Thanks for explaining Dr Rinkus, Like I told you, I like your general idea. I have my onw assumptions also about the particles, the fermions, bosons and why they have their properties. Like I said I work my theory of spherisation, in a simplistic resume it is an evolution optimisation of the universal sphere or future sphere with 3D quantum and cosmological spheres. I considered in the past only the general relativity and photons and I considered that these photons were series finite of 3D spheres and like they are in a superfluidity so I considered the oscillations vibrations of these spheres like a 1D cosmic field connected with spheres at this planck scale but I found enormpous problems philosophically speaking, so I have considered 3 ethers in superimposing the dark matter and the dark energy and when they merge they create the topologies, geometries. And so the fermions and bosons emerge due to codes in the space vacuum of the DE and the fermions emerge and the bosons also, the bosons for me are just photons encoded in the space vacuum and the densities of sphres and the volumes with the number of photons encoded permit to have different forces of the standard model. But the origin is not from a one field so but from codes in the space vacuum , spheres and the photons and the cold dark matter them are just a fuel for the photons permitting the bosonic fields and electromagnetism, permitting also the fact to observe due to light, permitting the thermodynamics and also the GR and SR. The cold dak matter permits the antiparticles and the quantum gravitation and also the mass with the higgs mechanism correlated like an activation. These 3 ethers so are 3 spacetimes and actually we just observe one, the GR. So like you can see my reasoning is totally different than the strings, I am not sure that this planck scale exists, that the strings and fields are the origin and that we have only this GR. I have remarked enormous problems with the fields like origin but it is an other story.

Steve, I agree that GR, relativity, DE and DM must be considered. I'm just not there yet.

I take my planckon "field" as given a priori. I have no explanation for its origin. Also, my base (unexplained so far) assumptions are:

1. The size of the subsets that become active in a corpuscle's fermionic partition, Q. In my info theory, Q is parameter. In principle it can vary from one coding field to another. In physical theory, that would mean varying from one corpuscle to another. In fact, the functionality of the model doesn't change qualitatively if you allow Q to vary, at least slightly, through time. But from an info theoretic standpoint, fixed Q is best...and also easiest to analyze mathematically.

2. K, the number of units per CM. Also could vary slightly, from one CM to another, but fixed K is probably optimal and easiest to analyze.

3. complete (all-to-all) connectivity between any two coding fields that are connected. In physical theory, that means between the fermionic partitions of any two corpuscles that are connected.

4. the planckons are binary-valued. Either one is active ("present") at T or inactive ("not present"). This is true for both fermionic and bosonic planckons.

5. so when a code, consisting of Q active planckons (chosen from a fermionic partition consisting of QxK planckons) is active in a corpuscle at T, those Q active planckons send binary signals, to all planckons in each fermionic partition that is connected to the source corpuscle. All of those signals propagate in one discrete time step. And that is true for all signals leaving all corpuscles that comprise the universe. That is, the whole universe updates in lock step. I think the speed of light reflects the number of "hops" made from one corpuscle to the next, as an effect propagates across the single underlying field (which is again, partitioned into corpuscles). Also, again, note that the spatial (topological) "packing" of the fermionic planckons is NOT used in the equations that update the codes. Thus, I make no underlying assumption about the physical packing of the planckons (even though my figures depict the field as having a 3D structure). Formally, the set of fermionic planckons in a corpuscle is just that, a set, i.e., an unordered collection.

I have not yet done any thinking about how my discrete planckon field and discrete time will address Lorentz invariance, local time, etc. But again, note that if the estimate of corpuscle size in the essay is ballpark correct, then the "antialiasing" that my model predicts, would not yet have been probed experimentally.

This physical theory is borrowed over from an information-processing theory.

What name does it have?

Ulla Mattfolk

Happy to see you on FQXi Ulla, Like I told you the works of Dr Rinkus are innovative and relevant. I d be curious to have your critics ,regards

Hello, I believe also that these DE and DM are important, they permit to retrun at this old school if I can say about the motions of particles. The particles wich are at my humble opinion the real primordial essence, the fields being emergent. I don t beleibe that the photons and GR alone explain the DE and DM, we don t need to modify the newtonian mechanics it seems to me.

And the dark energy correctly understood permit to solve the constant cosmological problem. Furthermore if the space vacuum of this DE possesses the main codes , that solves other problems too.

