A Universe Programmed with Strings of Qubits by Philip Gibbs

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.

Any sense.

I don't see a logical reason for these extrapolations.M Theory is just a fun from Mr Witten, who I agree is skilling.

But the conclusions frankly let me laugh please.

It's not sciences that but sciences fiction.

Cheeers

Steve

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.

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!

ahahahah let me laugh still and always, just a pub for some frustrated who have a specific job apparently,I don't see an other logical reason !!!Here is an explaination of my opinion.

I ask me if You make really foundamental sciences, you just mix a little and make pubs.It's not possible ,for people who know maths like you,to imply these conclusions.It's an other road.It's sure that.

It's not possible Ray, I am frank, it's not possible for a rationalist and a faith people to imply these extrapolations.

If it's a technic of some systems, it's very bizare.I am not parano , just realist about my works and my perceptions of the global system.

Now I am going to say an important thing, perhaps the confusions are programmed for a difficulty of perception for the majority.But it's an other debate in fact after all.

Congratulations for your perseverances.Fascinating in all case.

It's the end, beautiful string the end lalalalalalalala and of course it is the end of lost of monney and stupidities, fortunally for our uniqueness.

STRINGS...HIGGS...EXTRADIMENSIONS..MICRO BH(THERE IT'S SERIOUS REALLY)..MULTIVERSES....TACHYONS....THIS IS THE END .........SEE THE LAST WORDS EVERYWHERE APPARENTLY THEY LISTEN ME THEM!!! HIHIHIHI .Laugh is good for health and I must agree that with you I laugh a lot.and in the same time I am sad.

Cheers

Steve

Ray,

Type II string theory with coupling g is S-dual to the same theory with the coupling 1/g .IIA and IIB are T-dual. An orientifold of type IIB string theory leads to type I string theory in SO(32). The M-theory does require SO(32) and E_8xE_8 .

I noticed you paper made it on the board today. I will give it a look. I generally score these a bit later on as it takes me a while to get to them all. I try to read about 3 or 4 of these a week.

Cheers LC

Dear Lawrence,

Yes - The reciprocal lattice argument is equivalent to T-duality, and the Large Numbers/Inverse Large Numbers argument is equivalent to S-Duality. I know that I've said that before in one of these blogs, but I never put it in a paper - What was I thinking? I was trying to find that balance between "enough" vs. "too much" detail in my essay...

My essay is very similar to the one I e-mailed you earlier. I had already read yours' and Philip's essays, so I've already scored you both.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

ahahaha wawwwwwwwww impressing !!!

Details they say, details ahahahha

it's neither a generality and nor detail.

It's true you are skilling in strategy, really impressing.

A new in the team phil but where are the others, th, lisi, and friends ahahahah

THEY NEED HELP IN FACT AHAHAHA

Have fun and cheers they said ahahah

Scored ahahaha but what is the real score .....

Belgium 65 USA 0 LIKE HABIT and furthermore me I am alone.A team of several against a small belgian.You know this little country, weak and vulnerable.hihii but the real score is the real sore.9.6 it's well Ray it's well and quick , ten votes in 1 day , very interesting.

Steve

Dear Dr. Gibbs,

I find it very strange that the scientific world is obsessed with mathematics (admittedly, my essay did dabble with it when offering a version of E=mc2 to suit the digital world - but I kept it very simple ... so simple it might be regarded as wrong). Math seems to be regarded as infallible, even though it leads to mistakes. The mistake I have in mind is string theory. I don't deny that there certainly is value in the theory, and in maths, but logic reveals shortcomings. Let me explain, after first writing a short section describing an unconventional approach to unveiling unification and offering an alternative to the Higgs boson that relies on gravitational waves.

ALTERNATIVE TO HIGGS BOSON

An important step might be to think of "... the grand design of the universe, a single theory that explains everything" (words used by Stephen Hawking on the American version of Amazon, when promoting his latest book "The Grand Design" - coauthored with Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, 2010) in a different way than physicists who are presently working on science's holy grail of unification. The universe's underlying electronic foundation* (which makes our cosmos into a partially-complete unification, similar to 2 objects which appear billions of years or billions of light-years apart on a huge computer screen actually being unified by the strings of ones and zeros making up the computer code which is all in one small place) would make our cosmos into physics' holy grail of a complete unification if it enabled not only elimination of all distances in space and time, but also elimination of distance between (and including) the different sides of objects and particles. This last point requires the universe to not merely be a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; but to be a unified whole that has "particles" and "waves" built into its union of digital 1's and 0's (or its union of qubits - quantum binary digits). If we use the example of CGH (computer generated holography, these "particles" and "waves" could be elements produced by the interaction of electromagnetic and presently undiscovered gravitational waves, producing what we know as mass and forming what we know as space-time. Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves, and measurements on the Hulse-Taylor binary-star system resulted in Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993 for their work, which was the first indirect evidence for gravitational waves. The feedback of the past and future universes into the unified cosmos's electronic foundation would ensure that both past and future could not be altered. Our brains and minds are part of this unification too - which must mean extrasensory perception and telekinetic independence from technology are possible, despite modern science's objections to these phenomena which appear to be based on non-unification.

