Heuristic rule for constructing physics axiomatization by Florin Moldoveanu

'Nice try, but still will not work. When particles decay or collide with anti-particles, they simply get replaced by other particles and no 'space-time hole' is generated'

If the free neutron decay, it disappears instantly. Then you see the products of its decay - proton, electron and antineutrino, but you know nothing about these processes. Since we remove the matter (neutron) instantly from the volume, a hole in space time can appear for a very short time 10^-24 s. We can test this idea experimentally; if the clocls placed near the neutron storage tick slower, it will be the experimental proof for the hole theory.

Florin

When a free neutron decays it decays into an electron and a 'W-' who later decays into an electron and an antineutrino. The proton is basically replacing the neutron.

It does not contradict the existence of holes. First appears the hole for the short time, then 'W who later decays into an electron and an anti-neutrino. We must introduce the holes in the Feynman's diagrams. Do you can see how neutron decays? You have the speculative theoretical models only.

Another counter example is the electron expulsion from an ionized atom.

It is not a good example for creation of holes. I need nuclear physics and massive particles.

The string theory prove nothing, it is a very speculative theory. In the same way you can affirm that holes cannot exist because a holy bible forbids holes.

Now I look for 2 atomic clocks and soon I'll have the experimental proofs that holes exist. How can you explain the appearance of time dilation and length contraction effects at decays of neutrons? I'll show also another signs of holes - the destruction of chamber. Thus I can show all experimental signs for holes. The theory predicts and experiment confirms. It is the exact proof for vacuum holes. You cannot go against experimental proofs! Please remember that Experiment governs physics, not dogmas.

Florin

If you can compute very precisely anything you want it is not the proof that the theory is true. All the Standard Model is a mathematical model mainly, that can compute all but cannot explain a lot of things like mass, inertia ets. And all Standard Model can fall in the next years because the Higgs cannot be found. There are also other flaws in the Standard model.

The appearance of holes do not contradict the neutron decay model. Please understand that the physical effect with holes is disguised under known model of decay. I do not have intention to change the oficially known model of neutron decay, I must find there signs for holes only.

'In the current accepted body of knowledge in physics, space and time cannot be removed.'

I used words 'remove space-time' in order to explain how to shield gravity only. At quantum level there is another picture. Pay atention to my words: if neutron disappears, it means that we remove this neutron only, but not spacetime. You see, really I remove the matter only to create a hole. But since this operation create holes, I spoke that I can remove spacetime. Now you understand? The both explanations are true. But really I remove matter, not spacetime.

That is it, my theory is a NEW theory that is outside of current accepted body of knowledje. In general, you are now at the FQXi essay contest that looks for a new knowledje at the limits of physics, therefore I don't understand your example with current knowledje. The destination of this forum is just to change the current knowledje.

'I agree, we should enhance the existing knowledge, but this means we should be compatible with what we already know to be true so far, otherwise, it is only a self-delusional fantasy.'

How the new theory of strong interaction can be compatible with old theory of strong interaction? They cannot be compatible in general because they remove one another. You cannot have two theories of strong interaction to be compatible at the same time, it is a logical error. In the same way, my new theory of spacetime cannot be compatible with old concept of spacetime. Einstein's theory for example also removed the old concept of spacetime. It is the main your error in this discution that you try to reconcile the existing knowledje with new knowledje.

My new theory must be compatible with EXPERIMENTAL DATA only but not with QCD or old vision of spacetime! The Experimental data, but not your theory is the main knowledje.

QCD agrees 100% with observations - because theorists hides all errors. We never observed quarcks and gluons. To hide this error, they invented konfinement. QCD is not a logical theory in general because confinement do not follow logically from theory. It is a mathematical model only. I'm sure that this theory can fall during next 10 - 20 years. In general QCD is a darned and full of logical holes theory.

QCD has a major problem - it is not possible to unify QCD with gravitation and other interactions. It is the main cause why QCD must fall.

My holes can unify 3 interactions. If holes appear between nucleons, they 'glue' nucleons as a Descartes vessel. Holes can explain also gravitation and weak interaction.

Another example for you that spacetime can be really removed. Imagine that spacetime consists of virtual atoms of spacetime that appears and disappears (Smolin and other scientists are agree that space is also made of discrete pieces). If the atom of spacetime disappear, then appear a vacant place - a hole that do not have the properties of space-time. You see, quantum spacetime allow for space to be removed. My theory use just the quantum spacetime.

