The Analog-In, Digital-Out Universe by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Very relevant !

The Gibbs Theorem is important for the distribution of energy and informations.

The conditions for specific series appear also like relevant.

That permits to see the different steps as ideal gas.

We see indeed the changement of entropy due to the number.

The volumes always take a road of distribution.

Do you know the result of Bridgman for the paradox.

IN THE LIMIT.....IDENTICAL GAS.....DISCONTINUITY AS A FUNCTION ....ENTROPY STEPS.

If the real limits of entangled spheres and their pure number aren't inserted for an universal correlation with universal entropy....the difficulties are more important at my humble opinion for the distribution of informations inside a closed system.

The pression, the temperature, the volume are essential for all series of analyze.In all case these steps with limits permit to have some equilibriums for a stability as the memmory.

On the other side, the volumes shall permit to polarize and to evolve in an vision of complementarity also in a digital rule including our consciousness analogic.

That seems possible for a kind of automation.

Relevant your ideas , you see indeed the whole,it's essential in fact the generality.That permits the best inventions,rationals.

Regards

Steve

Show that FM waves also violate the superposition law.

Darth,

The gravito-magnetic field in the GEM theory is not the same as the frame dragging or Lense-Thirring effect in general relativity. This is a very different idea about an intertwining between gravity and electromagnetism.

Cheers LC

Hi Ed,

We had been talking about GEM on Philip's site, and I thought it was appropriate to move here. This is a copy of my latest post on Philip's site:

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!

"But there is a simple alternative to [Zeilinger's] analysis. If one or more twins dyes his hair enroute, Bell's inequality will be violated, yet local realism exists."

This of course refers to macroworld Bell tests, where the original EPR locality and realism assumptions do indeed hold. In fact I've never known Bell to be violated in the macroworld (i.e., using macroscopic objects) unless entanglement is somehow simulated (as in Diederik Aert's twin-vessels-connected-by-a-tube gedanken). I'm not disputing the possibility but could you construct a table showing how it could happen in the case of Zeilinger's twins, with one changing his hair color? You certainly can't fool Bell with Venn diagrams, since the Inequality is also fundamental classical macroworld logic. Nor with containers of food pulled out of a kitchen cabinet, nor with collections of keys, coins and so forth.

"Solar neutrinos change enroute from the sun; why not photons?"

Have Bell tests been conducted using neutrinos? What neutrino properties change?

What about Leggett-Garg experimental tests (conducted by both the Zeilinger and Gisin groups to Leggett's specifications, and resulting in violation of realism in all nonlocal realistic theories except Bohm's -- which itself is challenged by the before-before experiments)? What about Charles Tresser's conclusion that Bell tests specifically disprove microworld realism, with the locality assumption Occamizable out of the picture?

nikman,

Most of the Phys Rev Letters papers on entanglement (my main source) are difficult to understand or argue with, unless one is a specialist in that area. I read many of them, but am no expert. However I believe that when world-class experts write a 'popular' book, one can learn something. After reading Gilder's intro to "The Age of Entanglement" I then read Zeilinger's "Dance of the Photons" and was impressed by the clarity of his presentation. In particular, he presents an appendix (A) that translates the argument to more familiar terms. One advantage of this is that assumptions that we perhaps unknowingly carry in the QM world are not so easy to carry into the translation.

As a result, his 'user-friendly' explanation argued using 'macro' examples as I described above. I do *not* believe that the character of the examples in any way affects the logic, and I believe that Zeilinger indicates this to be so. Bell's logic is Bell's logic, and the quantum measurements violate it, causing people to look for the 'hole in the logic'. I believe that the hole in the quantum logic is assuming that the properties, (which I believe to be real) change en route to the detector. If they do, then the inequality will be violated by the measurements without in any way leading to the conclusions that are normally drawn from such violations. This has nothing to do with 'macroworld' tests. It applies to *all* such Bell tests, as far as I can see.

I mentioned that neutrino's change, not to claim that the same occurs for photon's, but simply to point out that only a decade or so ago, neutrino's were not assumed to change, and then they were found to change (or at least that's the current interpretation.)