Your assumptions are very good , they make me think about the Mtheory and strings and the correlations with the 1D comsic field and the 1D field at this planck scales permitting with the geometrical algebras to explain the geometries and topologies and the standard model with the fermions and bosons. I believe that it exists a conjecture between all this, the strings, branes, fields, Mtheory, extradiemnsions and the pure 3D spheres like foundamental objects. The fields in my reasoning so are emergent . That becomes so interesting to consider your fermionic and bosonic partitions connected. All seems a question of codes indeed and where they are really these foundamental primordial codes if I can say, it is from outside or inside and from what , is it fields or is it particles coded and if yes where.

For the links with the informations and binary systems, it is important also indeed and how these informations are under their distributions to imply the changes, variables of the equations in physics. Like tell Lorraine ford the boolean algebras permit these changes for the equations in physics. But the real question is still the same about the primordial essence of these informations and what are the main causes ,and where.

Regards

Hi Tom, Steve,

I've just come across what is for me a new concept, quasiparticles, and in particular, fractons, described in two recent Quanta articles. I was immediately intrigued to read that the fractons do not move, though composites of them can move in sub-manifolds (of the overall space). I think that there may be a connection between my set-based formalism and fractons and have reached out to those mentioned in this article (https://www.quantamagazine.org/fractons-the-weirdest-matter-could-yield-quantum-clues-20210726/?utm_source=pocket-newtab), in particular, the authors of this paper (https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.235136). I'm trying to work through this paper and am getting some glimpses of the analogies between their model and mine. It seems that they are extending the existing vector-based formalism of QT to describe these fractional particles, whereas I may have an alternate (set-based) formalism that might be able to describe the phenomena. We'll see.

BTW, Tom, I tried to read your paper. That's actually kind of hard for me. I'd need close help to understand it.

Sorry, here are the links:

[link:www.quantamagazine.org/fractons-the-weirdest-matter-could-yield-quantum-clues-20210726/?utm_source=pocket-newtab[/link]

and

[link:journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.235136[/link]

-Rod

Thanks for the links, Rod.

If you follow the Quanta article, you can follow my paper--that's what I mean by radiation without annihilation.

Fractons--stable, motionless--can actually be described by a soliton standing wave. Quoting from the article: "To see what's so exceptional about fracton phases, consider a more typical particle, such as an electron, moving freely through a material. The odd but customary way certain physicists understand this movement is that the electron moves because space is filled with electron-positron pairs momentarily popping into and out of existence. One such pair appears so that the positron (the electron's oppositely charged antiparticle) is on top of the original electron, and they annihilate. This leaves behind the electron from the pair, displaced from the original electron. As there's no way of distinguishing between the two electrons, all we perceive is a single electron moving."

From my paper: "Wave-particle duality, however, cannot explain space and time, which we don't think of as physical quantities--and shouldn't, said Einstein and Minkowski--because only the unity of the two, as spacetime, is physically real. We want to demonstrate a more subtle consequence of that unity--a 1-dimensional spacetime field that grows and decays locally as a function of its global topology. That is, taking infinity mathematically as a growth rate and infinitesimal as a decay rate, we find a point that should be absolute--where motion is null, and mass is created and destroyed continuously. Radiation without annihilation."

(4) (PDF) Dynamic spacetime imposes matter-wave continuity. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353495811_Dynamic_spacetime_imposes_matter-wave_continuity [accessed Jul 30 2021].

If these guys aren't destroyed by the "crank" label, maybe my proposed neutrino experiment has a chance of actually being performed.

It's good news for you, too, Rod -- your model (which I have now digested) based on set self-similarity, and fractons seem to fit the bill. A physically real spacetime field gives it continuity--I think you have already described such a field in different terms. More on that later.

All best,

Tom

    Hi Dr Rinkus, It is very interesing all this. I have considered the ranking of quasiparticles in my model with these 3D quantum spheres with a kind of hopf fibrations on 2D surfaces of these spheres . That could be relevant to consider so the interactions with the vacuum. We must that said differenciate the fermions and bosons . A sure thing seems that it is an emergent phenomenon from causes. These causes can be ranked also ,and it seems that if we have the 3 ethers merging to create the satble baryonic matter, so these causes are complex, outside, inside, on fermions, on bosons, with the fields and excitations. The volumes and the densities and oscillations vibrations so seem relevant to analyse and the life time. Regards

    Hi Ulla, the info processing theory is "Sparsey". The physical theory has no name yet. The key idea was described in my 1996 thesis.

    The first pub describing the core learning (storage) algorithm, in the simplest case of purely spatial inputs, was in my 2010 paper.

