A Universe Programmed with Strings of Qubits by Philip Gibbs

Lawrence,

Thanks for the extended comments. My personal bet is that there'll be a new excuse in 2013, pushing it out to 2016, but that's just cynical old me. I spent enough time working for the government to know how programs are managed. But the key fact is simply that, in my theory Higgs aren't needed and hence don't exist. You might ask yourself, if the gravito-magnetic field measured by Tajmar and independently calculated by me, based on reasonable assumptions, is actually 10**31 times stronger, while QED's vacuum energy is 10**120 weaker, could this 151 orders of magnitude shift in the basic energies of the universe have any effect? If you conclude that real change of 151 orders of magnitude in relative field strengths is unlikely to be physically meaningful, I'd kinda like to know what you base that on.

Ray,

Good to hear from you. I consider the only TOE that counts to be one that explains all known particle physics, including real anomalies, and is up-to-date on cosmological discoveries. If it does this, I don't consider it 'minimal'. In fact, I believe that the simpler the theory, the better. I also believe that math and the human imagination can invent untold 'schemes', most of which can never be tested--for energy reasons if for no other--but that the 'grandeur' of these schemes is in the eye of the beholder. Until real anomalies are addressed, and real problems of QED and QCD accuracy are solved, I consider mathematical schemes that have no testable predictions or falsifiable conclusions, to be math, not physics. As I've said elsewhere, "nothin wrong with that", but I'm most interested in known physics, not imagined physics.

I suspect that the FQXi essay contest three years from now may be addressed to "Why nothing new from the LHC?". Whatever the results, there'll be enough egg on faces to go around.

You graciously asked about the 'triality' implied by the C-field. The C-field 'color triality' satisfies the original 'symmetry' problem of the wave function being symmetric under exchange of two quarks, in violation of the Pauli exclusion principle, the original reason that QCD 'color' was invented, while also explaining both asymptotic freedom and quark confinement and jets, as well as the "famous QCD factor-of-3". In addition the C-field does explain the 'generations triality' of three particle generations. This has some significance for the CKM matrix, but I don't claim to have derived CKM from the C-field. Still workin' on it.

I believe that the magnetic monopole is tied up with the 'duality' of the source free electromagnetic field. I do not believe that the analogous gravito-electro-magnetic (GEM) duality exists [this is reflected in my modifications of the GEM equations to include 'curl G =0', ie, gravity is irrotational. This has implications for gravity waves, and also, I believe, implies no analogous 'monopole'.

I'm looking forward to your essay, and glad to see you back online.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Tajmar's paper references Podkletnov, where his idea of superconducting shields of gravity are not taken seriously by most in the physics community. This paper involves a measurement that is interpreted as a gravi-magnetic field, which differs from the Lense-Thirring or frame dragging effect, a GR analogue of magnetism.

Your paper also references Sweetser's GEM theory, where he states that spacetime curvature and electromagnetic fields can be interchanged or are equivalent in various ways. There are some fundamental reasons why this simply can't work. Intertwining internal and external symmetries in this way gives serious violations. This has been known since the early 1970s. I encountered Sweetser on the Physics Forum, where he has an extensive site on GEM. He seemed to constantly be fixing problems with this, and he still is at it the last I checked. As near as I can see GEM appears to be a potpourri of mathematical nonsense. The idea on the surface seems clever, but a deeper understanding of things reveals why this sort of thing simply can't work.

A deep understanding of things and an hour of thought can save one months or years of toil.

Cheers LC

Dear Lawrence and Ed,

I thought that Podkletnov (and independently Chiao - which is why I suggested that Jason Wolfe should talk to Raymond Chiao) were trying to convert photons into gravitons. IMHO, this is NOT GEM (which should behave like a "rotational gravity" and only involves EM as an analogy), but rather is a potential affirmation of my ideas involving Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (QSGUT) and the Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) boson [please see my latest paper in Prespacetime vol.1, no.9 and my book).

Dear Ed,

I think I understand your denial of the magnetic monopole. If "light" is a quasiparticle involving the union of wave (continuous EM Field) and particle (discrete photon and/or magnetic monopole and/or Z and W) properties, then these characteristics may be so intertwined that we don't directly see the magnetic monopole. Nonetheless, I think it is appropriate to account for these degrees of freedom. If the gravi-magnetic monopole degree of freedom is absorbed into something else, then we need to understand what that something else is.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

In either case with GEM or with Podkletnov there are these ideas about intertwining gravity and EM in funny ways. From what I know Podkletnov's physics has not measured up to any serious test.

Cheers LC

Dear Friends,

I think that Chiao and Podkletnov are doing similar things in that they are using electromagntic fields and charges on superconducting materials to try to generate gravity. The idea goes back to DeWitt's idea that a spinning electron might couple to spacetime curvature. Chiao is using interferometer techniques that might be more accurate than Podkletnov's. In my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory, photons and gravitons are different quantum occupation states of the Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) boson. The question then arises "How does a GUM boson transition from photon-like properties to graviton-like properties?"

From what I have read of Ed's ideas, I really thought that GEM was a rotational gravitational effect. And though this concept might couple to generational effects and/or QCD, I don't think it is directly coupled with Electromagnetism, but magnetism is a great analogy.

Should we move these conversations to Ed's site?

Have Fun!

