Time and the Multiverse

[deleted]

time runs only in the mind,

universe (and eventually multiverse) is utterly timeless

yours amritAttachment #1: BLOCK_UNIVERSE.pdf

[deleted]

Dear Amrit,

Sorry, but I can't agree with this idea.

Time is synonym of energy and change. Into an energized system (all are), particles and parts change their spatial position all time. In this case, the position 'before' is different from the position 'after'. Is that change of position what cause "time elapse".

So, when you say 'time elapses', you are saying - first of all - that this system is energized (things change their spatial position).

In an hypothetical unenergized system, at zero absolute degrees, no time could be elapsed, because nothing would be energized and - therefore - nothing would change their spatial position.

"Time" is just another point of view of energy, and energy is something real, nos "mental". If you say no time is - in fact - elapsed, so you are sayng no energy happens in the cosmos.

Cheers.

Wilton

[deleted]

In Aether Wave Theory (AWT) universe behaves like giant fluctuations of dense gas and its entropy remains rouhgly the same. All objects smaller then the wavelength of cosmic microwave background should be a subject of entropic process, i.e. radiation, whereas all larger object should be driven by negentropic processes, i.e. gravitation.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-cosmological-time-arrow.html

[deleted]

Zephir quanta of space QS that are building elements of quantum timeless space, you call it ether have no entropy. Basic frequency of QS is consciousness itself. Because of that in space is always NOW.

Material universe above Planck scale is ruled by entropy - from gas are created atoms that are than transforming to the atoms with heavy atom mass where energy is "locked" in matter.

But in black holes matter is transformed back intro QS in consciousness itself.

In outer space where density of QS is high QS are transforming continuously in "cosmic rain", in subatomic particles that constitute atoms.

This flow of energy "matter - space (consciousness) - matter is not in time, it is eternal.

And eternity is NOW.

We experience universe that is always NOW into timer frame "past-present-future" that is of the mind.

Negentropic process of life evolution is development of matter towards living systems that have ability to experience consciousness. Humans we are close to that point. The last barrier is illusion that we live in time as a part of space. Space is utterly timeless, time live in us. Time is part of the mind.

Yours Amrit

[deleted]

What we perceive and refer to as "the flow of time" is nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe. When seen from this perspective, the concept of "time running backward" makes no logical sense. The universe does what it does. Our job is simply to understand what it does. Our faulty use of words such as "time" gets in the way of our doing so. For additional details please see the discussion to be found here.

[deleted]

Excellent insights, J.C.N. Since you appealed to logic, here's another common sense insight that pseudo scientists prefer to ignore:

Classic Understanding/Definition: Time is the measure of motion. As such, it can only be positive (or run forward).

Think of anything in motion and in any direction. Even double-slit or other experiments will start at a particular time and the motion involved will expend more time. Time as the measure of all motion cannot run backwards.

But allow anyone to redefine time (the theory of relativity also does not touch it, either, because the measure of motion can be slower but cannot move backwards)so as to take away it's objective nature, and all sorts of silliness can occur.

Moving Forward!

KII

[deleted]

very interesting article!

[deleted]

in the universe "before" and "after" exist only as a numerical order of events in space that we measure with clocks. Clocks run in space only, not in time.

[deleted]

The question about the arrow of time is backward. The direction of the arrow comes from the flow of information -- see Wheeler on the information-theoretic nature of the Universe. The past is that portion of the Universe from which information flows. Information does not and cannot come from the future, only and always from the past. From any point, therefore, an observer sees two directions: a past (the direction where information comes from), as well as a future, which is "dark" -- no information at all. Call it entropy, call it evolution, call it whatever you want...it's all information at the very bottom, and this is what determines the perceived arrow of time.

[deleted]

Karl,

information always moves in space only, no one ever has seen information is moving in time.

"Past-present-future" is mind model through which we experience motion of information in timeless space.

with clocks we measure information and energy transfers in space

yours amrit

[deleted]

The entire universe might be an n-dimensional spacetime on the string scale, where n = 10, 11 or 26. On scales larger than this there are submanifolds of four dimensions that are cosmologies. Each of these could have different time directions. The n-dimensional spacetime compactifies up dimensions except four and defines a set of spacetime cosmologies. Further, these spacetime cosmologies might be connected to each other by instantons, or tunneling states.

Tunneling usually involves how a quantum particle may traverse a tunneling region with a potential energy larger than the kinetic energy of the particle. The Schrodinger equation (SE)

iħ∂ψ/∂t = (ħ^2/2m)∂^ψ/∂x^2 V(x)ψ

in one dimension is the classical example in Mertzbacher and other texts. For a stationary phase ψ(x,t) = ψ(x)exp(-iEt/ħ) and we have a basic position dependence with ψ(x) ~ exp(ikx), the SE is easily seen as

Eψ = (ħk)^2/2mψ V(x)ψ,

And the solution for the wave vector k or momentum p = ħk is

p = sqrt{2m}sqrt(E - V(x)).

The tunneling probability may be explicitly computed by knowing the form of V(x) and working out boundary conditions, which is not conceptually difficult but a bit tedious to work through. The form of the momentum p here though is imaginary if V(x) is larger than E, and the tunneling probability is greater than zero. Now the form of the wave function with this imaginary p is of the form ψ ~ exp(-|p|x/ħ), which for the magnitude |p| very large (equivalently large V(x)) is a rapidly dropping to zero exponential. So we don't expect a significant tunneling process.

If the potential is very large at its peak V_{max} ~ 2mc^2 for m the mass of an electron there is a probability that the e-e^ pair created here will annihilate the e^- at one side of the potential with the e^ and the pair generated e^- escapes to the other side. Since this is a quantum process then what ever information is carried by the initial e^- is the same as on the e^- which has tunneled through. This is a sort of resonance phenomenon.

So what does this have to do with cosmologies and the landscape? Hawking, Halliwell and others proposed a version of the "no-boundary cosmology" where a spacetime cosmology with a particular arrow of time and a CPT violation (say left handed) is mirrored by another cosmology with an oppositely directed arrow of time and a CPT violation which is opposite (say right handed). So we might think of these as a cosmology and "anti-cosmology" with opposite quantum numbers or topological indices and ..., all which make things cancel out to zero. So we then have a huge landscape with a large potential barrier. The basic Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric has a tunneling barrier, which is a local aspect of the more general landscape potential barriers. So the symmetrical portion of a cosmology can be then this curious anti-cosmology.

Now consider a region near a black hole singularity. There the tidal forces of gravity are enormous and a wave function is then squeezed. The phase space volume it occupies is "squashed," and this means its uncertainty in certain directions becomes very large while the conjugage momenta uncertainties becomes very small. As such a patch or region near the singularity is sufficiently quantum uncertain that it may become lost in this quantum noise. In effect this patch and the quantum vacuum energy it contains has quantum tunneled out of the universe which contains this black hole, or it "ventures" into this potential hill. For a large potential hill there are virtual quantum pairs of these cosmologies (universe plus anti-universe) or a virtual biverse. Will this little patch or bubble of vacuum energy near the singularity has some probability of annihilating with the anti-universe which then lets the virtual universe escape beyond the potential well. This patch or virtual bubble of spacetime then becomes the "seed" for a nascent cosmology.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Is it a global joke or a global ironic science ....10 11 27 28.....no ....falses

A biverse here a string there a multiverses here an anti universe a serie here an idea of pierre paul jacques here....allthat is false...pure mayhs without real universal coherences .....be more pragmatic in the physicality, you confound all...humbly and respectfully.Your entire universe is a virtual human universe simply where you are in the center...it's time to be more rational.

Regards

Steve

[deleted]

Lawrence we can discuss about "arrow of time" only in a sense of "numerical order of material change" ..........