'Gravity cannot be shielded due to the equivalence principle' Gravity can be shielded FOR A CLOSED region of spacetime. For an isolated volume we can shield gravity and it cannot violate EP.

Florin,

Let us discus holes on my page and your essay on this page. Please feel free to enter on my page to discus this item.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/481

It is the last post about holes in this page because your page is overloaded by text (127 posts).

'I meant QED, not QCD' I have nothing against QED, it is a good theory. But QCD is my opponent and enemy.

'I hope you are not offended by my criticism' I don't see any criticizm, you don't found any holes in my theory.

'Please feel free to poke holes in my essay as well' Thank you, if I find some holes, I'll place they here.

'For an isolated volume we can shield gravity and it cannot violate EP' Shielding gravity is equivalent with a violation of EP: the inertial mass stays the same, but the gravitational mass is decreased because of the shielding. Hence the two masses are no longer the same for the duration of the shielding and therefore the EP is violated'

There your opinion is VERY erroneous. Imagine a closed volume with a body inside. Then we envelope a body with absolute isolation. How you compare now the inertial and gravitational mass? You do not have access to this volume because it is an AVSOLUTE isolation, that shield all the fields including gravitation. It is equivalent to sending a body in another universe.

Since you cannot compare the inertial and gravitational mass, you cannot speak about violation of EP.

Dear Florin Moldoveanu,

You have provided essential guidelines to work on new physics and renormalization. Though the axiomatization in quantum mechanics, U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) are the background for supersymmetric quantum mechanics; the axiomatization in cosmology, the cosmological constant is inconsistent and thereby the axiomatization in quantum gravity may be divergent for the construction of physical axiomatization in entirety.

As the relativity of the critical mass with its environmental parameters are in natural realities, we may proceed with multiple axiomatization of physical realities that are universally valid and the outcome may be an abstract universe mathematically.

Thereby my perception on your article is that the axiomatization of multiple axiomatization in natural realities is your conclusion to proceed with TOE, as the physics and mathematics are inseparable.

With Best wishes,

Jayakar

If you have time, feel free to enter on my page to continue discussion. I had a short conflict with Corda. He doesn't found any error in my theory, only notes like 'no mathematical proofs'. What is your opinion about violation of EP?

Sorry, I make errors in hurry. The previous post is my post.

Dear Lwrence B. Crowell-

You wrote: "I wrote a paper last spring concering the zitterbewegung, and communicated with Hestenes about this. I have not submitted it for publication yet. If you are interested in it I can transmit it. Zitterbewegung may be telling us something about the end of renormalization group flows and the onset of mass at low energy. The leptons and quarks all have masses ~ .5 to 100 MeV, and sitterbewgung suggests this mass is associated with a confining potential at the Compton wave length of a particle."

In my essay, "Ultimate Possibilities of Physics", which covers Quantum Field Mechanics (QFM), the origin of the origin of the zitterbewegung is explained a bit. According to QFM, a confining potential is indeed the reason for the zitterbewegung. Kirilyuk, the originator of QFM demonstrates in his papers [2] (see also the tutorials on my website [3]) that a pulsating potential well causes this trapping, which results in a pulsating random wandering state function (the references can be found in the back of my essay).

Regards,

Ben Baten

Dear Florin,

I would like to start with saying that my background is in engineering and not in physics or mathematics. I am only more or less familiar with many of the modern theories in math or physics.

I enjoyed reading your essay. I think you captured the essence when you say: "physics is an experimental science" and "mathematics deals with abstract relationships."

In my opinion, there is a long journey for science in front of us. To create a TOE we still need to discover new laws of physics, and for sure those may come with new mathematics. When comes to existing theories which we hope to lead to a TOE, I am a believer that the Standard Model is more of a mathematical success than a physical one. There are many basic questions it fails to answer even if in my opinion it should. Same with string theory. Instead of finding out a mathematics which "fits" our world, we need to discover first if the model of the world we have it is complete to begin with. Have we discover all the simple truths? Only after that task is done we can start thinking towards an axiomatizing of physics.

Best regards and good luck with your essay.

To anonymous: Zitterbewegung reflects something about how renormalization group flow ends. It cuts off the scale at which nature is largely invariant with respect to scale. This is of course absolute necessary for there to really exist a physica world. A completely scale invariant world would be one where quantum fluctuations on all scale can obtain completely. In other words the degree of order in the system is determined by quantum fluctuations, which is what happens with quantum critical points. At that point exactly the quasi-particle mass diverges to infinity, which is unphysical. The small breaking of this scaling is wrapped up in the existence of Higgs fields and the zitter.

