• [deleted]

we need fun ....and that is going to begin.....Mr London , I need helps....Mr Landau thanks to be near me also and Mr Feynman of course, they need a curse of thermodynamics aznd sphericality sciences ahahah

How can we do for explaining to them with my bad english, bad english but me it's true sciences.

Let's begin with phonons and rotons.....and my spherons of course .Oh my God they need curses of thermo.

ROTATING SPHERES MY FRIENDS AND THERMODYNAMICS KINETICS

THE ROTATIONS OF THE SPHERES EXPLAIN ALL ........THE SOUND AND THE ROTATIONS YOU WANT A CURSE OR WHAT .

  • [deleted]

Zephir, I don't know how to explain it better than Lubos Motl (26 April 9:04 GMT) already did. I'll make an attempt.

The equivalence principle (of inertial mass and gravitational mass) in general relativity deals with ponderable quantities of mass in relation -- the symmetry of the mutual attraction between them explains the physics of gravity in a field theory without imposing other parameters, because it is the spacetime field that is physically real.

If one tries to introduce discrete energy exchange (i.e., through massless speed of light particles, bosons) as a physically real parameter, one comes up against the fact that there is no elapsed time between these massless particles, therefore no change in the field; measure in any direction at any observer velocity, and the speed will be the same. All that we know about gravity so far is classical physics alone.

Now you know the two-slit experiment, right? This is the heart of quantum mechanics. The two slit experiment informs us that bosons communicate holistically; i.e., these massless particles make coherent wave patterns from discrete units in statistically predictable ways.

Lubos is saying that Verlinde cannot get a workable field theory that includes mass, because if one makes information a physical parameter, it is wavelike, while the deterministic interactions of classical gravity are particle-like. So we are stuck with the same problems of unification that we always had, plus--Lubos claims--an additional problem of incorporating time into the theory. Time in classical physics is a simple parameter of reversible trajectory; in non-relativistic quantum physics, time has no meaning. So when we start talking about information entropy (whose mathematical model is identical to energy entropy) as physically real, we lose time conservation--a fundamental symmetry principle.

Gravity is not physically real in classical physics. If one wants a field theory in which gravity is identical to physical information and information is dissipative, then gravity has to be physically real. There goes the spacetime field, though, because of the nonreversibility of the time parameter.

I know that Lubos Motl's objections are sound, and must be successfully countered. However, I favor Erik Verlinde's and Ted Jacobson's approach -- why? Because I see the answers in a model that exploits what Hawking & Hartle found 30 years ago -- that imaginary time preserves both time reversibility and time asymmetry in a field theory.

If you're interested, my paper "On breaking the time barrier," is here

Tom

  • [deleted]

The concern over mass is something which is important, for it is the IR part of the theory and has a correspondence with the UV scale. To illustrate something about this I outline the physics in some detail here

A sphere of area A will contains N = A/L_p^2 units of information. The equipartition theorem is E = (1/2)NkT, where E = mc^2, and T the Hawking Unruh temperature,

[math]

T~=~{1\over{2\pi}}{{\hbar g}\over{kc}}

[/math]

The work-energy theorem of mechanics E = ∫F*dr gives Newtonian gravity

[math]

g~=~{{Gm}\over{r^2}},

[/math]

and Newton's second law F = mg.

A surface area at the Bekenstein limit due to quantum black holes is a summation over all eigen-numbers of Planck units of area

[math]

A~=~c\sum_{i=1}^Nn_iL_p^2~=~c\sum_n A_nL_p^2,

[/math]

where n = n_1 n_2 ... n_N contributes energy E_n = cnħg/4πc. An accelerated surface is degenerate according to a partition function

[math]

Z(\beta)~=~\sum_{n=1}^\infty g(E_n)e^{-\beta E_n}.

[/math]

The average energy is

[math]

\langle E(\beta)\rangle~=~-{\partial\over{\partial\beta}}ln~Z(\beta),

[/math]

and the entropy

[math]

S(\beta)~=~k\Big(ln~Z(\beta)~-~\beta{\partial\over{\partial\beta}}ln~Z(\beta)\Big),

[/math]

from which the characteristic temperature for a phase transition of an accelerate surface is

[math]

T_c~=~{c\over{4\pi ln~2}}{{\hbar g}\over{kc}},

[/math]

where c = 2 ln2. The energy for N --> ∞ is ( |E| ) = 0 [here ( and ) used for bra-ket notation] for T \lt T_c. A critical point occurs as T --> T_c, with production of quantum black holes from the vacuum. For large N the result approximates E = NkT.