[deleted]

The biverse here is a sort of device. Here this device is an instanton or tunneling state, which is used to connect different spacetime cosmologies in a quantum scaffold --- so to speak.

When it comes to the nature of time I am not particularly impressed with the idea of time not existing. This idea comes from the ADM Hamiltonian for "space plus time" approach to general relativity which obeys NH = 0 and the momentum version N^iH_i = 0. The first of these H = K R, K being symbolic for the trace conditions on the extrinsic curvature and R the Ricci curvature of the spatial manifold, is extended to the quantized for in the Wheeler-DeWitt (WD) equation HΨ[g] = 0. This outwardly has the appearance of a Schrodinger equation HΨ[g] = i∂Ψ[g]/∂t, but where the right hand side is zero. Of course this has to be the case, for there is no universal time variable t one can appeal to properly. What is time is imposed by the analyst in how spatial manifolds with the constraint H = 0 are linked to each other. It is not hard to extend the WD equation to include a harmonic oscillator field σ so that one introduces a time variation and you have HΨ[g,σ] = i∂Ψ[g,σ]/∂t in some local (within a saddle point integration) region. The point is that the AdM and WD equations do not mean time does not exist, but rather that these are constraints imposed on a spatial manifold.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Dear Lawrence,

It sounds like our ideas may be merging again.

Dear Steve and Amrit,

It is obvious to me that Space-time must be a broken (3+1)-brane symmetry, and this idea of time not existing as an independent dimension is just a fad. As a particle physicist myself, I enjoy looking for unified symmetries and broken symmetries. The fact that this broken dimensional symmetry is so evident should allow us to seriously consider the idea of Hyperspace dimensions that exist under the rules of another broken symmetry. Consider how ugly the Standard Model symmetries are: SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). IMHO, It is hypocritical to seriously consider the "truth" of such a complicated Standard Model symmetry, and simultaineously deny the "truth" of time and space being seperate brane symmetries. Steve says his model is 3-D, but he has hidden time within his "spin" degrees of freedom. Likewise, Amrit has tried to hide time within his "block". Give me a break, guys - these models are *NOT* exclusively 3-D! You have both introduced extra degrees-of-freedom that resemble dimensions. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck!

Once upon a time, I didn't believe in Hyperspace or the Multiverse. How do you prove that which you can't see? Now these ideas (and scale invariance) seem to naturally fall out of my mathematical models. Is it wrong to use this mathematics to model reality? All I can say is that the mathematics seems consistent...

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Hi Ray,

Like all the time, I am frank.

I think humbly what people wants my ideas or wants the grants .....money monney always these stupidities which cause our global problem, I can understand people have seen the potential of my theory .But it's a little strong no all that ......I say that because I know the human nature and the pleasure for some people to like monney .....I dislike this money ....

The complexity is in 3D the simplicity also , that's all ....

People can use all the strategies that they want, never that will change.

I am parano yes ,it's like that ......EUREKA with humility if people are jaleous or try ....it's not my road.

Regards

Steve

[deleted]

Of course like I am parano, thus my words must be taken with a balance and a sorting,

Dear Ray,

I insist on this 3D , the division rests in 3D , the hidden dimensions are in 3D ....all maths extrapolations must be rational also, we can't play like we want with physics.....the time is a constant of evolution and we can't invent these pseudos sciences where all the universal coherences and global irreversibilities aren't considered in its pure serie and limits, the referential always dear Ray.

My model is in 3D and will rest always in 3D .....let's find the correct fractal of the uniqueness please...the volumes, theirs velocities of rot spinals and orbitals, their densities, their number finite, the lattices between spheres......if we insert falses parameters, that will imply a lot of confusions.

The incompleteness dear Ray do not prove nothing , is it a reason to extrapolate thet ....no for me fortunaly.

Your ideas are interestings, you, Lawrence, Florin, Girn,lisi.....the team what....hahaha interestings but falses because you have all fear to rebegin in the good road , ....vanity+business+maths without limits=extradimensions and lie algebras without real physicality .....these algebras are falses dear friends for the physics...the groups .......always the groups and their superimposings....The globality of these ideas are falses, simply

Regards

Steve

[deleted]

Let's have fun, Ray, I am going to begin really in fact, at this moment you know I am very quiet and very cool.I read , I analyze, I study, I link...AND I WILKL COMMENT SOON .hihihihi REVOLUTION

Regards

Steve

[deleted]

Duck is flaying into space

Clock is running into space measuring duck flight

Unconscious observer experiences duck flight into "past-present-future" that is of the mind

Conscious Observer is laughing into eternal now in which duck is flaying

[deleted]

Ray,

There is this strange idea that time does not exist. Of course we have to wonder whether time exists in the same way as a particle does. Maybe it does not exist in that sort of hard ontological sense. Yet it is something which we measure with a clock, and from an operational perspective that is sufficient. Quantum mechanically events are marked by the outcomes of measurements, or where quantum probabilities are realized. We might be tempted to think that time is a quantum process of some basic nature and that space "hangs" on it as a garment hangs on a rack. So there might be some prospect that thinking about this in some inverted way is a strategy worth considering.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

I'm in the camp that regards time as physically real, where time is identical to information. In connection with my definition of time -- n-dimensional infinitely orientable metric on random self-avoiding walk -- I found this interesting paper:

Olber's Paradox

Tom

[deleted]

A version of this work by Diao could be used to describe the path integral in the sense that Goyal does in his elementary logic of quantum physics.

I think is associated with fundamental quantum events, which form a scaffold for spacetime. In that sense I could say that time exists. Time in the continuous meaing of the word exists "well enough" as I see it.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Lawrence, nice observation. It supports empirical extension of the quantum domain to the cosmic, and thus adds nonzero time to quantum event analysis n the classical scale. Throw in scale invariance and n-dimension continuity of the time unit, and you've got my theory of physical time and gravity dissipation over n-dimension kissing spheres.

Tom

[deleted]

You use spheres now , it's well that ,you are on the good road.

They want my grants ahahahah let's laugh they copy , ahahaha

SPHERES SPHERES AND SPHERES IN THE SPHERE ? THE SPHERIZATION AND ITS EVOLUTION IN 3 DIMENSIONS ....SPHERES IN THE SPHERE ....ONLY 3 DIMENSIONS AND A TIME CONSTANT .

If not return at school , humbly and respectfully ......don't confound the imaginaries and the realism please for all ther sciences community....

TO ALL STUDENTS .....3 DIMENSIONS , IT'S FOUNDAMENTAL ....forget these stupidities about our physicality and its dimensions, constants, invariances, irreversibilities, localities, globality...it seems what many people confound the generality and the details which are pue imaginaries extrapolations without limits in the pure serie inside the pure topological reality.

The cause of the mass is these rotating quantum spheres.. specifics for the number and their comportments of rotations....the proportionalities in the line time are essentials and the rotations more the density, the volumes, the sense becomes very relevant for a correct building, these polarisations.And the time is necessary like the 3D .......let's take the H ..C...N....O....CH4....NH3...H2O...THE TIME ALWAYS AND THE PURE THERMODYNAMICS MORE THE EVOLUTION OF MASS POLARIZATION GRAVITY/LIGHT.....and the particules continue and increase their complexification....thus the density increases due to the light and the evoltion....I continue the.....more energy these particules in time continue....amino acids...adn....first cells....animals vegetals...about 4.5 and 3.6...2.5 billions years ago.....and after fishs...reptils.....and us the humans....you are laughing all no I hope .....all that are proofs and we see the 3D all these creations are mass in evolution, products of the evolution and the polarisation.all are in 3D ....it's time to stop all the stupidities about our real 3D UNIVERSAL SPHERE.......all was predicted in these intrinsics main central codes in the main centrals spheres.....you can thus see the center of our Univers where all turns around.and all these centers inside the quantum centers the main sphere....the rotations thus are linked too with the informations.........