I believe that it is far more feasible that photons, when operated by complex apparatus such as polarizers and beam splitters, can reasonably be expected to be affected. If this is so, then violation of Bell's inequality will prove nothing about local realism and non-locality. And it is far less radical (and I mean FAR) to assume that photons interacting with crystals and molecules undergo a change of state, than to believe that real properties don't exist until measured, and then, upon measurement, somehow (and I mean *somehow*, since we have no idea how) immediately (ie, via 'no media') cause properties **anywhere else in the universe** to come into existence. I know physicists love 'spooky' and 'weird' but this is (imho) borderline insane (given a reasonable alternative interpretation).

If real particles (and that is what my theory produces) have real properties (I believe they do) and these properties are subject to conservation laws (I believe they are) then there is simply no mystery involved. The particles are 'born' with real properties, traverse space (with accompanying 'pilot wave') conserving these properties, and when one is found out, the other is immediately known. And that is exactly what we see *unless* we do different things to the particles en route (the quantum equivalent of 'dye your hair').

Where is the fault in this argument?

As for your last questions, you are more knowledgeable than me.

Thanks for your comment. I believe this is one of the most important questions facing physics, and certainly applies to my theory and Brian Whitworth's VR conjecture. We can't both be right. I would be happy to continue this based on logic, but I have little to contribute (at this time) on the specific experimental tests that you refer to. Unless they are based on some significant variation of Bell's logic, then I would expect the above arguments to apply.

Ray,

Thanks for visiting my thread. I very much want to answer your question. I have been stimulated (by Peter Jackson's 20-20 essay) to look much more closely at the C-field interaction with electromagnetic fields, and am quite pleased with what I am finding. I hope to answer you soon.

Best to you all,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Ed,

Lawrence and I have corresponded quite a bit, and our approaches are more similar than you might realize. Certainly, he is more mathematical than I am, and his attack is more concentrated on Black Holes, whereas I'm attacking fundamental particles. The more that I study these TOE ideas, the more I think we are all tackling different parts of the same thing. I think that the TOE is a union of Strings and Kissing Spheres (CDT) all at the same time, as I present in my upcoming essay.

Your GEM is a triality. I interpret Color as a quartality (leptons carry the neutral color "white" [in my Hyperflavor theory] or "violet" [in Pati-Salam theory] - you will see these ideas in Garrett Lisi's Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, and in my 2009 FQXi essay) and Generations as the only true trialty. I have studied this G2 triality of generations since 2008 (Lawrence and I have corresponded at length about this symmetry), and I think this is related to the 3x3 CKM and 3x3 PMNS matrices (and a Unified CKM-PMNS matrix). I honestly think that this is the part of the puzzle that you may be addressing with GEM. I agree that there should be more to gravity than what we know via Relativity - whether "more" is quantum and/or "magnetic" rotational gravity.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

Edwin,

I reading through various of the conversations, you have made comments which suggest you think of space as fundamentally flat, yet you mention to me that Big Bang/Inflationary cosmology is necessary to your theory. The problem is that curved space is integral to this view of the universe, because if it is an expansion in otherwise flat space, then we would have to be at the center of the universe, given that redshift is directly proportional to distance and there is no lateral motion to match that implied by redshift. The only way to describe every point as appearing as the center of an expanding universe, is if space is fundamentally curved within the bubble of the universe.

As I've raised the point, probably not so clearly in my essay, since it is supposed to focus on digital vs. analog, one way to have overall flat space, with every point appearing as the center, is for the outward curvature between galaxies to be balanced by the inward curvature within them. Thus every point is the center of its own horizon of how far light that doesn't curve into gravity can travel across the outward curvature of intergalactic space before being completely redshifted off the spectrum. The problem is that this yields an overall stable universe, so any material properties currently attributed to the initial singularity would have to be explained by the possibilities of an infinite and eternal universe.

Given the issues I recently raised in the New Year, New Universe blog posting, about a recently discovered galaxy cluster at 12.6 billion light years, I do think it worth considering.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/802

Not that I think of space as being fundamentally curved, since it has no physical properties and so cannot be curved, expanded, bounded, etc.

The N-qubit entanglements of states and black holes is equivalent to states in the AdS_7. In fact as you mention triality, this does involve a triality with the SO(8). This means the qubits have an equivalency with the ∂AdS_7 = E^6 = CY^6, where CY are Calabi-Yau spaces. The triality with the SO(8) is induced by a G_2 holonomy with a 3-form that on the boundary is the CY-3 form. So the qubits on a black hole (or AdS) are identified with the spectrum of elementary particles.