This theory then lends itself to phase transitions. I recently submitted a paper on this, but I can outline what happens from here. The stretched horizon is a place where strings which compose a black hole are "frozen" and have an effective mass. The string's mass is just its energy which is confined on the stretched horizon. The elementary analysis with the critical temperature indicates a possible phase transition, indeed a quantum critical point or phase transition. The analysis is done in a fairly straight forwards way with extremal black hole and the analysis of the spacetime near the stretched horizon. The physics for fields or strings that enter the horizon or quantum tunnel out is quantum physics with a V ~ |x| potential. This has Airy function solutions which satisfy Zamolodcikov's c = 1/2 CFT condition on massive fields. The masses correspond to the (8,1) irrep of the E_8 group.

Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    Entropy means that energy of the system tends to be distributed in a homogeneous way. In the universe energy of matter and energy of space tends to be distributed in a homogeneous was.

    Presence of big mass creates distortion of quantum space and makes space less dens. Smaller mass have a tendency of "gravitational motion" into direction of lower density of space.

    yours amrit

    • [deleted]

    When you write like that dear Lawrence, I love ....hip hip houraaa

    I love your Zustandsumme...the partition function....interesting...Boltzman has had a good idea when he introduced that indeed .

    But if the ideal gas propertiers are inserted with their limits, that will change a little.

    Because the sum of the denominator implies effects on statisticam mechanics simply.And of course the levels of energies are correlated.

    The entropy of these systems considered with like ideal gas.Thus dS=dQ/T...etc etc etc ...S=INT C dT/T+n R ln V+S0......your N is it true ??? Furthermore still the infinity is confusing.....the functions of T and P and V needs the correct referential.

    In these cases, the existence of micro black hole seems impossible.

    Sincerely

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    For once, I am happy thus hihihi

    tivi

    • [deleted]

    That's interesting, Lawrence. Thanks. As I mentioned elsewhere, I think we are going to the same place from opposite directions.

    I think your stretched horizon where string field energies originate is the same as my four dimension horizon that I find identical to the 10 dimension limit (which means the energy on the 9 dimensional shell of S^10).

    It is of interest to me that your string mass is confined on the stretched horizon, because I think the low energy of our familiar four dimensions in terms of total cosmic inertial (baryonic) mass, which I calculate from first principles to a precise 4.59% of observed cosmic composition (consistent with WMAP data) is explained by this hyperspatial fraction of length 1. Your string field masses that originate in the quantum vaccum on the event horizon -- and this tiny fraction of 10-dimension length 1 -- explains the low energy content in that as our world becomes more ordered, disorder increases in dimensions > 4 as a result of information entropy, even as entropy also increases in our own world. IOW, only our unique dimensionality can sustain open systems ("life") within a universe in which entropy can only increase.

    Exta dimensions need not be compactified in this model -- we need only a sphere packing with an order normalized on 4 dimensions in which information monotonically decreases as the counting order (entropy) increases. This is consistent, I think, with Zamolodchikov's C-function extended to n dimension space > 4, if I understand correctly.

    I think the problem you're going to run into is the treatment of spacetime near the horizon. I don't think you can avoid singularities, with infinite mass density. (I try to get around this by proposing a continuum of mass identical to quantum unitarity, which implies negative mass and imaginary time.)

    Tom

      • [deleted]

      Dear Craq...you say .Gravity is always attractive, entropy is always increasing. ....alleluia .Attractive and sorting .....

      Regards

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      Tom,

      I have to make this somewhat brief. I remembered to look here a bit late in the day. The concept of strings on a stretched horizon was first suggested by 't Hooft and developed by Susskind. A generalized version was worked out by Maldacena in supergravity, called the AdS/CFT correspondence.

      The Verlinde results fit into this picture pretty well. All that I have done is to illustrate there exists a phase transition associated with this entropy force of gravity with black holes. This does go a bit further, for the Hagedorn temperature at the T ~ 1/L_s (very large) is the UV correspondence temperature at high energy to the IR temperature for the quantum critical point. So the broken symmetry phase theory at the IR domain is dual to a UV theory where the symmetries of the vacuum are those of the Lagrangian.

      Cheers LC

      • [deleted]

      Lawrence, you wrote, "So the broken symmetry phase theory at the IR domain is dual to a UV theory where the symmetries of the vacuum are those of the Lagrangian."