Cheers LC

Yes the two colors reflect the real and imaginary parts. The chirping I think is a real part of the dynamics. The wave is caught in a bottle and bounced off the "walls" of the bottle. The wave function is squashed in a sense as it impinges on one of the sides. Again this is a two dimensional realization of the problem. A three dimensional realization will not have quite this feature. There are some computer simulations of waves interacting with square barriers which were done in the 1960s. They are of remarkable quality in fact. But when the wave, initially a gaussian enveloped wave, reaches the boundary it tends to do this chirping.

Cheers LC

PS, on my site I mentioned today in a rather long post zitterbewgung in refrence to scaling principles. LC

Dear Mr. Moldoveanu,

I am dealing with the development of a modern, that is, scientific metaphysics. This dealing is based on the conviction that a modern metaphysics provides significant insights into a TOE because it is based on a foundation that is by its nature absolutely fundamental. In ancient times this foundation was called the ONE.

But this foundation could never be found. As we know, all the attempts that have been done during the last two thousand years failed. As a consequence of this radical failure metaphysics was regarded as scientifically meaningless.

The main reason for this radical failure was the transcendent character of the One. It was described as being beyond every description and formalization. At the first sight a foundation that is characterized in this way seems to be in fact no serious object of science, especially of physics.

But just this impression is a fatal error, because it prevents us from a deep and penetrating understanding of the universe. If the One is truly the ultimate basis of our universe, then we have unavoidably to include it in our research. But how can we deal with it?

We have to turn around our usual philosopichal perspective: Instead of dealing with something, that cannot, in principle, be described in physical terms, we have to ask: How must the Universe look like if it is based on something that is of transcendent character?

If we follow this line of reasoning systematically we can discover that transcendence is a highly restrictive condition with respect to the structure of the Universe. That the universe is mathematically describable, has its origin just in the fact that its ultimate basis is withdrawn of all mathematical describability. That is at least my conviction.

But this foundation has an inconvenient property as far as physics is concernd. That is the reason why I am writing this post. Actually there is an ontological equivalent ot Gödels Incompleteness Theorem.

I found that the universe must have a certain kind of a radical non-dual structure, if it shall base on a transcendent foundation. It seems that there is even concrete evidence that our universe does really have such a structure.

Let us suppose for a moment that the assumption of such a radical non-dual structure is really true. This truth would suggesting that the One is really existing. But could we prove this truth? No, we could not provide any proof, just because the One is, in principle, of transcendent nature.

And this would be in fact the last word about the very core of the universe. Although the One would be physically recognized as the ultimate foundation of the Universe, we could never prove it.

That is the inconvenient message of a modern metaphysics.

H.Hansen

More details see Taming of the One.

I attack a numerical computation of a Gaussian wave function tunnelling through a barrier. On the left hand side near the barrier there is the occurrence of interference waves between ingoing and outgoing Fourier modes of the wave. This is not the image I was thinking of. There was a numerical study of a wave on a barrier done back in the 1960s, which is quite exquisite given the technology of the time. It exhibited the same peaking up or chirping due to interferences between incident and reflected waves.

A periodic boundary condition would seem to be to be a completely different problem. I might use some digital filtering techniques to try to eliminate some numerical overshoots or spurious results. I agree that some of what I compute could be artificial.

Cheers LCAttachment #1: EffetTunnel.gif

Huge number of postings do make me worried about the relevance aspect I note that there is mention that Nature is complex. To me it seems that the Nature is simple but our minds run in a complex way, different for each individual. If the problem at hand does not get simplified by an approach, to me it seems that our approach needs improvement. i hardly know anything about the topic under discussion and hence i leave my comments here for experts to consider.

Florin,

Thank you for your essay. It is a bold proposal at the foundation of physics.

I always thought mathematics contained all of physics (reality) as a subset.

Now I am thinking that is not "true".

Don L

Florin,

I will take your suggestion under advisement on the numerics. The purpose was not to get the most ideal solution, but to giev a rough idea of things. To be honest what I want to do is to work out a 3-dimensional version, but I just have not gotten to that as yet.

Cheers LC

Florin,

I said I would comment again when I had had time to complete reading your article. I have read it several times to try to grasp it and be sure that I have not misunderstood.I have also read your diligent answers to many previous posters which has been very helpful.