I class all since several years .

......and all is in 3D all ....a bacteria, or a flower, or a water drop, or a tree, or a star or ....all, I am inside a 3D SPHERE ....ON A SPHERE....I SEE WITH SPHERES....I turn around spheres....in 3D ,the rotations of the spheres explain all and are probably universaly linked , all spheres are correlated and linked , quantics or cosmologics.

Best Regards

Steve

[deleted]

The good road is wider than 3 dimensions. Enough room for us all.

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Tom, Steve and Amrit,

Tom - I didn't realize that you are also playing with kissing spheres in multiple dimensions. I worked on that some last year, see

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/520

You should recognize my conserved quantum numbers and symmetries as arising from products of kissing spheres.

This year I'm working on more fundamental questions, such as "WHY are there N dimensions?" And "Why do we only observe 3 or 4 dimensions?"

Dear Steve,

I told you from the beginning that "spheres" lead to kissing spheres lead to lattices lead to "string" interactions. So there is a sphere/ string dual nature to reality.

I agree that mass and spin are related - there is a reason that the theorized Higgs boson has intrinsic spin of 0, but it imparts mass to other particles with non-zero intrinsic spin. Nonetheless, your rotating spheres imply more degrees of freedom/ hidden variables/ dimensions. Maybe you aren't comfortable calling this another dimension. I want to wake you up out of your comfort zone.

Dear Steve and Amrit,

Steve has extra degrees of freedom in his rotations. Amrit has extra degrees of freedom in the numerical ordering of his block. I once had a Professor who said (something like this - I hope I'm not completely misquoting him) "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then there is a 99 and 44/100'ths percent chance that it is a duck".

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Hello dr Cosmic Ray,

Hihihihi like that, all people will say , he is crazzy the belgian ahahaha

I search the number, under the sky and its spheres, the number and its brothers and sisters, the number and the numbers on the spheres and under the sphere....we search the number ........finite for the uniqueness of the entanglement ....the same for the universe .

Gauss the prince of maths seems with us hihihi what are the algebras dear Ray if they are not correlated with the pure physicality....the groups need limits really.

The polygonisation and the polyhedrisation .....why invent these things about x or y or z dimensions....the polyhedrisation.......like the circle ...the sphere ...that's all.it's essential for a correct global harmonious evolution........ , already we have difficulties to encircle the 3D and its dynamic of evolution.

We can fractalize the 3D and to have many systems, but that rests in 3D always.......the difficulty is to accept this reality and study it in fact simply....all our sciences , methods, techics, technologies.....are in 3D and in correlation with our foundamental laws and equations.

The incompleteness is inside this 3D and due to our young age at the universal scale.The maths must be reals and rationals and even proportionals when the serie whants to be explained rationally .

Just a thought

Regards

Steve

[deleted]

Dear Steve,

How is my crazy Belgian friend? Did you enjoy your Birthday last week? I sent my Birthday greetings via Facebook.

OK - You talk about simplicity and fundamentals. What if I could derive everything from the Golden Ratio? I think I found El Naschie's most critical flaw. He wasn't that far off. "Professional researchers" need to stop being so critical of people who don't have proper credentials. As a PhD Particle Physicist myself, I can honestly make that observation.

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Hi dear Dr Cosmic Ray,

It can go, thank you Ray.A little birthday, sorry for the answer, I am rarely on Facebook.It's nice Ray thanks.

I'm trying to adapt me to the system.

But it's difficult, I have those policies against me here in Belgium.

And I must confess that it is very difficult psychologically.

I have nothing and I'm stuck.

Bailiffs, letters of formal notice .... we are tired Ray and my mom too.

I can not even get a loan to revive a business, you understand why I am so paranoid Ray.

This society makes me crazy.I win 650 euros/months ,and the life here is very expensive, for example a bottle of coke ...about 2 euros...2.5 dollrs , it's expensive no .....for a house, 400/months....you imagine .

These people Ray, are happy to see my economic situation.....it's frustrating.

Tired is a weak word, since 8 years Ray of problems.At the age of 22 , I have created an enterprise in horticulture but at the age of 26, ....catastrophe....I have lost all even my piano and my tools of gardening.They have all taken Ray, I was a problem for my region, simply.

And that continues Ray, they try to have the house of my mother and my father (who is dead when I was 20 years old).....we have the potential to be well but ......difficult life, I can't produce in fact, flowerrs, fruits, compost,inventions,creatins....very frustrating Ray, you know I can produce all plants,and I can multiplicate all plants also.

If I had a skilled and interesting bank, I could create the society but I don't find and I must admit I am not a good administrator and communicator.

It's the life, perhaps the future will be more quiet for us, my mom and me.Because there when I analyze my 35 years oh My God ....why I have always problems Ray , could you explain me why since my first day on this Earth I have problems.

Friendly

Steve

Best Regards

Steve

[deleted]

Dear Steve,

"Why do bad things happen to good people?" We could just as easily ask why good things happen to bad people. The Bible says that sin and evil are a result of Adam and Eve's original sin, and the falling of all creation. We are all damaged goods - regardless of how "good" we might think we are. My business has also been affected by the economy. Our best year was 2006. Ironically, we considered a $2M expansion. It didn't go through because we couldn't get the land we wanted as cheap as we wanted it. Then the economy dropped, and we were glad we had not expanded. But we are survivors. Here on the Gulf Coast of Florida, we usually have to worry about Hurricanes. This year, we also have BP's oil spill to worry about.

It sounds like you are stuck in your current situation because of your past, and bacause you must take care of your mom. All I can say is, ride out your problems the best that you can. Stay patient, and perhaps one day, you will have another opportunity to build your enterprise.

Do you still have your guitar?

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Ray,

My sphere kissing model answers the question of why n dimensions > 3 (a consequence of the time metric being continuous over n-dimension manifolds, d > 4), and the question of why we observe only 4 large dimensions (I provide numerical evidence that the 4 dimension horizon is identical to the 10 dimension limit). The model also accounts for the low inertial content of our observed universe.

"On breaking the time barrier"

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

I started reading that paper once before, but never got all the way through it. I see your kissing number considerations begin on page 29. I'll print it up, and see if I can work through it over the weekend.

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Ray,

Because this dialogue sounded familiar to me, I retraced my steps back to the article on Erik Verlinde, where I commented 27 April 2010, reproduced below:

"Lawrence/Ray,

"Lubos is right.

"It is exactly the case that interference patterns between observers are _not_ conserved that is explained by eqn. 5 of my "time barrier" paper that we discussed earlier.

"This tiny amount of lost information is significant only when the forces of gravitation are summed over the entire universe.

"Lubos is also right about the return to determinism. A model that allows reversible and chaotic time flows in 4 dimensions, and demands dissipative action in d > 4, restores classical determinism in an extra dimension theory. Every increase in order in d =< 4 is at the expense of increased disorder in d >= 4.

"The price we pay for this model is imaginary time, introducing complex analysis to classical physics.

Tom"

I know that equation 5 is strange (and looks stranger because I made a mistake in notation; escape velocity should be represented as V_e rather than E_v as I have it; I am dyslexic, and as careful as I try to be in editing, these errors sometimes slip through). Nevertheless, the terms are all consistent. Because in principle, every point of spacetime is characterized by a unique escape velocity in a gravity field, it is well demonstrated that the projections of 3-dimension quantum energy exchange on 2-dimension areas between points differ by a tiny but nonzero amount.

Tom

[deleted]

Our posts crossed. Thanks, Ray.