    The 2014 paper describes the generalization to the spatiotemporal input case (even though that was the case originally treated in my 1996 thesis).

    The 2017 arXiv paper is the most up-to-date description.

    Probably easiest to look at algorithm in 2010 paper. An underlying goal of the model is to achieve constant time complexity storage AND constant time complexity BEST-MATCH retrieval. No model formally achieves that, in particular, locality sensitive hashing might come closest, but it does not. In fact, Sparsey also does not formally achieve both, but it effectively does. I realize I need to explain that in detail, but the key is that when the overall information processing system is organized as a hierarchy of modules (each running Sparsey's algorithm), constant time complexity storage and best-match retrieval can be realized over arbitrarily long lifetimes. The argument is sketched in this short paper.

    Hi Tom,

    Well I've read through a good bit of the fracton paper. I get some things, but I definitely need to get more background in the basics of TQFT to fully understand it. Nevertheless, I do suspect a deep connection. Even just the idea of fractional charge suggests to me a set-based underpinning. In my terms, the fermionic state, X, of a corpuscle is a set of Q active fermion-planckons. Suppose X corresponds to the presence of one particle in some config. The corpuscle's universal set of fermion-planckons is >> Q. Suppose there is some subset, C, of the corpuscle's fermion-planckons that represent charge. Let C be of size 1000. Then the X can have intersection size of from 0 to 1000. The overall dynamics (physical law) governing the evolution of the corpuscle (and of any corpuscle) might be such that only intersections of certain sizes are possible. Some of them might correspond to integer charges and some to fractional charges.

    Yes, I noticed the quote you cite too. In my model, the the initial electron-positron pair, at T, is just one set of Q active fermion-planckons; the remaining, displaced electron, at T+1, is just another set, though (as described in Fig. 4 of the essay), the two sets would have some significant intersection. And, as the article suggests, the two instances of the electron are only thought of as being the *same* electron because the two positions are along a line of travel (e.g., from T-2, T-1) and delta T is small. A key question then is: is the corpuscle's codespace (number of unique sets of size Q) large enough to represent any arbitrary path of movement through the corpuscle? More generally, is the codespace large enough to represent a very large set of quantum state sequences, where (I'm assuming) the vast majority of those states will actually be ensembles of multiple particles. While this might seem like a tall order, note that I'm assuming the corpuscle is very small, e.g., 10^12 planck lengths on a side. In that case, maybe only ensembles of quite limited size might actually need to be modeled (in order to explain all known larger scale (though still quantum) phenomena. In particular, while I said above, the codespace needs to be large enough to represent *any* possible path through a corpuscle, maybe the actual number of possible paths that need to be represented in such a tiny portion of space doesn't actually need to be that large. That is, even if only 6 paths were represented (one for each face of the cube directed inward across the corpuscle), looking from our much higher scale, we'd see all particle paths that span multiple corpuscles, as essentially straight lines. That is, at our high observational scale relative to the actual mechanics, we don't see antialiasing. BTW, the same principles apply with respect to a particle "moving" from one corpuscle to the next as well. The first state in which the particle appears in the next corpuscle is such another set of Q active fermion-planckons, just chosen from that next corpuscle's universal set of fermion-planckons.

    Regarding your quote from your paper, I think I agree with you and Einstein and Minkowski about not seeing space or time as physical quantities. But what do you mean by "..grows and decays locally as a function of its global topology"? I realize the answer might be long. But maybe you can point me to an appropriate tutorial for that, or I'd be happy to vchat some time if you want.

    What do you mean by the "crank" thing?

    I'm happy that you have put time in to understand my theory. As you can see by now then, it is really extremely simple. The big thing I figured out (in my thesis) is that all you need to do, in order to statistically preserve similarity (of all orders, not just pairwise) when learning an input space, is organize the coding field as a set of WTA modules, and bias the distributions from which winners are chosen (one in each WTA module) based on a global measure of the familiarity of the input (my G measure). The great thing is that computing G is trivial and the whole algorithm runs in fixed time (does not grow as the number of stored items increases). And, then the one other, crucial thing, is that once the items have been stored in this way, retrieving the closest-matching item is also trivial (in fact, in simpler than the learning algorithm). I know that this is a better way of achieving the functionality of locality-sensitive hashing. I've reached out to many of the leaders of that field, but never gotten them to listen. Not giving up.

    Anyway, it gives me a big boost that a person with your knowledge of QT sees some value in what I've done.

