[deleted]
I would like to have seen your essay. You should try it next time.
I would like to have seen your essay. You should try it next time.
In effect the S matrix produces essentially this state as
|k_1,k_2,...,k_n> = S(φ_1ψ_{1,2}φ_2ψ_{2,3}, ..., φ_{n-1}ψ_{n-1,n}|p_1,p_2,...,p_n>
The state vector |k_1,k_2,...,k_n> is the set of entries determined by the application of a field φ(k_1,k_2,...k_n) on a Fock basis element. The fields φ_a, where I drop the two indicial notation define a boson vertex operator ∂X^μφ^a exp(ikx), where the string term ∂X^μ ~ ψk^μ. The field has a superconformal weight (0, 1/2) and defines the current G_{-1/2}φ_a = j^a. This field and the current obey the standard operator product expansions. The ordering of these elements which make up the S matrix, or equivalently define the state φ_{ij...k} is then dictated by the superconformal algebra and the graded Lie algebra.
I think in a way this discrete approach leads to much the same construction you indicate. The difference might be a difference in perspective with "quantization," but I think it leads potentially to the same or a similar result.
Cheers LC
There is a podcast available of the 11th Asimov Memorial Debate at http://www.amnh.org/news/tag/isaac-asimov-memorial-debate/ The debate returned to the topic of the first meeting ten years ago to discuss whether string theory is still a viable "Theory of Everything" (This controversial phrase should be read as a "Theory that encompasses everything in physics", not a "Theory that solves everything" which is of course impossible)
The debate was lively and well balanced and worth listening to. Of particular interest here were the comments of Jim Gates who mentioned the idea that information theory is at the heart of string theory. Those who have read my essay will see the connection with Gate's mention of the appearance of error correcting codes in M-theory. One technical article is at http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0051
I was not aware of Gate's part in the research before. It would have made a good reference to add to the essay if I'd known sooner.
In my opinion these ideas build on the observations of Mike Duff and his coworkers about connections between string theory and qubits. This is gaining wider recognition and could be the first hints of a new string theory revolution, but we are still waiting for the main breakthrough that will explain what is behind it.
I wonder if the 21st Asimov debate in ten years time will look back at string theory again with positive answers to some of the questions.
Phil
Thanks. I hope you make it to the last 35 too, very interesting microstructure approach, an area I feel bound to get more in vogue soon.
I think mine's doing well as, despite my non classical (meant non non classically) approach, an increasing proportion are now able to upgrade their conceptual dynamic visualisation skills to see how it produces some pretty exciting results.
I look forward to your own views, if you get to read it. But I warn you it's demanding in very different ways. Do look at the logical analysis, thought Gedankens and comments in the strings too.
It it proves correct, it was on viXra first, and may just prove how bad the mainstream publication system is!
Best of luck.
Peter
Hi Phil,
Saving the best for last, I suspected in advance that you would turn out a superior essay, and I was not disappointed. There are too many good technical points to review in this brief format, so just a couple in particular:
Your explanation of "complete symmetry" is right on. A similar line of reasoning led me to the conclusion, accompanied by a precise numerical model, that the 4 dimension horizon is identical to the 10 dimension limit. (My essay entry doesn't get into the technical; I chose to survey the broad subject of discrete vs. continuous instead.)
I noticed Ervin Goldfain's objection that quantum gravity assumes classical gravity can be quantized. On the contrary, your approach, mine and several others assume that quantum gravity can be classicalized.
I hope you get a chance to read my essay, too.
Excellent work, thanks.
Best,
Tom
Point of clarification -- the link is a 2008 preprint, not my essay.
Hi Philip,
As promised on viXra I read your essay this evening, first of all it was very readable to me exept for the pages 3 and 4, formula's are not my favorit sorry although I can understand the beauty of them especially in String theory, perhaps that is the reason that I am not a fan of it (but I respect every possible theory)
As in my essay you also treat the ultimate Planck scale, where we have no more possibillities for measuring/observing, this is the area where your essay and mine take different roads.