* For more information on the universe's proposed electronic foundation, please see my article and postings at

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/814

STRINGS ARE ONLY PART OF MATTER'S BASIS

Space and time only exist in our experience. They are emergent properties, like wetness and mind. We experience wetness because it emerges from the building blocks of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms which make up water. We experience mind because it emerges from the building blocks of neurons composing the brain. And we experience space-time since it emerges from the building blocks making up the universe. These units are a combination of electromagnetic pulses (forming a cosmic computer which includes randomness and thus the potential to escape rigid preprogramming, and have a small degree of free will) as well as a cosmic hologram (this is produced by the interaction of electromagnetic plus gravitational waves and combination of the holographic aspect with the electronic aspect unifies general relativity with quantum physics). Every physical and nonphysical part of the universal hologram would be a receptor for the downloading of data from the cosmic computer which not only exists in the hyperspace of the large-scale universe but also in the hyperspace of each subatomic particle. (In other words, the holographic universe or spacetime we know is a screen for displaying data from the 5th-dimensional computer.)

It might be helpful to visualise time as the playing of a CD or video tape. The entire disc or tape obviously exists all the time. But our physical senses can only perceive a tiny part of the sound and the sights at any fraction of a second. I believe space and time are infinite, so it might be more accurate to visualise time as that HUGE number - in this case, of CDs or tapes - which some versions of string theory propose (10 exponent 500). My essay tells you exactly how to travel to the future, how to return home, and how to travel into our past. Neither future nor past can be altered (a blow to our belief that we have the free will to shape the future) and my explanation of travel to the past requires re-interpretation of the concepts of "multiverse" and "parallel universes". It also requires the ability to travel billions of light years INSTANTLY - no doubt many readers will instantly dismiss the essay because their preconceptions "know" this simply isn't possible. It indeed sounds like pure fantasy, but I outline an approach based on electrical engineering, General Relativity, and Miguel Alcubierre's 1994 proposal of "warp drive" that makes it logically possible.

My essay explains why the universe is a Mobius loop and how it is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would make this statement ridiculous). Then each fermion and boson would also be composed of the 3 spatial dimensions, the 4th dimension of time, and the 5th dimension of hyperspace. Detectors like the Large Hadron Collider would be unable to "see" the time and hyperspace components of particles but could only see the small (maybe 5% of the whole) 3 spatial dimensions (the time and hyperspace components would be what we call dark matter), erroneously assuming particles are those small fractions of a Mobius loop that physics calls strings. "Dark matter" would exert a gravitational influence because both time and hyperspace, being parts of a curved Mobius loop (whether of quantum or cosmic scale), would push objects together in the same way Einstein's curved space-time pushes objects together. We can speak of the HST now - no, not the Hubble Space Telescope but Hyperspatial SpaceTime. We can visualise the Mobius loop as composed of a hyperspace computer which generates information on how things change from one presently undetectably tiny fraction of a second to the next (we call this time, and it's comparable to the frames in a movie) and transmits the data (transmits dark energy) to the insignificant portion of length, width and depth that makes up subatomic particles ... and the universe.

That's the end of my one-paragraph summary. Now for some extra thoughts -

Preceding the Big Bang (which created this local section of the infinite, eternal universe ... or if you prefer, this subuniverse of the megauniverse) there would have been no space, matter or time in this subuniverse. No transmissions of dark energy (creating time and space/matter) would have occurred - therefore the dark-energy content of the universe would have been zero, increasing to the present 72% as more and more matter was created. How is matter created? Perhaps as cosmologist Alan Guth once suggested -

"You might even be able to start a new universe using energy equivalent to just a few pounds of matter. Provided you could find some way to compress it to a density of about 10^75 (10 exponent 75) grams per cubic centimeter, and provided you could trigger the thing ..."

At the time the Cosmic Microwave Background was emitted (less than a million years after the big bang), results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe say the dark-energy content of the universe was negligible. Space/matter has been increasing since the big bang so transmissions from hyperspace computer (dark energy) which create them are increasing while the volume of the Mobius loop occupied by time/hyperspace (dark matter) has been shrinking as a result - according to the WMAP satellite, from 63% when the CMB was emitted to 23% today. Why isn't dark energy increasing at the same rate dark matter is decreasing? It must be because, as stated earlier, both time and hyperspace exert a gravitational influence, thereby mimicking space and matter to a degree. This mimicry causes the dark matter between the start of the CMB and the present to decrease by only about 40% while dark energy increases in the same period by about 70%. If we were dealing with a simple and ordinary loop, this similarity would cause dark matter and dark energy to be more or less equal and if there was any difference in their amount of decrease/increase, it would be in the same direction. But we're talking about Mobius loops which are like strips of paper that have been twisted 180 degrees before the ends are joined. This causes their variation to go in different directions (one increases, the other decreases) and the amount of variation is quite significant (+72%, -40%). My guess is that the real-life twist occurs in the temporal segment of the loop, enabling a traveller in time to go in different directions i.e. into the future or into the past.

My essay tells you how to travel into the future, how to return home, and how to take a trip into our past. Regarding travel beyond our start and into the past ... it can't be denied that these paragraphs imply the possibility of humans from the distant future time-travelling to the distant past and using electronics to create this particular subuniverse's computer-generated Big Bang. An accomplishment such as this would be the supreme example of "backward causality" (effects influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others. However, realising that we live in a cosmic-quantum unification with zero-separation and recalling Isaac Newton's inverse-square law and what it says about the force between two particles being infinite (does infinite mean 10 ^ 500, the HUGE number of universes proposed by some versions of string theory?) if the distance of separation goes to zero means there's still room for God (another bit of scientifically objectionable science fiction?) because God would be a pantheistic union of the megauniverse's material and mental parts, forming a union with humans in a cosmic unification.

Best wishes,

Rodney