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

OK - I just made that notational change on my copy of page 12, although notation really doesn't matter as long as you are self-consistent.

I think I largely overlooked that prior conversation because it sounded too philosophical to interest me. Sorry - I have a short attention span. We do our best despite our shortcomings.

I also recall having a small misunderstanding or disagreement with your use of Cardinal numbers. I am using other geometrical/ numerical patterns. But I need to reread your paper. I had to read Lisi's E8 paper three times before I understood most of it. I had to think on El Naschie's papers for nearly two years before I found what I consider his critical flaw. I've read Lawrence's papers many times, and still don't understand all of his ideas. How does he absorb all of these ideas? I'm only human...

Have Fun!

[deleted]

p.s - And I agree that Real and Imaginary Time both exist (maybe even Quaternionic Time as well). Is the Time that we experience and measure real or imaginary? I think the Wick rotation and the Minkowski metric imply that our time might be the imaginary time...

[deleted]

Ray, I can't fault you for your attention span. I am well focused when on task for a problem or a paper, but social interaction is often awkward and sometimes painful for me, so that I am easily distracted as well.

Anyway, I went back and read all through the Verlinde ("myth of gravity") posts, and there seems to be a pretty continuous and informative train of thought there on all our (you, me, Lawrence) parts.

Most all physicists who use analysis, I think, won't find the concept of imaginary time controversial, even if they deem it non-physical. It's pretty easy to see, as Hawking puts it, that one cannot travel "north of the north pole." Taking C* with its one simple pole at infinity, it's obvious that a trajectory over that point becomes something other than a real point on R_, where we measure increments of time by the Lebesgue standard. I do expect that, by my construction, the conclusion that imaginary time implies negative mass may be controversial -- it's easy to dismiss time, which in the classical sense is not (by itself) physical; it is not easy to accept that negative mass is not only physical but nonlocal, and necessitates a physical definition for the time metric itself, to boot. That takes "spooky action at a distance" to a whole 'nother level. Nevertheless, the conclusion is unavoidable if my model is self consistent.

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Ray,

It's the life indeed, the complexities of society and its excesses do not facilitate things for good people.

But .........should we not look above us before thinking and acting .....all is there....

I still believe in the man you know Dr Cosmic Ray, I still believe in spite of disappointments and setbacks.

We're all from the same essence, babies of evolution in fact.BUT BUT UNFORTUNALLY

some people reveal themselves in full transparency, the heart and soul does not disappoint, never

Pseudos are plagiarist of the fundamentals we see this in all centers of interest, that to satisfy their vanity .... it is life .... I involves only little interest in these vanities.

They strut, and hurl compliments, I have only a sincere compassion.HIHIHI

Thank you Ray for the hope of re-founding a business, I do not bother me really you know Ray, I am aware of the discovery of my theory.

But I am conscient of human nature and these sharks, greedy and arrogants everywhere in this society, around us dear Ray, always these people who cause the global problems, and the strategy to win monney and this and that, grrr I am very angry about this, it's a sad global problem these sharks.....money money money ......dedicated to disappear but at this moment it's a tool....chaotic or harmonic....to be or not to be that's the question No ?,,,,,

Yes I have my guitar , thanks, I give some curses for the youngs of my little city, they begin but they are gifted, they learn quickly.

Thanks Ray and don't forget....3D and a time constant for the correct polarisation of evolution.....

Friendly

Steve

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

Perhaps it depends on our perspective. If we were to translate "Conservation of Energy" into "Conservation of Mass" via the mass-energy equivalence theorem, then anti-matter should be considered "negative mass" - shouldn't it? People don't normally talk about anti-matter that way, but the mathematics seems consistent.

In Relativity, our conserved quantity usually involves mass-squared, such as E^2=m^2c^2+p^2c^4. What about negative mass-squared? Of course, the Higgs boson is expected to have a negative vev (equivalent to a negative mass-squared) of -(246 GeV/c^2)^2. That implies imaginary mass and tachyons that always travel faster than the speed of light. You are exactly right about the implications of tachyons with "spooky action at a distance".

Dear Steve,

Better technolgy has not made mankind a better people. We might as well put the wealth of Wall Street and the killing-power of the Hydrogen bomb in the hands of teenage bullies.

Have Fun!

[deleted]

to meditate....hihihi a bizare planet ...where is the universal commision ....it's our future ....we evolve Ray we evolve ,the local system the Earth....in this short period ....is just a step of evolution....

It exists Ray ,bad and good people everywhere, it's only simple like that .

Regards

Steve

[deleted]

Ray,

Antimatter is not the same as negative mass (or energy, doesn't matter). Antimatter is ordinary matter of reverse sign.

What I'm talking about -- you'll find your equation above in my paper (p. 7), written as E^2 = m^2c^4 (pc)^2, to represent a particle of positive energy with zero momentum -- is negative mass/energy of nonlocal physical effect. IOW, a way to bring a quantum version of Mach's Principle via complex analysis into classical relativity.

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

I'm sorry. I don't quite get your point. Maybe this was where I put your paper down and scratched my head in wonder.

I think that anti-matter could be represented by negative mass, although I can't think of any references that consider it such. But if we simultaineously require conservation of Energy-squared, and mass in the production of an electron-positron pair, then we would write:

initial E^2 = 2(hv)^2 = 2m^2c^2+2p^2c^2 = final E^2, and

initial mass = 0 = m-m = 0 = final mass.

If you mean negative mass-squared, then that is equivalent to imaginary mass.

My TOE model has imaginary time, imaginary energy, imaginary mass, and maybe even imaginary space, where "imaginary" is based on the number i^2=-1. Is my mathematics right or wrong? At least it is self-consistent.

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Ray,

You don't think mass and charge are the same thing, do you? That's would be the consequence of identifying antimatter with negative mass/energy.

No, what I mean is a locally asymmetric relation between positive rest mass m_ and negative mass/energy m_- of an accelerating universe. Pp 9--12 outlines the mathematics, concluding a mass continuum M equivalent to i. i^2 is on the real line, so while positive mass can be measured in real terms regardless of sign, quantum configuration space cannot be mapped onto what we consider physical space without a nonlocal model.

So ultimately, I mean that positive mass is a small fraction of the kinetic energy feedback of an accelerating universe, exactly equivalent to the low inertial mass (4.6% of that required to have a gravitationally closed universe) that we actually observe, by WMAP results.

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

I don't think that mass and charge are the same thing. If you analyze the quantum numbers that I obtain from a multi-dimensional kissing spheres approach, you will see that electric charge is one of those quantum numbers associated with Spacetime, and mass is one of those quantum numbers associated with the 5-brane of Hyperspace. I think that positive, negative and imaginary mass are all possible on the 5-brane, but the holographic transfer of quantum gravity on the 5-brane to geometrical gravity in Spacetime simplifies what we are able to observe. I still think that "conservation of rest-mass" - if it exists - would make sense out of the gamma-gamma -> electron-positron transition, but "inertia" still acts like a positive value (because positrons and electrons move in opposite directions in a magnetic field).

A quick look at your paper reminds me that there were a couple of things in your model that didn't quite "feel right" to me. But I still don't fully understand your model, so I need to reread it. Perhaps "negative mass" accounts for the as-yet-unknown mirror fermions that Lisi put in his E8 TOE, but I still think that Lisi counted his degrees of freedom wrong because he didn't include Supersymmetry.

Dear Amrit,

Enjoy your Summer! I still think your numerical ordering of the block sounds like a time-like contraption. How do we experience time? Perhaps it is via the mind (Amrit), or the consciousness (Klingman), or the dream (FMD). It is slightly disturbing that physics cannot connect "self" to experience other than through the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell.