You pose that spacetime (even an inescapable conclusion) after the Planck scale is smooth and continuous, for me we enter in the fifth dimension where time and space are no longer causal and deterministic, all possible quanta of all possible universes meet there, perhaps this is a continuum, this is not an inescapable conclusion but just one of the many explications)
The future quantum computer that you compare with the structure of our universe is good thinking but we have to treat the "construction" of this "machine" in a whole new way, each qubit has in principle an infinity superposition ofof possibillities as indicated in the Bloch sphere, this infinite choice gives an infinite source of answers, so ... perhaps we can then create a new form of consciousness (new C-Field ?)
I feel there is a lot of things we have in common Philip , but also a lot of data that we interprete in a different way, I would appreciate if you could take some time to read my essay and you know it is the tension that creates the current and so lights the lamp.
Good luck with the contest and best regards
Wilhelmus
Dear Philip Gibbs,
Thanks for your indepth knowledge of string and quantum-information physics.But in the end you are not sure why the reality is both digital and analog.According to me there is a way and on the basis of which we can explain why reality is both digital and analog.To know this,please, go thro' my essay and make comments.
Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.
Sreenath B N.
Thamas, Wilhelmus, Sreenath, thanks for your comments. i have already read your essays before and am now looking over them one last time. Good luck!
Phil
Thanks for your note. Glad you read mine. I didn't want to mix the conceptual with this at this stage, but, considering yours, is it possible you could look at mine in terms of a Q-net (as a fibre optic) and quantum registers QUBITS 'lumped' together - "wanderland", or right down to individiual bits ('balls S^3')
I believe SR and LT link to this picture via QC=SR, "2+2=1+3" (Hermitean picture or Klein correspondence).
If you're impressed with that don't credit me, you should read Lucian Ionescue's essay, that's been a bit overlooked and should be way up the list. I only saw it yesterday!
Let me know if that computes. You should spot that it is actually paradigm shifting! Great to see you on a late charge.
Peter
That is a nice overview of the state of things these days. Thanks
LC
Wonderful, Phil. String theory coupled to information theory is the thrust of my own research as well, and I am anticipating with you some exciting new developments. Thanks.
Best,
Tom
Dear Philip,
Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:
Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?
Best wishes,
Alan
Hi dear Russel,
Sorry for my late answer, I have some difficulties to answer to all my net at this momment.
Your post is interesting,, you know I don't understand sometimes why they focus on these confusions implied by maths. The realism is objective. It is not they aren't skilling, just they don't understand the generality and the globality.
I am going to answer on your blog.
Regards
Steve
Gentlemens
I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg
http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm
http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm
Yuri Danoyan
New Measurement of the Earth's Absolute Velocity with the Help
of the "Coupled Shutters" Experiment
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-
05.PDF
Dear Tom,
You are right I just realized the book is entitled "..Massage" ! I like the common aphorism though because in my theory it is the physical nodes (the medium) that create the universe that we see (the message). I feel that, working back from our experiences of the world, we can propose an 'absolute' medium, even though we perceive it as a 'message'.
Your quote of Einstein's implies he thought there is an absolute universe out there. But the whole thrust of SR is that our perception of it is absolute (the speed of light is constant) while the universe itself (space and time) are relative. I think it can and should be the other way around - the speed of light should be variable with a maximum of c in an absolute universe. My (made-up, I assure you) anecdote in my paper about Einstein and God is in the spirit of Einstein's own gentle humor about the 'Good Lord' and no disrespect is meant to either.
Best wishes from Vladimir
Dear Phil,
Congratulations on being among the contest winners! I thought you deserved better than a Fourth Prize (at least you won something - most of my friends were left out again), but lets face it - too many don't believe in or understand string theory well enough to understand the significance of qubits of strings.
Have Fun!
Congratulations for your win Phil. I hope this encourages you in your research, and also in keeping viXra.org alive!
Dear Phil,
If we analyze our selves, we will realize that we are the quantum computers.
Birth is a white hole
Dreams are worm holes
Death is a black hole
Strings are made of our imagination
Our thoughts are qubits
Emotions are entanglement
I am superpositioned by my self to be me
Love is the absolute force
Singularity or soul or conscience or universal I or god is the operator that runs us all.
I is the absolute truth.
Love,
Sridattadev.