatable (deterministic) behaviors, and that is ultimately What "Information" is all about.

Rob McEachern

Thanks for sharing, I know well these geonetrical algebras and like I told they consider the feilds like main origin and it is not proved , I discussed a lot with theteam of klee irwin of the quantum gravity research with lisi , ray aschein, david chester, fang fang and others, and I have discussed also with Matti pitkanen having made the TGD topological geonetrodynamics in considering E8XE8 and cosmic strings, many other works about this like if it was a fashion of math plays , but like I told , all this is a pure general philosophical assumption and never for me it is foundamental, I like this E8 for its beauty but it is just a mathematical tool of Lie, I like the non commutativity and specially the works of Connes, and I consider this non commutativity in the formalisation of my theory ands its spheres and this spherisation of the universe like general evolutive point of vue. I beleive strongly that these strings and the photons have created a prison for the thinkers and now they cannot go deeper , and they turn in round in trying to add and develop mathematical tools to explain our unknowns but it is a lost of time for me, even if I respect the thinkers. never these photons , strings only and these geometrical algebras shall explain this quantum gravitation and the philosophical origin of our physicality for me, they are in a prison these thinkers simply.The problem is that the thinkers working on this think that they have understood the universe lol but no, they just add details for the QFT , nothing of more , I can recognise some good tools for the rankings of fields, but that is all, we need to go farer and add a deeper logic, for example for the quantum computing,if we want to create a quantum computer, here is an idea, let s take these finite primoridal series like I explained and let s consider the 0 and 1 and this time, differently than the spin up and down for an electron and let s consider these 3D spheres and the senses of rotations, and let s consider the Bloch Sphere in taking into account these senses of rotations for the photons and for the cold dark matter. The resonances can appear if and only if we know the number finite primoridal and the correct volumes , the hopf fibrations maybe can be utilised and the geometrical algebras. I try to find the road but it is not easy seen that we need to know this finite number for these series and also the other main code , the space, wowww it is complicated I must say, regards

not possible to have explained this quantum gravitation with geonetrical algebras in fractalising these electromagnetic forces because we need to superimpose a depper logic and personally I have reacxhed in respectingt he newtonian mechanics and in encoding the cold dark matter in our nuclei, the gravitation is the main chief orchestra and we have even a fith force farer than our nuclear force, I must publish but in having published and if it is not recognised there are reasons, a problem of renormalisation and quantisation simply , the rpoblems come form probably your foundamental objects these tetrahedrons and also the philosophical origin and these fields and so the geometrical algebras, think beyond the box ....