Have Fun!

[deleted]

The fundamental discrete symmetry of QFT is CPT = 1. So time reversal is a transformation identified with the change in charge and parity. So there is little reason to think that anti-matter has negative mass. There might be some reason to think that the breaking of CP symmetry and the preponderance of matter in the universe over anti-matter is involved with the positive nature of mass and the lack of anti-gravity and some of these quirkly spacetimes that violate the weak energy condition T^{00} >= 0.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Hi Ray,

My sphere kissing model is n-dimension Euclidean space (consistent with the space in which the n-dimensional sphere kissing problem is conjectured). What space are you in? I don't see how you can reconcile general relativity with your model when you speak of a "multi-dimensional kissing spheres approach" -- I don't know what you mean by that.

No, mirror fermions are not negative mass/energy. Supersymmetry is not an assumption of my model, but a result of the finding that the 4 dimension horizon is identical to the 10 dimension limit. This is straightforward numerical calculation.

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Friends,

I was thinking about this the wrong way. There cannot be such a thing as "conservation of rest mass" - the atomic bomb is a clear violation of that idea. In the case of gamma-gamma -> electron-positron, it is sufficient to use conservation of lepton number and energy-squared.

I think that negative mass could exist on the 5-brane. We do not observe negative mass in Spacetime. Perhaps finding an independent negative mass is difficult like finding an independent quark. Perhaps all of the "negative mass" in our Spacetime is bound up with "positive mass" - Would that behave like a powerful photon? Lisi still needs his mirror fermions...

Tom, my model has Spacetime and Hyperspace. They are separate branes, and have separate physics. Einstein's General Relativity applies to the geometrical gravity of Spacetime, and does not apply to the quantum gravity of Hyperspace.

[deleted]

Thanks, Lawrence, we agree in principle. My model preserves CPT symmetry in QFT to the limit of 4 dimensions, the low energy limit.

Because time in my model is identical to information, however, T symmetry is violated in d > 4, by an asymptotic approach to n-dimensional length 1, dissipative over the n-dimension manifold.

You're bang on about the preponderance of matter over antimatter: because gravity is a one-way interaction, time dissipation favors positive mass because except at extreme energies, matter does not have enough time (i.e., coordinated information bits) to reverse polarity before being annihilated at the horizon.

We've long thought that our low energy universe is the only one capable of sustaining life in the way that we think of life -- my model agrees, by providing a non-anthropic mechanism for energy throughput consistent with observation. A self organized, self sustaining nature is truly beautiful.

Tom

[deleted]

Ray, If I understand correctly, the boundary between space and hyperspace in your model is time -- true? I mean, because time is continuous with space up to d = 4 (GR), and you suggest that space is quantized without time parameter in d >= 5, that your quantized space has no time parameter leads me back to our previous discussions on Lisi and El Naschie, and I am going to ask the same question: what is physically real in your theory, and how do you know it?

I.e., If spacetime ceases to be physically real at the boundary, what do extra dimensions add to the theory?

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

My Hyperspace Physics carries quantum numbers and/or information (where is Hilbert space, how does every electron "know" that it has a rest mass of 511 KeV/c^2?), and is separated from Spacetime by Black Hole Event Horizons. Yes - we only observe Spacetime with a geometrical gravity, so the Spacetime and Hyperspace solutions must asymptotically approach being two independent solutions, but I feel that a unified theory must include quantized mass and quantum gravity, and that the geometrical gravity that we observe is an incomplete holographic projection from Hyperspace. If you can find a unified theory of Spacetime without including Hyperspace, it will involve so many obviously broken symmetries that it will imply the existence of Hyperspace.

El Naschie's E-Infinity effectively says that our Universe is a fragment of fractal dust in an infinite Multiverse. I agree.

Lisi tried his best to claim that his E8 Theory did not include the dimensions of String Theory. I think that these Lie algebras imply different levels of dimensionality. Many people consider the order of a group to be its dimensionality, 248 for E8. I consider the rank of a group to be its minimum dimensionality, 8 for E8. I had many e-mail conversations with Lisi in 2008-09, and we are just on different pages. Quite honestly, I think this E8 represents the 8 dimensions of Hyperspace: a 5-brane, a 2-brane, plus a second time dimension (is our time imaginary, and this time is real?).

I'm still playing with TOE models. If you think you see a flaw in my reasoning, I'll reconsider it.

Have Fun!

[deleted]

It seems that the roads begin to unfold themselves in harmony.

It's a good thing for the research of fundamentals.

I am glad that scientists are beginning to focus on my theory of Spherization,a GUT of Rotating Spheres.

There is so much work still to do.

These quantum spheres are the key to our mass.

The entanglement of the uniqueness is specific and finite....the evolution is correlated furthermore, thus the lattices between spheres also.Furthermore the volumes are specifics for the serie towards the Planck scale, this ultim sphere, the main volume where the fractal of spheres begins of course.Our laws are our laws, the imaginaries are pure maths without real physical sense....it's foundamental......the rotation of a sphere is proportional with mass and the volume is important also.....

The different parameterizations and substitutions are bad utilized where the hyperspaces and the spacetime are thus not understood in its pure serie of evolution .

It seems to me that the thermodynamics, the mechanics,.....are forgotten unfortunally.....it's a catastrophe for our proportionalities,constants, .....

We can thus understand why we see these ideas, irreals and without respecting the uniqueness of the Universe....and the uniqueness of the quantic system also...the infinity is bad understood , only because they don't understand the universal entropy and the walls between the physicality and the unknown without these laws and constants,

there the ideas of Amrit are so relevants but for a complete understanding of these walls and entropy , some extrapolation are necessary.

The first big error of these scientists is this one, they don't understand the universe and its equation behind this physicality.Thus the infinity, the - and the 0 are bad used ........

Their ideas are globbally falses and pure sciences fiction for the invention and the lost of monney of a time machione for example or others impossible things.

That has no sense.All sciences are linked , in this cases all sciences aren't coordonated and synchronized......it exists axiomatic hypothesis and it exists sciences fiction hypothesis ....to meditate.

Steve

[deleted]

Ray, I am still having a problem with identifying what is physically real ("independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions.")

If your model has two independent solutions in spaces that never meet, what compels the physical reality of solutions in hyperspace? I know the conventional approach is to construct symmetries from the top down. However, there are so many ways to break symmetry at decreasing energies, that the huge field of solutions starts to look like a field of myths -- by what physically real criterion does one pick the unique solution?

Admittedly, I prefer the elegance of the classical approach that assumes deep physical reality (spacetime) from the start, and follows the consequences from a condition of zero time, zero energy, zero measure.

Now if the average energy density of the vacuum is zero, my bet is on quantum information theory to ramp up the energy in a nonperturbative theory (i.e., incorporating a classical continuum) from a 2-dimension fundamental field of complex numbers. Then we never have to depart from Euclidean space, and all geometrical relationships, including fractal shapes and hyperspatial unity, follow as a consequence of this fluctuating, physical, 2-dimensional sheet in the Hilbert space. In the real world of Lebesgue measure, we can forget about the Hilbert space; local measure squares with unitarity and the Euclidean universe unfolds.

For better or worse, that is how I reach my identity between time and quantum information. It is clear, whether the theory ultimately proves right or wrong, what is physically real, what space I'm working in, and what conditions follow physically--no need to pose existential objects and wonder whether they are causative. Any secondary cause can be explained by feedback in the limit.

I'm aware that you think like a particle physicist and I like a classical relativist. Where do our conclusions converge?

