A Universe Programmed with Strings of Qubits by Philip Gibbs

I can't comment upon the muonic atom result which got the radius of the proton adjusted. I will offer my suggestion that the large muon has a small orbit and these results reflect the interaction of the muon with the proton. So the perturbation may be reflected by this result. To ferret out the problem requires some very complicated QED calculations with a quark or parton model of the proton.

The fluid properties of the quark-gluon plasma is interpreted as an AdS_4 ~ QCD result. In effect the quark gluon has properties of a BTZ black hole in the anti de Sitter spacetime. There is then some parameter that depends on energy, so that at low energy the quark gluon plasma has properties of a black hole with very weak gravity, but as the energy is scaled up the QCD plasma becomes a real black hole with strong gravity. Nastase and others have written on this.

The value of the cosmological constant means there is some field flux across the Dp-brane of the cosmology that counters the vacuum energy. The AdS has negative Gaussian curvature, which counters the Ricci curvature on the S^5. In the AdS_5xS^5 the boundary of AdS_5 = ∂AdS_5 ~ CFT_4. The AdS_5 has negative Gaussian curvature, which is from a 5-form which has a positive curvature on the S^5. On the boundary the gravitational curvature is zero. So problem involves the incidence of these curvature fluxes on the Dp-branes in the presence of these spaces.

My understanding is that since Bohm QM does not involve Hilbert space, the whole thing lives in configuration space, it is difficult to model the production of particles. One can well enough derive a Bohm version of the Klein-Gordon equation, or the Dirac equation, and even the Maxwell equations. The problem comes when you couple them together. It is difficult to describe the generation of photons, which are massless, and from what I know up to now it is not possible to describe the pair production of particles with some mass --- such as e-e^ pairs.

Cheers LC

Lawrence,

I interpreted your earlier comment following my question as the answer to my question. Thanks for the more direct answer. I generally understand your answer. You and I have a different focus. Believing in 10**500 universes must make it easy not to sweat the details. I believe in only one universe, generally described in my essays, and the real details, especially anomalies, are where I think effort should be expended, but that's what makes horse races. You pays yer money, and you takes yer choice.

I am curious as whether the failure of the Higgs, SUSY particles, or any other conjectured particles to show up will give you pause, or whether the 10**500 vacua remove all such cares.

Finally, I don't know about Bohm's problems, but my theory seems to handle both photons and particle pair creation. I also suggest that if an alternate means of explaining the weak force mechanism and the strong force interactions between quarks, based on the Yang-Mills GEM fields, were to be true, then all justification for more than 4 dimensions would vanish, and a Calabi-Yau manifold would reduce to a torus. I base this on the 151 orders of magnitude change in the QED-GEM energies as well as the existence of physically reasonable, if not mathematically fully developed mechanisms that seem to provide all known particles with no need for Higgs, SUSY, or more than 4 dimensions, while also explaining physically many, if not most, of today's anomalies and mysteries. Of course I would like to have full mathematical backup for these arguments, but it is difficult, in five years, to compete with over a century of math developed by many thousands of bright guys. Yet the 4% accuracy of QED and QCD on 'simple' problems should worry anyone.

Thanks for your response. Probably neither of us will be moving into the others camp.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

The LHC is still in its teething phase. There are some signatures of SUSY already. The Higgs will prove to be difficult to detect. Its signature is comparable to other fields. It is not expected to be observed until 2013, though some results from the Tevatron are favouring a SUSY Higgs sector. Some evidence of the 2-doublet Higgs sector in MSSM has been found.

The issue with the 10^{500} vacua does involve the Calabi-Yau space, which in the trivial case is a T^6 = T^2xT^2xT^2. There are entangled states associated with groups of the T^2's which correspond to the presence of a Dp-brane. The problem is that the T^6 is sort of the ground state of Calabi Yau spaces. The introduction of singular points which transform between each other in conifold extends this to a more general set of CY manifolds. This leads to this landscape issue of 10^{500} vacua.

The question about one universe vs many comes down to the classical measure for each of these cosmologies. A large cosmological constant would correspond to a nucleation bubble that inflates rapidly and correspond to paths in the grand path integral with wildly oscillating phases. These contribute little to a classical amplitude, or any decoherent set of paths which have some WKB or classical-like content. A low cosmological constant is a small vacuum energy leve and is more likely to define some coherent set of "histories." The idea of there being some extremal condition on complexity is what I would call a condition for a decoherent history that has a classical-like content. Whether there is ultimately one of these or not is unknown. As such this would mean the grand path integral in the superspace consists of a much smaller number of cosmologies which are classical or are proximal to what we call "reality." The rest of these cosmologies are then quantum corrections.