      Yes, that is what I am getting at with the quantum mechanical unitariness of the mass continuum. In order to have such a continuum, however, one must define a length 1 radius on the complex plane, because the minimum measure of 2 dimensions (complex analysis) drives the real measure of the 1-dimensional metric whose range is minus infinity to plus infinity. Wherever we arbitrarily cut that line (by measurement in real analysis), is real; however, negative spacetime of 2 dimensions is the necessary generator of the physical measure function.

      The price one pays to get here is negative mass and imaginary time. I find that result to be less exotic than one imagines.

      I am persuaded that the simplest mathematical support for supersymmetric phase transition and resultant broken symmetry is a model in the extended complex plane.

      Tom

        • [deleted]

        The E_8 lattice or root space has the symmetries of the group. This is a remarkable property of E_8. This means that the lattice, which has a toroidial topology is a compactified versions of the the space of E_8. The uncompactified version can be thought of as similar to a repeated set of tiles, while the compactified version is where one of the tiles is rolled up into a torus. This is an aspect of the UV/IR correspondence. The Golden mean ratio of masses for the (8,1) portion of the irreducible representation of E_8 are the low energy IR theory, and equivalent to the high energy conformal E_8 theory.

        The low energy theory describes one aspect of the string spectrum as measured on the stretched horizon. The lowering of the gravitational coupling constant, say we do this in an adiabatic manners with G --> 0 reduces the black hole to a gas of free strings with the E_8 symmetry. Similarly, if the mass of the black hole is reduced to zero the energy of the strings on the horizon approaches the Hagedorn bound. So this is the UV limit of the strings when the black hole is "evaporated."

        Imaginary time is involved with the partition function for the UV limit and the Hagedorn temperature it corresponds to. I will try to spell this out in greater detail later on. Writing the TeX macros is a bit time consuming, and yesterday for some reason one of them did not work right. Oddly the file I wrote it on has no error

        Cheers LC

        • [deleted]

        Dear Tom,

        I have also been playing with imaginary time and unusual masses. At this point, I think it is imaginary mass (or negative mass-squared - I think that mass -squared is the more appropriate relativistic quantity with which to work).

        I am also approaching the problem from a different angle from you and Lawrence. And although we three might disagree on specific details, I think that our general approaches may be converging.

        Have Fun!

        Ray

        • [deleted]

        Dear Lawrence,

        I could see scale invariance and/or S-duality relating UV and IR divergences. The AdS/CFT correspondence also works well with scale invariance. But which AdS/CFT model are you using? If you are using AdS_5~CDF_4, then I think we need a minimum rank-4 transform, so that J^3 - by itself - is insufficient. In my opinion, this infers a minimum of 28 dimensions. Perhaps at some higher energy scale, this is equivalent to a G2 of Quantions and/or Pauli Matrices.

        Regarding Verlinde's work, I think that "probablistic" interpretations of data are due to a smearing of phase space that is caused as extra dimensions collapse and/or decouple from Spacetime. Thus, "probabilistic" interpretations such as Quantum probablilities, and Statistical/Thermal probabilities are a property of our decoupled Spacetime. Because Spacetime Curvature and General Relativistic Gravitation are related, we should expect spacetime properties to be relevant. However, if Quantum Gravity (and Mass) originate in Hyperspace, and are transformed to Spacetime, then we should not expect to see a true and complete picture of Quantum Gravity in our decoupled Spacetime. We can only see part of the bigger picture clearly, the rest is "fuzzy" thanks to probabalistic interpretations. In a sense, you and Lobos are both correct in that Verlinde's ideas may model some features of Gravitation, but probably not all features of Quantum Gravitation.

        I am trying to organize all of my "crazy" ideas on extra dimensions.

        Have Fun!

        Ray

        • [deleted]

        Hi Steve, you're the very first case of public support of my person after five years of spreading of my ideas on the net. From some reason people are refusing to consider, we are composed of random particle stuff - the entropy is apparently more illustrative concept for them.

        • [deleted]

        One aspect of gravitation, of which there seems to be two widely diverse schools of thought, needs clarification, at least for myself. I could quote numerous authors on either side of this "argument" but, according to Einstein's GR, which is it?: Is the curved spacetime nearer a massive object "stretched", therefore "less dense", or could it be considered Lorentz contracted in the direction of the massive object (as well as time dilated)? Please pardon my ignorance and help me resolve this concept.

        Sincerely,

        Steve

        • [deleted]

        Dear Lawrence,

        Perhaps a 4-D transform operator first decomposes into a J^3 X U(1), which are then subsequently broken such that this U(1) yields the axion.

        • [deleted]

        Lawrence/Ray,

        I think that the only unpatchable difference between us, is your emphasis on the lattice as a physical agent. I admit I am weak in group theory; however, I can't reconcile any kind of rigid rotation with my hypothesis. My model aims at the basis for a nonperturbative field theory.