    Rod

    Hi Rod,

    I don't hold myself out as an expert in quantum theory. I've got all three Steven Weinberg (RIP) books on quantum field theory, and haven't cracked one yet. I should read now to honor his memory, but at my age, that's a promise I can't keep.

    I do know a little topology, though. So when Ed Witten came up with TQFT, I walked in through the back door. So I believe your instincts are guiding you straight.

    The main concept remains with the field continuum of spacetime. When spacetime is accepted as physically real a number of problems, of unifying fields, disappear.

    Radiation without annihilation provides the constraint on runaway (positive) feedback to the system, protecting it from annihilation radiation, and providing negative (control) feedback. I think the wave shape of this constraint is a standing soliton wave, sharing many properties with fractons, as already noted.

    From your paper:

    " ... a boson field completely connects any particular fermion field."

    You might be describing spacetime.

    If the boson field of massless particles interacts with the fermion field, you are begging a field continuum. If " ... we require that the matrix between any two Sparsey coding fields (including recurrently) and between a coding field and an input field (are) also complete ... " case closed. The fields are not discrete, only the associated particles. And the only measurement is between and among mass points, which are real, i.e., physical. If the superposed boson field affects fermion fields, it fits perfectly Einstein's definition of a physically real spacetime continuum: " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions."

    All physics is local, Einstein asserted. A boson field is created locally from interacting mass, yet possesses no mass of its own, and thus "has a physical effect, but is not itself influenced by physical conditions." So what does give the field its effect?--I (and perhaps others) propose Time as the whole reason that space alone, and time alone, are real only if spacetime is real. And it's why time is identical to information. Physical information can be shown causative.

    Now here's where the "crank" label comes in. It seems that every time an analytical, i.e., continuous, theory of nature gains momentum, self-appointed guardians of discrete physics go apoplectic. And they have the advantage of presently holding the power.

    Prove that spacetime is real, and the tide turns.

    "I suspect that the recent Bell inequality violation findings do not refute the type of 'local variables' explanation given here."

    I'm afraid they do. Your weight matrix emulates a negative feedback (control) mechanism that regulates information (thus, time), measured at the completion of an event; say, the absorption of a photon or electron. And that's the only measurement constant in Bell-Aspect type experiments. It's just algebra, a count of the number of times particles were correlated or anti-correlated.

    All best,

    Tom

    Steve,

    Re Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 28, 2021 @ 12:34 GMT:

    Why am I a critic of the ideas of (male dominated) physics and a critic of the ideas of (male dominated) computer nerds? Because, unlike you and Tom and others, I actually DID study physics, maths and information (computer) science at university for 3 years, receiving a high distinction for one of my maths subjects, and I was a computer analyst and programmer for more than 20 years. Unlike some others, I am not an uncritical follower.

      And Steve,

      I might add that there is only one, ONE, thing you need to know about the world: is the world such that people genuinely make a difference to the world (i.e. is the world such that people change the numbers for the variables) or not? And clearly, people DO change the numbers for the variables.

      Lorraine, you seem to have a problem of competition with the males and the others also , and you don t know better the maths and physics, unlike you, me I have studied in details the maths and physics and I see the generality, you apparentely no simply, you repeat the same things still and always with the variables, we have understood about the changes. Try to go farer and discuss the other threads with more logic and generality, thanks for your understanding. It is not because you have studied at university the physics that you are a gnereal innovative thinker simply, I dont want to offense but for me it lacks many things to study for you.Ps

      Ps I was at university and I study all days the maths and physics of the best papers of best thinkers,don t try lorraine, try to be less vanitious and frustrated please

      ps, stop to tell also ironical things about the members , Tom is a relevant thinker . And the persons that I have known on FQXi them are more general and skilling than you for me, they are able to speak generally , not you, you repeat the same always Lorraine like if you had something to prove, you prove nothing of really innovative and generally relevant you know. You just show us a frustration and anger.

      You know Lorraine, Personally I am a nice guy and I am going to tell you an advice for your credibility, stop to be too much like this against the males, I can recognise that the hormonal testosterones can imply problems but it exists men respectable . And for your informations, I am obliged to tell it I am invited to many conferences to present my theory and many Phd from manu countries like my theory , and I improve it all days.They told me that I have found a general universal link and it is innovative in the sense that the spheres can be the answer and that there is probably a conjecture with the strings and fields. Instead to repeat these things about the variables, boolean algebras and computing, if you could speak about the geometrical algebras, the quantm gravitation, and others with concrete maths , it d be better becase there we don t learn nothing from you.We just see an odd comportment of frustration agianst the males.Make the peace with yor psychology and past please .