A Universe Programmed with Strings of Qubits by Philip Gibbs

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.

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.

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!

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