Ray,

I suppose this discussion probably more belongs in Ed's area. I am not much of a partisan of these ideas. For a number of reasons I think they can't work.

The graviton in the AdS_7 is equivalent to a gluon chain on the boundary ∂AdS_7. This is the case in 10 dimensions where the boundary is a six dimensional spacetime which holds a QCD field.

Cheers LC

Ray,

I had decided that I've spent too much of Phil's time arguing with Lawrence, but you are welcome to come over to my site. I do have some comments on your above remarks. Lawrence is welcome too, but he and I see things too differently to agree on much.

Good luck in the contest Phil!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi all,

In fact dear Dr Gene Man,

It seems to me, in sincere humility, that it is sometimes vain to make understanding the generality of the fundamentals to some people who doesn't encircle this global overview,this whole point of vue.

The answer lies to a lack of universal spirituality.

This is a guess of course.

Or focusing on details "lost mathematically".

Entropy, the mother of our equations, seems little understood by the entire scientific community.

Regards

Steve

hihi you are funny in fact with all your mixing non sense.

Really funny.

I offer you the nobel prize of fun and no sense ,

to the team th , lisi , ray and lawrence and friends ahahah

Cheeeeeeeers

Steve

Express a circular earth orbit of 360 days in 11 dimesions of M theory.

Then convert the circular orbit into an eliptical one in three dimensions plus one of time.

Reverse the eqaution to convert the equations for Einsteins 4D space time into 11 dimensions...................

This the the computer program that unites Einsteins gravity with string theory..............And you can unite strinmg theory with quantum gravity.

Which is totally right Stephen.

Indeed this program is totally right for a theory of everything.

It's just reverses of equations, but do you understand the symmetries or our foundamentals, invariants, coherents, constants???

Frankly I doubt.

You can't make what you want with our maths, sorry but it's the reality when you want explain the physics correctly.

A symmetry for that , a translation for that a central symmetry for this, a serie there with infinites limits and after an oscillation here.

No but we speak about what, maths or physics without any sense???

It's tiring to explain always our foundamentals.

Regards

Steve

Phil,

I have attached a rough draft that is somewhat sketchy, on more mathematical detail with the physics here. It is found on my paper site.

This expands some on the triality conditions. This extends into the Freudenthal determinants, and I think the elliptic curve condition on the hyperdeterminant for the 3-quibit case.

Cheers LC

The title of McLuhan's book is actually _The Medium is the Massage_, implying feedback between the medium's message and the recip[ient, rather than identity between language and meaning. In fact, it is the very disjointedness of language and meaning -- i.e., between nature and our description of nature -- that allows feedback to affect, and be affected by, our involvement with it. Objective science, though, follows Einstein's prescription for what is "physically real:" That which is " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself affected by physcial conditions." (Meaning of Relativity, Princeton 1956). Contrary to Bohr's opinion, Einstein was not really one to "tell God what to do."

Tom

Thanks I will take a look at it. I read through your essay and understood more than I thought I would, so I'll try to read this too.

I noticed that you got into that latest collosal time sink "physics.stackexchange" That is sort of fun, and a bit hard to stay away from. I'll have to pull back some more after a couple of day and suffer a bit of withdrawal.

This goes a bit more into detail. On the physics.stackexchange Motl posted the question about T-dual with Witten's Twistor B-topological field. That gets a bit close to this in some ways. I was going to write up on E_6, and might still, but things are a bit premature. The E_6 is a good subgroup for particle spectra since it has a complex irrep.

Cheers LC

Hi Lawrence & Philip,

A while back, Lubos was beating me up over the fact that E8 is a strictly real representation. Back in the 1990's, the expectation was that a GUT/TOE must have complex representations. But I thought (mistakenly?) that the implication of right-handed neutrinos at Super-Kamiokande would allow these spinors to exist in a real representation - as long as right-handed neutrinos were properly accounted for (as I think I have with Hyperflavor).

I like E8 (240 real roots plus 8 basis vectors) because of its lattice form. By itself, E8 could represent Hyperspace, but not Spacetime. Lubos cast enough doubt on E8 that I started looking at alternate symmetries: SU(11)~SO(16) with 120 complex dgf's or E6xE6* with 72 plus 54 complex dgf's may have similar symmetries.

Have Fun!

Hi all,

All that is cool, but everywhere we listen and read the news about strings, extradimensions and others like higgs .....like what all my prediction,s were ok also.

A micro BH , no but let's be serious please and extradimensions, it's so ironic for rationalists.

You know dear scientists , is it important to invest in stupidities or in the foundamentals???Hope that the LHC has understood and all scientific communities also.

It's probably the reason why the earth has this actual state.

It's simple sometimes.

Regards

Steve

Ray,

This is one reason we use E_8xE_8 ~ SO(32) which does have a complex representation.

Cheers LC

Hi Lawrence,

Yes, SO(32)~E8xE8*=496 could be an important isomorphism. This symmetry is slightly different from the SU(11)~SO(16)=120 isomorphism because it requires a couple of singlet sub-groups (to accomodate a 248-plet vs. a 240-plet). Perhaps these singlet groups are 8-plets each of tachyons and Higgs. IMHO, a proper SO(32) would be Spin(32) with 30-32 dimensions. Now we are approaching 1000 particle states - approx double that required for 10^123 combinatorial possibilities.

Have Fun!