Cheers LC

I wrote a sketch of why one can't frame internal and external symmetries in a naïve way on my essay blog site . The reasoning for this is the basis for supersymmetry, which by Haag, Lopuszanski and Sohnius was found to be the exception. Supersymemtry in a sense is a cohomology, and there is a cocyle condition which permits unification of internal and external symmetries and overcomes the inconsistencies which result from a naïve approach.

Cheers LC

Edwin,

I agree we necessarily need to focus on those areas which we have a reasonable grasp, which is why I'm not commenting on the body of your work. I only raise the issue because I do strongly feel that the Big Bang model is slowly crumbling and only continues due to the willingness of the cosmology community to accept increasingly fantastical patches in order to avoid having to admit the holes they cover are far more serious than they care to consider.

As you say, they keep finding ever more characteristics of the universe which completely alter what was previously thought, so it may well be there are processes going on that would account for those features currently ascribed to the singularity.

If I may, I would like to repeat the point which did raise my ire, in explaining a 12.6 billion year old galaxy cluster within BBT. What everyone seems to conveniently ignore is that all these galaxies did not, theoretically, coalesce out of the initial singularity, which theoretically would be quite dense and hot, but out of what existed after the inflation stage. This would have been far more diffuse, given that the inflation stage expanded the universe out the the point that the initial curvature is not measurable. Which is effectively to compare the visible universe to an area on the surface of this planet sufficiently small that the curvature of the planet is not measurable. If you consider this, it would mean that galaxies had to condense out of radiation probably about as dense as the intragalactic, interstellar medium. Ie, slightly more dense than the intergalactic medium. While this is obviously quite possible, it would require an incredible amount of time, so thinking it could have happened in one billion years is ludicrous, since it take almost a quarter of that amount of time for our galaxy to make one rotation. It is, as you say, a real physical anomaly.

Personally I don't have any trouble with the idea that space is infinite, because it solves the entropy/energy problem. Energy is never lost, because it simply radiates out to other areas and is gained by that radiated from other areas. This creates horizon lines, as we can only detect out to the distance radiation can travel before it becomes too diffuse to detect.

The elementary particle spectrum is from this strange equivalency between the spacetime isometries of the AdS and the conformal symmetries on its boundary which are a conformal field theory. The work of Duff, which by extension is carried on by Phil Gibbs, is an equivalency between 3 and 4 qubit entanglements and black hole types. I carry this further to the AdS spacetime. So the qubits (so far Duff et al have worked up to 4-qubits with 8 charges (4 electric plus 4 magnetic) are particle states which define certain black hole configurations. So we might think of the black hole horizon as some configuration of holographic strings, such that the spectrum they contain defines the type of black hole. To be more realistic we need to go to the 8-qubit situation, which is some self-dual system on the 4-bit structure. In that way we can go from the SO(8) to the SO(16) and then we are starting to talk about more realistic physics, in particular SO(10)xSO(16) as a SUSY correspondence with the 26 dimensional boson string and so forth.

The mass spectrum is of course an outstanding issue. At the core of this is the whole problem of the "mass-gap," which is an outstanding $1million prize at Claymath. Zamalodchikov gave an interesting insight into this with the c = 1/2 conformal theory with a mass spectrum of particles which corresponds to the 8 of the E_8 group. The onset of the Higgs mechanism which determines particle masses at low energy is the end of the conformal renormalization group (RG) flow. So in some ways which is not entirely understood the Higgs mechanism is tied into the structure of field theory on the black hole with a mass spectrum at the IR end of the RG flow which has some correspondence to the physics at the UV end of the flow.

Cheers LC

Dear Ed,

My upcoming essay helps address the role of Supersymmetry in a TOE. I tried to keep my essay a simplified overview of previous works that ties into the Continuous vs. Discrete Paradox, so I didn't specifically address how (IMHO) SUSY satisfies the Coleman-Mandula theorem. But the references are there, if you want to chase down prior papers (some of which you've read).

Zamalodchikov's (and Coldea et al's) works demonstrated the importance of the Golden Ratio in E8, but this special number is also important to any group with a 5-fold "pentality" symmetry, such as the Icosahedron, H4, SU(11), etc...

A "gravitational triality" might also explain the relative masses of 1st vs. 2nd vs. 3rd generarion fermions.

Have Fun!