Cheers LC

Lawrence,

Thanks for your explanation. I note the Higgs is now expected in 2013. Just two years ago it was expected (by Peter Higgs) in 2009, and about 2 decades before that by Leon Lederman in the 1980's. It's always "real soon now". Because my theory works so well in explaining known anomalies of experimental physics, and because the Higgs would put my theory out to pasture, I do not believe the Higgs is going to show. We'll have to wait and see. SUSY is another story. I'm not sure that SUSY would wipe me out, but it wouldn't make me happy. I've heard so many rumors in the last year, not just SUSY but dark matter, etc, that seem to blow over, I will again just have to wait and see. You must admit, it's been a really long dry spell in particle physics, which is consistent with my theory -- not sure what it means for other theories. It could be just the obvious problem of not yet reaching the right energy.

If I am correct, then, as I said, Calabi-Yau reduces to a torus in 4-space, which fits my ideas. If I'm wrong, I'll probably just get out of the game. It's too much effort working out details of new theories from particles to cosmology, and I'm already too old to be doing so, according to standard physics mythology.

By the way, just because I believe you are wrong does not mean that I do not very much admire your level of skill, math knowledge, and erudition. You are quite impressive.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Philip,

In your essay, you mention a 4 qubit model. Would an 8 qubit model contain all of Lisi's ideas? I think that Lisi's specific model is wrong (because he included fermions and bosons in the same lattice, rather than in reciprocal lattices), but the idea of a quantum crystal (Gosset lattice in Lisi's E8 model) of information yielding the various particle states is an interesting, and potentially fruitful, approach. As always, the Genius is in the Generalities, but the Devil is in the Details...

Dear Ed (aka Dr. Gene-man),

I expect a TOE to be much grander than all of these "minimal TOE's". As such, your ideas on a classical magnetic-like gravitational field could be one component of the ultimate TOE. As I understand your ideas, your "C" field is a classical field that produces a triality (using Lisi's terminology). Is this a triality of Generations (that the Standard Model desperately needs to explain the CKM and PMNS matrices, IMHO), or a triality of Color, or are the two related via an AdS/QCD correspondence (I think that Lawrence has some ideas along this direction)? Whereas you are focusing on the classical continuous field side of this "C" field, I'm wondering about the quantum discrete particle side of the problem - i.e. the gravitational version of the "magnetic monopole".

You aren't too old to play this game. You and Tom Ray are about the same age, and Lawrence and I are about 10-15 years younger.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray, the E8 group can be represented by a quadripartite entanglement of 8 qubits. The model presented here is based on bosonic string theory which cannot be used to build a physical theory due to tachyon instabilities, so it is necessary to generalise the idea to superstring theories such as the heterotic string with its E8xE8 gauge group. A more complicated qubit arrangement might be needed to make that work.

However, none of the uses of E8 in string theory and M-theory really match up to the unification idea that Lisi is pursuing as far as I know. I am not aware of any scheme for making the gravitational groups from string theory embed in the E8 group in the way Lisi does it. So in order to make some connection with the Lisi theory the E8 group would have to arise in a different way. In my opinion the use of E8 is too different for the theories to be able to match up. I think Lisi has always seen his theory as an alternative to string theory so I don't imagine he will be disappointed!

Of course your suggested variations may bring them closer.

Dear Philip,

Lisi thinks he is working against String Theory - I think it is all related (as I will present in my upcoming Continuous vs. Discrete Essay). I agree that any E8 model (if it really is E8 and not a crystalized perversion of SU(11)) must minimally be a SUSY E8xE8* because fermions and bosons cannot exist in identical lattices (they must reside in dual and/or reciprocal lattices of one another). IMHO, Lisi should not have had bosons in the E8 that he presented - those extra states should have been tachyons.

What if Hyperspace is a quadripartite entanglement of 8 qubits, and Spacetime is an entangled 4 qubit?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Edwin,

The Higgs field is really an application of the Landau-Ginsburg potential to particle physics. As such an array of physics follows this type of thing, from the Curie point for ferromagnetism to superconductivity. The breaking of the standard model is then similar to the breaking of the QED field at low temperature in superconductivity. I tend to think that nature has a general repeating pattern whereby a generic law can manifest itself in an array of circumstances. AdS~CFT is showing up in solid state physics, so it too appears to have some universality to it. So my bet is with the Higgs field.