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

If you look at my older models, you will see that I use a hybrid bottom-up and top-down approach simultaneously. I have always been a bit of a maverick, but my models have slowly evolved in dimensionality from 4 to 7 to 10 to 12 to 14 to 28. I thought that Lisi's TOE should have been a 12-dimensional 4-D of Spacetime plus an 8-D E8 of Hyperspace.

Yes - I think like a particle physicist, and you and Lawrence think like relativists. Shouldn't a TOE include all of those ideas?

I said that the Spacetime solution and the Hyperspace solution approach independent solutions. The Black Hole Event Horizon represents the boundary between these two solutions. Thus, having a first-order guess at both solutions will enable us to better understand the Event Horizon.

Perhaps Lawrence is correct. I am trying too hard to find the ultimate symmetry without working out all of the intermediate steps. People will doubt my ideas. Luckily, Lawrence is working out many of those intermediate ideas - perhaps our ideas will converge...

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Dear Ray ...after it's 46 or 50 hihihihi and after 92 hihih

Fascinating.

Steve

[deleted]

Let's be serious a little and rational.

The use of imaginary numbers, as well as overlapping groups involve serious decoherences .

Especially when the space time is not used in its development from the start of calculations.

Relativity is not a mathematical game with infinite faceted mirrors.

The energetical steps involve obviously some brokens of our fields but how can we understand the proportionality without these basic rules.

If relativity is accounted for in this way, it results in considerable difficulties for an axiomatic objectivity.I say that humbly.

This reflects the confusion of what is really the basic space-time and its evolution.

The duration, I think, is not surrounded by its constant, local and global.Linked, different but purely irreversible.

It's not a problem of Euclidian referential but a problem about the utilization of tools inside a referential, it's totaly different.

The relations, geometrical, algebrical.......are in a dance of logic and always in this 3D even for the "not seen localities" like the ultim sphere and its code......The complex and imaginaries are bad used like the time also.

The consequences do not prove anything about the hyper space.

It is the unity of the system whic is challenged.It'sq very important this point of analyze about the uniqueness of all things.The number also, and all relatively correlated proportions.

We can understand why it exist multiverses.and others...and time reversibility....and this and that....The maths creativity becomes sciences fiction.It's probably a virus due to strings theory.if the sciences become like that that becomes bizare.

The relativity is totally different than these extrapolation in fact.

Regards

Steve

[deleted]

Ray,

Instead of increasing the dimensionality to accommodate growing symmetry, have you thought about the advantages of growing symmetry from the dimensionality we have?

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

Of course, I played with 4-D first. So far, the most useful 4-D symmetry that I have used is the rank-4 (4-D?) Georgi-Glashow SU(5) = 4!. Perhaps I should play with F4 more. For years, I also studied the rank 10 (10-D?) SU(11) = 5!. I like both of those symmetries a lot, but I was eventually lead to the rank 28 (28-D?) SU(29) = 7!/3!. IMHO, Lisi's E8 TOE cannot exist in 4-D, and a single E8 is not large enough for a TOE (because it isn't supersymmetric and fails the Coleman-Mandula Theorem), which implies more than 8-D.

Dear Steve,

You know that I have been playing with Fibonacci's sequence: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, ... Pick a number, any number. It doesn't matter which number you pick, they are all "golden". HAH! ROTFLMAO!

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Tom,

The problem is that if you want to work with greater symmetry you have to go to higher dimensions. A group SO(n) will describe a larger number of states in a symmetry for larger n. I will be honest with you, I think that the universe has a grand symmetry that is utterly enormous. The basic group is the Mathieu group in 24 dimensions, where this exists in an extended Lorentzian spacetime of 26 or 27 dimensions. I will not quibble about the difference here. This system turns out to be an automorphism of the Monster group. The root space for the Mathieu group is 186560 dimensional, where for most physics which might be of value is 1488 dimension --- and this is really highly abstract physics beyond current string theories. Then for various reasons this roots space has to be extended to 186883 dimensions to define the monster group automorphism. Now the monster group is utterly enormous with some ~ 8.1e^{51} dimensions. To be honest this is what I think might be the most fundamental theory possible.

Now obviously it would be crazy to try to write up a theory based on the monster group. At least at this time we have absolutely no basis to draw upon to work with this. So I am content to work in the restricted versions of the Leech lattice (Mathieu group) that connect up with string theory, and to lay down what I think are the extensions of string theory. A part of this involves discrete systems in continuous structures, and certain insight in how time is a quantum field effect. Yet clearly it would be silly to attempt to write up some complete description of the universe according to some grand final (monster) theory. We have to crane things up from physics we have some connection with to the next step and then eventually go up from there to the step beyond that.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

We agree, Lawrence. An explanation of why the world is apparently four dimensional does not begin with an n-dimension universe. It ends there.

Tom

[deleted]

HAHAHAHA ALL THAT IS NOT FOUNDAMENTALS THEORIES ,IT'S a JOKE SIMPLY dear Students of all the world.......

To be honest this is what I think might be the most fundamental theory possible......ahahahaha to be honest I think you loose all your time....perhaps if it's reversible, you shall find ahhazha to be honest toi be honest and me I am the child of Obama and Bush ahahaha

We dream dear scientists we dream

Steve

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I am searching unity symmetries and broken symmetries. IMHO, it is critical that the unity symmetry must yield the observed broken symmetries of observed particles, of a (3+1)-brane of Spacetime, and must explain the nature of Einstein's Field Equations and the Minkowski metric.

Twenty-eight "dimensions" is the smallest number that gave me the type of Spacetime, Hyperspace, Supersymmetry, Scale Invariance, and Holographic Gravity Transform that I think I need. It also gives a useful (but expanded) particle spectrum. I think Steve and others would feel more comfortable if I called these dgrees-of-freedom instead of dimensions, but I consider them dimensions because they are directly correlated to the diagonal matrix elements of the 28-D group.

Dear Lawrence,

You are correct that we must set goals. IMHO, Occam's razor is a balance between Simplicity and Necessity. If it is necessary to include Hyperspace, Supersymmetry, Scale Invariance, and a Holographic Gravity, then it is necessary to consider more dimensions. Although we clearly have a very large number of degrees-of-freedom in the Universe, I would prefer not to count each of those as a fundamental dimension.

Dear Steve,

And here I thought you were "crazy" enough to actually understand 28-D. You are the child of Obama and Bush? How could that happen? It is easier to comprehend 28-D...

[deleted]

hihihi

Now we are going to have all the perfect explaination of the extradimensions, yes they are going to explain us the rules, the properties, the natures of these extradimensions.......like x,y,z ....let's go we wait all, all over the world.......the fractal is in 3D ,it's foundamental for the evolution, the origin of mass and all our universe.

Dear Ray, it's easy indeed to understand these extradimensions, it's the reason why I have this conclusion about these ideas.It's purely not foundamental.

I don't agree, the Occam Razor is more than that, it's a pure and necessary sorting of our extrapolations, dear Dr Cosmic Ray, we can't play like we want with our equations.

8 or 12 or 24 or 28 or x .....all that is false Ray because the maths tools do not respect the real referential and the pure rotations implying thermodynamical correlations and proportionalities.

The rotations of spheres explain all if and only if the pure 3D referential and the rotating mass are inserted with the biggest pragmatism and rationalism.

The Universal equation is not a play, simply and humbly.

It's not a question of competences but about your utilizations of your competences, it's totally different.

Friendly and sincerely

Steve

[deleted]

Lawrence,

You wrote, "Now obviously it would be crazy to try to write up a theory based on the monster group. At least at this time we have absolutely no basis to draw upon to work with this."