        This, because my time dependent model is smoothly continuous (by analytical continuation) across the spectrum of complex plane connected spheres, infinitely self similar and scale invariant. The appearance of discontinuity in the real domain occurs on the boundary of connected sphere kissing points as random structures.

        As I indicated in my ICCS 2006 paper, the exchange of a discrete point for a continuous curve is at the closest contact of kissing spheres. Because there is no way in principle to distinguish a straight vertical line from the zero boundary of kissing spheres of infinite radius, the imaginary axis is independent of dimension boundary conditions. The real axis, then, is the domain, minus infinity to plus infinity, across the equator of the complex sphere, with trivial values 1, - 1, i. IOW, the extended complex plane is sufficient to fix the origin of length 1 in any dimension > 3.

        That the approach to length 1 in hyperspace (d > 3) is asymptotic and dissipative over n dimension kissing Euclidean spheres, supports time dependence. I.e., connected spheres and their external boundaries comprise the total inertial energy content of a particular sphere kissing group. When we normalize the order on S^2 = 0, the four dimensional S^3 and succeeding dimension groups, is length 1 in the asymptotic limit. The time metric is analytically continuous through the kissing group boundaries, with a correspondingly slow growth of inertia as a percentage of length 1. (This is why our low dimension reality has low inertial mass.) Inertia increases proportional to the increase in kissing number.

        For this model to be coherent, however, time originates in the imaginary part of the 2 dimensional (complex) plane and space in the imaginary part of the complex (Riemann) sphere (which is the extended complex plane) -- IOW, spacetime indistinguishable from space alone; space and time self organized on the complex sphere. This is explained in detail in my "Time barrier" paper.

        I hope you can see from the above, why I do not accept the physical reality of fractal shapes and lattice constructions. These are random products of inertial energy exchange, not physical causes. The n-dimensional kissing order is integral, algebraic. Symmetry is emergent, not creative. The time metric, positive and Lebesgue measurable, is continuous; because I find the 4 dimension horizon identical to the 10 dimension limit, however, we should be able to demonstrate extra dimensions using quantum computing. That it, the qubit information unit (0,1) is an absolute complex plane zero and absolute length 1, independent of dimension boundaries.

        Once quantum computing is here, which shouldn't be too long now, one good thought experiment input into the program will settle the validity of quantum field theory cosmology, and its string theory extension, beyond reasonable doubt.

        Tom

          • [deleted]

          Steve Clark,

          Remember that in general relativity, there is no preferred frame of observer reference. Every inertial frame is valid.

          Tom

            • [deleted]

            Hi Tom,

            We almost have similarities. You are focusing on the Cardinal numbers, Steve Dufourny is focusing on the Prime numbers, and I am focussing on the Fibonacci and Lucas numbers (I know - you haven't seen my Lucas number results but this turns 'fractals' into 'integers' while admiting scale invariance, and I want integer symmetries to tie in with standard Group Theory and not have to use something as 'radical' as El Naschie's E-Infinity theory). I am certainly OK with complex numbers, but I'm not sure about the compatibility of smooth continuous functions with Quantum effects. Which is more fundamental - a discrete quantum Universe or a continuous classical Universe? Lawrence and I tend to think that the discrete quantum is more fundamental than the continuous classical. I think that smeared phase spaces caused by the collapse and decoupling of unseen extra dimensions causes discrete quantum (possibly lattice) effects to appear probabalistic and continuous. Perhaps you think that the Universe is smooth and continuous, but measurements give a discrete effect. Perhaps your studies will lead you to an interesting semi-quantum probabalistic Universe, but I don't think you are on a direct path towards the GUT or TOE.

            Kissing spheres leads to lattices and a sphere (vertex) - string (strut) duality that likewise leads to particle - wave duality.

            Hi Lawrence,

            Are you working with an AdS_5~CDF_4 model and wouldn't it require a 4-D transform?

            Have Fun!

            Ray

            • [deleted]

            Thanks Tom,

            What I'm trying to ascertain is whether a "stationary" observer at some distance from a "stationary" gravitational field would perceive a measuring rod near the surface of the gravitational mass (but not in motion relative to the observer) to be shorter (Lorentz contracted) in the direction of the gravitational "force", as compared to a measuring rod of equal length at the observers location. I understand that for time dilation it would be so, that a clock in the gravitational field would tick slower than at some distance from the field, but would length contraction also occur?

            Thanks again,

            Steve