I think it is well written and I admire what you have set out to do. I would very much like it if we could rely on a measure of absolute truth, some reliable filtering of possibilities and mathematical precision to explain everything. Which I think is the aim of this approach.It does rely on some prior assumptions and theory. Is there a danger that the very things filtered out by this approach may be the important elements that might lead somewhere significant?

You say early on ".... reasoning about a problem that would lead to undiscovered theory. This step should not rely on clever tricks or sudden inspiration but should be a systematic research programme." History has shown us that systematic research does not lead to the greatest breakthroughs but that it is often original individual thinkers outside of the mainstream of research that do this job. Systematic research leads to incremental increase in knowledge building upon existing theory. Which may be superseded when new theory emerges. Being systematic and logical only brings together those ideas that seem likely and fit existing structure. The intuitive mind does not work within these limitations and will find alternative solutions that might otherwise not be considered. How do you reconcile the innate difference between a systematic and logical approach on the one hand and originality or creativity on the other?

I'm still not sure I understand the universal truth property. It seems to me there is a difference between a mathematically true statement and any other truth. Any observation can only generate a statement that something is true beyond reasonable doubt at best. In many cases results may be merely statistically significant. However the interpretation may be based on false assumptions or incomplete evidence or use of a completely incorrect model that generates numerically correct answers. An audience of 200 can observe a rabbit being pulled from an empty hat and will agree on the observation. That does not make it true. There may also be cases where truth depends on perspective. An iridescent material may appear to be one colour to observer A, but a different colour to observer B. Without complete information the true situation can not be ascertained.

What is ultimately possible in physics? According to your article ultimately physics will cease to be an experimental science at the limits of investigation and will merge into mathematics. This merger will produce a new era of research, possibly leading to a mathematical theory of everything. I think the tacit assumption here is that because of the precision of mathematics it is considered to be a superior approach and therefore closer to truth than any theory produced by merger of physics with philosophy. That is debatable.

There will still need to be inputs to the mathematical analysis, which may be false or incomplete assumptions or evidence. There will have to be interpretations of the mathematical results which may once again be false or incomplete and lead to incorrect understanding. I do however see the appeal of attempting to construct something simple, neat and tidy, precise and unambiguous. Though I also wonder whether that neatness and precision may be overrated and might actually just be masking a further mess underneath that has not been incorporated into the model and is not even recognised.

As I said before it is not at all boring. I have only picked out those few things with which I have felt most unease. There is lots to like and I have found it very interesting to contemplate. It is not a path I would have ever considered or taken myself. Good luck with the competition and with the continuing development of this approach.

Hi Florin ,all ,

Incredible thread ,many interesting discussions ,a pleasure for me to read them.

Good Luck Florin....well begun all that for the first prize perhaps

Sincerely

Steve

Florin,

thank you very much for explaining.

Only the UTP still puzzles me. You have explained that it is the Mathematic idealisation of perfect observers.I tried to express that even when many observers agree their observation is not necessarily truth. It is merely an interpretation of reality, which may be incorrect. As there is no perfect observer that can see all viewpoints simultaneously, excluding a hypothetical omnipresent being, should this be considered as something like the mean average of all possible observers?. What is it mathematically? Or is it just a term assigned to any event because it is assumed that it possesses it, despite conflicting observations?

I can accept that fundamentally there is a Universal truth property but only such an omnipresent being could state what that absolute truth is. So it would seem to me that truth, in the subject interpretation of reality that we inhabit, is also contextual. Therefore how can UTP be practically applied? Am I thinking about this in entirely the wrong way?

I read Grgin's paper with considerable interest. I am always looking for connections between what I am thinking with others, or between what others are thinking. I posted this on his site. I have been reading your paper

arXiv:0901.0332v2 [quant-ph] 16 Jan 2009

and a couple of bits from it I used at the end of this, with liberties taken as this is not really plagerism since this is a blog post. I needed to reduce wear and tear on fingers.

I have been giving the matter of quantions some study. I am not entirely decided about their status as yet. My sense is they are an interlinking between two complex number or quaternions in a way which defines norms differently. This might have something to do with S-matrix. So I will outline some aspects of S-matrix theory and black hole complementarity, and then try to make possible links to quantions.