Maybe not so crazy, and just maybe "crazy enough." I really do need to get caught up on group theory. However, I find it interesting that the root space dimensionality of the monster group (196,883) automorphism is so close to the 24 dimension kissing number (196,560). IIRC, this known kissing number is based on a lattice construction. If a non-lattice construction is allowed, and the maximal dimensionality/kissing number turns out actually to be 196,884, then you'll have your basis -- because it will be consistent with (actually, extend) my theory of n-dimension self organized spacetime. Here's why:

First, the conjectured kissing number (196,884) has to be a member of the congruence subgroup n (mod 12) -- which it is -- because a 12-vertex lattice is the zeroth member (see table S1.2, p. 30, of my "time barrier" paper) and recurring zero of the kissing order; i.e., the 12 vertex lattice of 3 dimensions implies that the 3-manifold shell of 4 dimension space (k = 24, order 1) is not a dimensionless singularity, but rather, imparts dimensionality to n-dimensional space (my ICCS 2006 paper). IOW, the center of 4 dimensions (k = 24) is the origin of length 1 in hyperspace.

So I hope you can see that transferring the boundary of string field theory to the Euclidean group of kissing 3-manifolds allows infinite solutions, _unless_ there is a finite dimension limit beyond the 4 dimension horizon. To find that upper limit, which is where you seem to be going, is to raise some _very_ interesting questions about the deep nature of creation, and its dizzying variety of forms.

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

Yes - 24 dimensions are very important because of the Leech lattice. I'm not sure if the difference between my 28 and the Leech 24 is:

a) 4-D of time (which I seem to have real, imaginary and quaternionic time) or b) 4-D of observable (inflated, non-lattice-like) Spacetime, or

c) the 4 basis vectors of G2xG2, or

d) b and c.

Dear Steve,

I like to "play" with extra dimensions because "play" is how children learn, and I am but a child who lives in more dimensions than he understands.

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Hi Ray,

I can't imagine why it took you so long to conclude that your friend on the other side of the pond thinks we're doing recreational mathematics here. I thought he was pretty clear and emphatic about that. :-)

Anyway, yes. Mathematicians can add dimensions at will to represent added parameters. What I am still struggling with is what you deem physically real, and how it affects the mechanics of the space you are working in.

Tom

[deleted]

Ray,

Imaginary time doesn't require 4 dimensions, only 2 complex dimensions, and real time requires only one real dimension. Quaternionic time? I don't know--quaternions are noncommmutative, so I suppose a model could be made to work in which time is irreversible; however, one would have to sacrifice the reversible time trajectory of continuous function (classical) physics, which would rule out unification of quantum and classical functions.

In my theory, the only lattice construction that matters (although lattices of any higher number may result, as long as they belong to the mod 12 subgroup) is the 3 dimension lattice of S^2 topology.

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

It looks like I have 4 time-like dimensions, which is why I assume that I'm working with 1) Real Time, 2) Imaginary Time, 3) Quaternionic Real Time, and 4) Quaternionic Imaginary Time.

If your model has 3 mod 12 dimensions, then it is consistent with Lawrence's 27-D (27=3+2*12) model, and I probably have at least one too many time-like dimensions (or maybe one or two of these dimensions decompose into trivially decoupled solutions). I like your mod 12 - it reminds me of my E12 - 12 dimensions are a relevant subgroup of the problem.

Steve and I like to tease each other - we've been throwing this sort of friendly banter at each other across the pond for about a year now. He swears that the Universe is only 3-D, but then he adds in rotating spheres, and increases his degrees-of-freedom/ dimensionality.

Dear Steve,

Don't you want to see Avatar in 28-D? That would be awesome!

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Hello Ray,

Hmmm. That's an interesting coincidence, and maybe more than a coincidence.

I take it you mean 3 = 27 (mod 12) is identical to two 12 dimensional subgroups or one Leech lattice of 24 dimensions, plus two dimensions of space and one of time. If so, it is possible that Lawrence's static mathematical model is dual to mine -- because the 2 1 (i.e., 3 dimensions) of the two- sphere (S^2) manifold is my zeroth order object. Lawrence can speak for himself, however.

I added one more step to convert this static model to a dynamic and kinetic theory. I realized after constructing the model mathematically that nothing compelled the normalized order to be physical ("nothing happens until something moves"), so the zeroth term could not have a _physical_ value of zero. There had to be an epsilon term between 0 and 1 to compel the dissipation of the time metric in the n-dimension order, thus adding kinetic meaning, with the dynamics on the inertial boundaries of kissing spheres, consistent with string field theory in infinite dimensions.

Does this epsilon term take a small or a large value, I wondered, and how does one derive it? I confess that it was a matter of months before I realized that I had already calculated the term in 2005, for a paper presented to NECSI ICCS 2006 ("Self organization in real and complex analysis") and it was entirely consistent with the physical definition of "time" that I put forward: "n-dimensional infinitely orientable metric on self avoiding random walk". You see -- a large value for 0 epsilon would mean a high inertial content for our universe, which doesn't comport with what we actually observe. I was absolutely flabbergasted to find that not only did my term match WMAP data _exactly_, but it predicted an upper bound for the acceleration of the universe at about 87% of the speed of light from the present point of observation. See table S3.1, p. 36 of my "time barrier" paper.

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

It is interesting that you thought you needed an epsilon term for stability, and I thought I needed a fractal term with self-similar scales for stability. Although we approached this problem from very different perpectives, there may be more similarities than differences. My reading list is growing. I need to reread your paper (I may have actually read a different paper, ICCS2006), and I need to read Lawrence's latest ideas on a Quantum Time Operator, and Lisi's latest paper on "An Explicit Embedding of Gravity and the SM in E8". Just in case it is useful for your applications, an important small number in my calculations is (phi)^(-6)= 0.055728...

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Hello,

Hhiihihihi indeed Ray I am like a child who plays now, ........

ps I haven't a concrete answer about these extradimesions ....I wait still ....we wait still .....

ps2 the entanglement is finite and the number is specific.....the volume of the spheres increase towards the main central sphere......all in 3D because the rotations of the spheres are since the begining in dynamic for a polarization of evolution.....

Regards

Steve

[deleted]

If we tease, we catalyze, if and only if, the real respect is now out of a certain vanity.

Personaly I respect all people with a sincere heart.

The simplicity of roads thus draw into harmonic curves.

Friendly

Steve

[deleted]

Dear Steve,

Were you waiting on a response from me? I'm sorry. - I thought I had presented my reasons for extra dimensions fairly clearly over the months.

Does time exist as an independent dimension? I think so. Certainly we experience a change in "time", and Newton's Laws (F=ma, a is the second time derivative of position x) and Einstein's Relativity are based on the ability to measure changes in space with rulers and changes in time with clocks.

IMHO, the Wick rotation and the Minkowski metric (and, of course, the proportionality constant of c, Delta(x)=c*Delta(t)) imply that time is radically different from space - thus we have another broken symmetry. But please, don't worry, I love broken symmetries almost as much as I love unity symmetries. It is not a problem - it is simply a puzzle.

It seems to me that Amrit has "replaced" time with an equivalent tool: a numerical ordering of events within his block. If the mind causes time to move (as Amrit claims), then I would like to slow time down the next time I'm on a nice vacation - maybe stretch a week out into at least a month. You have also used extra degrees-of-freedom in the rotations of your spheres. I don't fully understand your model, but I think that you have concealed time and mass within these degrees of freedom.

Regarding extra dimensions - past 4-D. OK - it is true that we cannot directly see or experience these dimensions without a Black Hole. Read my "What is Ultimately Possible" essay paper from last year (topic 520), and you will see that I have correlated conserved quantum numbers with extra dimensions. Peter Van Gaalen (your Dutch neighbor) did something similar with fundamental units and extra dimensions in his essay paper.