Cheers LC

Phil & Ray,

The major problem with Lisi's irreducible representation theory is that he frames things in funny ways. In particular he frame the SO(3,1) for gravity with the rest of the gauge fields. A global transformation in the unification group means that internal and external symmetries transform between each other in ways which lead to unphysical results. For instance a black hole could be transformed away into gauge fields so that its internal configuration could be specified. In more generality this violates the Coleman-Mandula theorem. He also frames bosons and fermions by multiplication by Clifford basis elements. This runs into trouble IMO, for these really need to be Grassmannian elements in a SUSY which correspond to SUSY generators with some Clifford content. The E_8 is 8 dimensional with 248 (or 240 depending on how you count) elements, and this does have a correspondence with CL_8 with 2^8 = 256 elements in 11 dimensions.

The SO(8) corresponds to the 4 qubit entanglement situation. E_8 decomposes into O(16) or SO(16), which is half of the Clifford --- given abuse of terms here, which in turn decomposes into two SO(8)'s. The 4 Q-bit has G_{SLOCC} flows or orbits of the state ψ_{ABCD} SO(4;R) ~ SL(2;C), and we can convert the SL(2,C)^4 into SO(4)^4 and use SO(4;C) = SO(4)^2. The orbits of the G_{SLOCC} are the an SO(8) conjugacy class. The set of nilpotent orbits is a classification of SO(8;C). The complexification of SO((8,C) means it occupies the same space as SO(16) ---- 4 qubit entanglements have 16 complex elements. For the 8 qubit entanglement situation we "double down" our bet here. The 4-bit system is the quaternionic structure, Cayley number 2^2 = 4. The 3 qubit system is related to the complex field, but instead of pertaining to 2 bits (2^1) for an 8 charged black hole it there are 4 D3-branes where charges may combine into 5 dimensions (NS5-brane) with the Clifford basis in 5-dim corresponding to 2 3 = Cayley plus 3 => Cl_2. Going up the Cayley ladder involves states ψ_{ABCDEFGH} and we are talking about products of 8 SL(2,C)'s for the octonions or E_8.

The other approach, which is what I have been primarily pursuing is the E_8 -> E_7 -> E_6 decomposition. This has a triality condition on the G_2 automorphism of E_8 and leads more naturally to the Jordan matrix algebra and Freudenthal theory of general determinants. The cubic structure of G_2 also gives the elliptic curve structure to the theory. I would in some part be interested in knowing if this connects up with the orthogonal group decomposition I outlined above.

My paper got hosted finally, where this is an overview of this work. I am working out more of the maths and crafting a more detailed paper. When it is done I will attach it to my paper site.

Cheers LC

Or then there's Tegmark's conjecture ("Does the Universe Contain Almost No Information") that the classical complexity in the midst of which we live is basically empty calories informationwise. He uses Mandelbrot fractals as an analogy. You have a simple formula/algorithm which contains initial conditions and iteration instructions. Then you let 'er rip. Same thing for the Big Bang.

It might be difficult enough to reverse engineer a fractal if you lived inside the thing. We should probably assume that the universe, which there's no indication is even recursive, is more complicated. But maybe not insurmountably so. Tegmark anticipates the ToE by 2056 if I recall correctly. He'll only be 89.

The problem is that Lisi is trying to pack "too much" in the E_8.

An 8-bit system is octonionic. That does seem to be the next big step we should take. This is a part of my work with the G_2, which is the automorphism of E_8 and centralizer with F_4. F_4 contains so(9), which is an important group in holographic theory.

I have a description of this on my essay page that I just posted. The paper just discusses qubits and the connection between AdS_7 and the 3 & 4 qubit theory of Duff et al. There is a whole lot more involving geodesics on moduli spaces, fixed points and their connection to the nilpotent points on the SO(4,4)/SO(4)xSO(4) moduli space for black holes.

Cheers LC

Edwin,

I forgot to say what my take on the history of projections of the Higgs discovery. In the early days people had no clear idea of what the mass of the Higgs was. It was thought it should have a mass of 80-90 GeV of the Z and W, which means the Higgs particle might have been detectable by the tevatron. The mass is expected to be around 115-150 GeV, but it is neutral and for various ways it will be hard to detect. You need to get collision energy up to at least 10 times its mass to get any signal. Also the luminosity of the LHC is less than the 10^33/cm2/sec benchmark. The LHC will close down in 2012 for upgrades which should increase luminosity and push the energy up to the 14TeV limit. We might get signals of the Higgs this year, but 2013 is when the rubber hits the road.

LC

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