The holographic principle and black hole complementarity are generalizations of the S-matrix. Susskind's treatment of strings falling onto a black hole according to a distant observer treats the S-matrix on a domain which is causally defined on an infinite domain of support according to the tortoise version of the radial Schwarzschild coordinate

r* = r - 2m ln|r - 2m|

The S-matrix requires an infinitely extended domain by which fields are causally related, which is "manufactured" by this coordinate. In these coordinates the string exhibits a range of strange behavior, which I am not going to review again in great detail. Yet the string ends up covering the black hole horizon and is frozen their according to this distant observer. To an infalling observer on a commoving frame with the string none of this is the case, but rather the string enters the black holes with no apparent change and then exhibits tidal forces of an extreme nature near the interior of singularity. The string is a form of S-matrix theory, and the two cases reflect the existence of two S-matrices, each according to state space elements which are incommensurate with each other, or according to noncommutative operators. This is one way of looking at the so called black hole complementarity principle. There is then a superposition of the string in these two bases of states, and for this reason the distant observer may see the string frozen above the event horizon and also "burned up" by Hawking radiation made of quanta scattered from the string according to the infalling observer's frame.

The ordered S-matrix defines each vertex, or particle, and its neighbor. In a linear chain a general state is an S-matrix channel of the form

|φ> = |p_1, . . . , p_i, . . . , p_j , . . . , p_n>

This state or S-matrix channel is related to but distinction from the channel

|φ'> = |p_1, . . . , p_j, . . . , p_i, . . . , p_n>

The particles or vertices p_i and p_j have exchanged their neighbors, which means some "relationship" structure to the amplitude has been fundamentally changed. The S-matrix is written according to S = 1 - 2πiT, so two states or channels |p_1, . . ., p_n> and |q_1, . . . , q_n> are related to each other by the S-matrix as

(p_1, . . . , p_n|Sjq_1, . . . , q_n> = (p1, . . . , p_n|(1 - 2πiT)|q_1, . . . , q_n>

= (p_1, . . . , p_n|q_1, . . . , q_n> - 2πi(p_1, . . . , p_n|T|q_1, . . . , q_n>:

For the < | the in channel and | > as the out channel p_n and q_1 are neighbors, and neighbors through the T-matrix. This eliminates an open vertex in the chain. The vertices or particles p_1 and q_n are the open elements in the chain and defines an "anchor" for the chain, and are thus defined as neighbors in this manner.

A four point function and the transition matrix defined by vertex operators T = V(p_1)ΔV(p_3) will contruct the Euler-beta function for coherent states of the S-matrix. This is the connection of course between string theory and the old bootstrap or S-matrix theory. Now for two S-matrices, which pertain to the different domains of causality on a black hole this theory is made more difficult. The S-matrix is a braiding operation of sorts between elements of a quantum group G. So we might model this as a commutator structure (braiding) between two elements a and b \in G. So we might denote this as ab --- ba. Now let us assume the states we observe are super-positions of incommensurate states involving two quantum groups G and G'. We will then have a structure of the sorts (ab)c --- a(bc), that exist in an associahedron I_2(5) with a homotopy structure. This homotopy then connects to a K-theoretic field theory, which I discuss in my paper

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/494.

I will not belabor this part of the things, until later or somebody takes an active interest in what I am suggesting here.

The black hole complementarity principle. The complementarity is an odd structure, for Hawking radiation is due to a Bogoliubov transformation between basis elements. In this setting the theory of spacetime is classical and the fields scatter off the black hole or spacetime with an event horizon. The response of the black hole or spacetime is a metric back reaction, which is a classical response to a quantum scattering. Yet black hole complementarity has demonstrated that quantum information is preserved for the case of a BZT black hole in an anti-de Sitter spacetime. So a connection between the quantum principles of unitarity (or maybe more generally modularity) and a classical field theory which exhibits thermal physics (black hole entropy and Bekenstein bounds etc) exists within this AdS/CFT setting. Yet we do not as yet understand how quantum information is preserved. We just know that it is.

So the quantumal rules of Grgin seem to segue into the picture here. The permitted multiplication rules

(fαg)αh (gαh)αf (hαf)αg = 0

gα(fσh) = (gαf)σh fσ(gαh)

(fσg)σh − fσ(gσh) = agα(hαf)

Connects the Jordan exceptional algebra to a quantum algebraic system. The associator is then by the homotopy equivalence mapped to a quantum group as a system of permutations (related permutahedra) with one set of norms determined by the underlying permutative rules or associahedra and the other by standard rules of complex conjugation in quantum mechanics. So the associator is [f, g, h]σ = agα(hαf) which induces the map between the octonions and the quantion group. This seems like an interesting problem to develop.

Cheers LC