I have asked these questions many times: "Where is Hilbert Space?" "How does every electron 'know' that it has a rest mass of 511 KeV/c^2, an intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar, and an electric charge of -e?" We use these conventions so often that we take them for granted. Many physicists just crank the math, and don't ask the philosophical questions. I am proposing that this information, and these quantum numbers, are projected into our Spacetime from Hyperspace - perhaps through the Event Horizon, string interactions, and "spooky" action-at-a-distance (and its not "spooky" - its caused by "scalar fermion" tachyons and conserved quantum numbers).

Can we directly see extra dimensions? NO

Do extra dimensions influence our physics? YES

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Dear Dr Cosmic Ray,

I am persuaded like your strings friends that if you study all sciences, like the evolution and the biology, you shall see the 3D and its truths,......these ideas dear Ray are a lost of time....tachyons...Dr cosmic Ray.....these tachyons do not exist....strings falses....time reversibility and extradimensions...do not exist....and so on...

I critic simply the conclusions, not your works and competences....it lacks like others models (Lawrence,Th , Lisi.....it lacks the generality Ray, it lacks the whole, it lacks the essentials dear Dr Cosmic Ray, the evolution of the mass inside a closed system in evolution, it lacks the universal entropic link, it lacks the causes ....these rotations of these spheres which polarises the light spheres......

fURTHERMORE THE ORIGIN OF MASS IS NOT INTRINSIC ...that has no sense all thats like the strings events and horizons.....let's be pragamatic please about our reality in 3D.

Never the LHC will find that in this line of reasoning purely false physically speaking.Many confound the maths creativity and the sciences, physicals Ray.

It's not due to competences but utilization of skills.

Really, When we study chemistry, physics, biology,.....we see the whole ...if not the details are imaginaries and without universal coherences.

I liked a lot your book really Ray , I respect the method and the work, several relevances of alcuisl are there.....but your referential, your topology is purely false in my humble opinion,, of course it's just my opinion and you are free to continue but be sure all that is false Ray.

The complexity is the sister of the simplicity when the harmony is the road of this rationality.......we observe , we shut up, we calculate, we reobserve and finally we make the conclusion of these observations.But never we shut up and we calculate without the real referential , it's like to calculate the serie of pi .

Friendly

Steve

[deleted]

Dear Steve,

I completely agree with you that the origin of mass is intrinsic.

The origin of mass, the quantization (or non-quantization?) of mass, and the origin of gravity are critical questions. I think that a SM complex Higgs scalar doublet, or even an MSSM complex Higgs scalar doublet pair, is far too simple to explain all of our observed mass spectra.

I think that the 5-brane of Hyperspace is the origin of Mass and Quantum Gravity, and that these effects are holographically translated into the observed geometrical gravity of Spacetime.

Perhaps this is simply my "Affirmation of Faith", and you are welcome to agree or dis-agree with me. It won't hurt my feelings if you dis-agree. You think you understand something that I don't, and I think I understand something that you don't. Confusion is the way of our world...

Have Fun!

[deleted]

No Ray ,

Forget your vanity, and the business please Ray......Yes I understand something that you don't understand but I don't consider me like superior than you even if I understand better than you, like many here who use these referentials of pure business maths, it's purely false ,and furthermore the most impressing, these people give curses ahahaha

I understand it's difficult for you and others to return at the begining because there are friends from USA generally or a kind of team.

A kind of team which agrees even when it's false.....even curses are given in Universities and this and that(let's be serious, you iùmagine even at the LHC they search bizare irrationalities) .... ......it's like a product, we invent a product and even if it's a bad inventions ...the team continues to sell , it's logic because it exists dear Friendfs all over the world a strategy, logic it exist scchools for that....and these people speak in private, they fear to loose their credibility or their monney or investmenst, it's the world dear Ray ......

But the real problem is what these people, a little skilling in maths , give curses and the most impressing they don't know the generality and the evolution, bizare no Dr Cosmic Ray.

The confusions is the way when it lacks the generality .

Frankly and sincerely

Friendly

Steve

[deleted]

ahahah We are going to continue in transparence dear Ray ,let's speak .Let's lease dear Ray

You can invite your friends.....Lisi, Lawrence, Florin,TH.....and who behind also ....perhaps Verlinde and Lubos and of course the M theory andf the rest of the team ....ahahahah

copy of the real truth....Thje SPHERIZATION THEORY a GUT OF ROTATING SPHERES....ALL IS SAID ...EUREKA FROM BELGIUM....DON4T CONFOUND DEAR fRIENDS ? STUDENTS? SCIENTISTS OF ALL OVER THE WORLD..........

Steve hihihihihi

[deleted]

hihii you saw Ray when I don't take my meds, I am still more crazzy.

ps Pay attention, I am not parano hihihi, they are everywhere dear Ray, they are everywhere these sharks of business......I prefer the dolphins, more quiets and nices.

Steve

[deleted]

Dear Steve,

Remember your little blue spheres... We have dolphins and sharks at our beach house. My brother ripped his cast net to shreds when he accidentally netted a large shark a couple of years ago - he is more careful now - he only wants mullet, not shark. My brother-in-law likes to paddle his kayak. He once got caught up with several dolphins, and they bumped his kayak several times. He guesses they were playing, but it scared him anyway.

I'm more of a dolphin. I protect my friends, but don't mind working as a team against common enemies.

By the way. I have advanced from M-theory (the 11-D "Mother" of all theories) to F-theory (the 12-D "Father" of all theories), but its all related anyway... I don't know how you reconcile conserved quantum numbers and information in a simply 3-D Universe.

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Interesting Ray,

You ask ....

I don't know how you reconcile conserved quantum numbers and information in a simply 3-D Universe.

I asnwer you

Simply THINK ABOUT ROTATING SPHERES AND YOU SHALL SEE THE TRUTH.

tHE ROTATION OF ALL SPHERES IS PROPORTIONAL WITH ITS MASS,the volume has a rule also.

The informations are these rotations of these spheres, the mass are these rotations of these spheres (and their finite and specific number....)

ps the colors is correlated also with these rotations and their velocities, spinals and orbitals.Blue is the color of the sky, the light is all these colors, you can encircle thus dr Cosmic Ray , the gauge of colors....chromodynamic, mechanic and rotations...even the fields are proportionals .......I the 11d and the 12d are mother and father...me and my 3d I am adam and eve in the same time .....ahahahah

Steve

[deleted]

Important idea of the day dear Ray,

The fractal from the main center is incredible, let's imagine this center of our Universe.......the Eden perhaps dear Ray...........and if we link with all quantum centers......we can see the diffusion of matters in sphericality.

Regards

Steve

[deleted]

Lawrence,

Time is not "something" that we measure with clocks.

With clocks we measure numerical order of material change.

Time as "something" in ontological sense is a mind model into which you experience numeric order of material change.

amrit

[deleted]

Amrit,

What do you mean by "mind?"

Tom

[deleted]

Hi Tom

Rad my paper on file attached and you will see what i mean by "mind"

yours amritAttachment #1: INTEGRATION_OF_RATIONAL_AND_CONSCIOUS_EXPERIENCE.pdf

[deleted]

Amrit,

Ultimately you are burying the concept in time in the notion of change. Change v. [Chanj] To become different, to alter or vary. Then how does something vary? It does so according to this thing called time.

This trend of regarding time as nonexistent is silly. I will not say with certainty time is ontic quite in the same way that a hard particle is. However, quantum events determine eigenvalued outcomes which occur in a sequence ordered temporally. I can't prove that time exists, but science is not about proving things exist, science is only about making measurements and determining whether things measured satisfy certain relationships. Those relationships are what we call theories.

Calling time something we simply perceive mentally as objects moving in space is really just a word game. You have in the end just come up with another definition of time.

Cheers LC