• [deleted]

  • Post #38

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

    Darth and Lawrence,

    I am probably responsible for some of the confusion. If Lawrence is interpreting my version of the gravito-electro-magnetic field to be the same as Sweetser's GEM, then I have mislead him. I show Sweetser's diagrams because I believe they are relevant to understanding significant aspects of 'metric' vs 'potential' approaches to physics. I do NOT accept all of his approach to GEM. Part of the confusion is that I have been using the abbreviation 'GEM' for years before knowing about Sweetser, and neither he nor I have a monopoly on this term. It often refers to Maxwell's original invention, based on symmetry, of the gravito-electro-magnetic equations analogous to his electro-magnetic field equations. I don't know a way around this confusion. I often refer to the 'Gene Man' theory, which is more specific, but also more self-referential.

    My field equations (see my essay) are neither Maxwell's nor Sweetser's.

    I regret the confusion.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • [deleted]

    • Post #40

    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!

    Ray,

    A brief reply to your first comment above. Until recently I had not given much consideration to the coupling of the GEM field to the electromagnetic field. It is trivially coupled via charged particles through the two Lorentz force equations. EM couples to charge and GEM couples to mass, and since all charged particles have mass (if not vice-versa) then all charged particles couple these fields through their very existence. Interestingly, the only common term to all of the 'magnetic' Lorentz forces is the particle's velocity.

    But as I indicated above, I have recently been working on the coupling of the fields without charged mass, and think I have some exciting results. I hope to say more soon.

    Thanks again,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • [deleted]

    • Post #42

    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

      John, as stated on another thread, my theory depends upon a big bang in order to, first, have sufficiently strong C-fields to create the particles we find in the universe, and second, to reach a point where such particle creation 'stops'. There are also symmetry breaking issues here that seem necessary to me to match our current universe.

      In addition, as difficult as it is to comprehend the big bang, as an event in which 'something' proceeds from a state of 'nothing', it is even more difficult (I would say impossible) for me to imagine an everlasting infinite space in which we still need to evolve in some reasonable manner the physical universe we find ourselves in. That may simply be my problem?

      Also, I don't really understand "the outward curvature between galaxies to be balanced by the inward curvature within them". It may make sense, but I don't understand it.

      In short, with an almost infinitely variable physical universe one has to pick and choose the problems to be solved. I have chosen what I consider the most significant aspects of reality and the most logical 'initial assumption' (that is, one field and one field only as the starting point) and attempted to evolve in a physically reasonable way the current state of the universe. I consider myself successful in this endeavor, but that leaves room for a very large number of specific instances and interpretations that I have not covered. I believe that this is inherent in the very process of such theorizing, since no one person can hope to solve every problem that others are concerned with.

      Again, as stated elsewhere, I consider the solution and or explanation of real physical anomalies, that everyone seems to agree are real, but no one has an explanation for, to be a better approach than to concern myself with Planck energies and multi-verses, that will probably never be available for inspection, and at best will be exceedingly indirectly implied. That, to me, is mathematics, whereas explaining real physical anomalies that are known to exist, is physics.

      Finally, I make predictions, about Higgs, SUSY, axions, and other possible LHC results, so that in only a very few years my theory will look better or worse.

      I am not downplaying your concerns, and I don't have immediate answers to them, I am just trying to explain why I am taking the approach that I do.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      John, I just realized that I didn't answer your first question, which concerned the place of curvature in a basically 'flat' universe. I have stated that the preferred framework for dealing with black holes and neutron stars is the idea of curved space, based on deforming the metric rather than upon a 'potential' framework. Look at Sweetser's beautiful diagram in my essay.

      There appear to be experiments that show that gravity is not simply 'geometry' and, if so, then deformable 'geometry' is simply another mathematical tool that has areas of application. Until we found out that space appears to be flat, the area of application for such could have been the entire universe. Now it appears to be a more limited subset of the physical universe.

      Finally, I have focused much more of my efforts on particle physics than I have on cosmology, for the simple reason that particle physics seems to change only by a few percent these days, while within the last year or so I read things like, "the Milky Way is twice as thick as we thought", and, just last month I read "there are three times as many stars as we thought." In other words, I don't trust the cosmological numbers, and therefore don't get overly concerned about "a recently discovered galaxy cluster at 12.6 billion light years", which you do think worth considering.

      Lawrence,

      Most of your statements mean nothing to me because I am unfamilar with the terms you use.For example,

      "equivalency with the [partial]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." simply does not ring my bell.

      However when you say "So the qubits on a black hole (or AdS) are identified with the spectrum of elementary particles" this does make some sense to me, but only as follows:

      There are currently only a finite number of particle classes known. Therefore it seems obvious to me that there will exist finite mathematical 'objects' that can be put into one to one correspondence with the particles [identified with the spectrum of elementary particles]. And since the particles can, with appropriate energies, be transformed into each other, I would also assume it obvious that some mathematical objects could match this transformation. I attach no meaning to this other than to appreciate that math is effectively infinite, while our universe, at least the part subject to physics experiments, seems to be finite. There is no necessary causative connection between the mathematical objects and the "spectrum of elementary particles".

      Now, perhaps you can also explain the masses of the particles. That would be impressive. As far as I know, no one is doing this.

      But let's get even simpler. rather than predicting particle masses, simply predict 'mass order'. For example, explain why the up quark is more massive than the electron, and why the down quark is more massive than the up quark. Again, as far as I know, no one can do this, with the exception of my theory, which explains this quite handily.

      So do these qubits explain stuff, or just produce a vehicle that can be mapped into stuff? I have my opinions on qubits, but they are not well enough formed to present in comment form yet.

      Thanks for the perspective,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #48

      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.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #49

      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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #50

      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!

      John,

      If the C-field is as strong as I think it is, it could be involved in galaxy formation and speed things up. And in fact, I've seen reports that most spiral galaxies seem to be aligned with the 'axis of evil', which would be another indicator for the C-field, but I'm not sure that that report held up, so I'm not counting on it.

      Not only can I not really imagine infinite and everlasting space-time, but I find it unaesthetic, so I hope you're wrong, but it's interesting reading your reasoning.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Ray,

      The C-field theory (aka GEM, aka Gene Man theory) does explain the mass ordering of the three generations, as well as the mass ordering of electron, up, and down quarks.

      I look forward to your essay, and let me also thank you again for making me aware of Nottale's scale relativity, which solved a problem that Florin had pointed out.

      Lawrence,

      It's hard to keep up with you, but I appreciate your explanations. I'm focused on the interaction of the gravito-magnetic field with the electro-magnetic fields at the moment, but I hope to pursue SUSY in some other comments.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #53

      Edwin,

      One way or another, we are just scratching the surface.

      Infinity seems difficult to avoid, because any boundary invariably raises the question of what is beyond it. So I tend toward horizons as boundaries. We need limitation in order to have definition.

      Absolute would be equally 'unaesthetic,' because both tend toward utterly flatline neutral. Absolute, because it is inherently so and infinity because all detail is scaled away. Neither can be measured because they defy the concept of measurement.

      Then again maybe the axis of evil is a line of polarity and our universe is one bit part....

      I will make one prediction though; By 2020, the idea that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old will be nothing more than an embarrassing memory, as the shadows of ever more distant galaxy clusters are detected in the background radiation.

      Possibly to the point that this background radiation is considered to consist of energy from ever more distant galaxies that has been completely redshifted off any part of the wave spectrum that would allow us to pinpoint, ie. see its source. That these waves have been so shifted, they appear flat black.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #54

      The C-field theory (aka GEM, aka Gene Man theory) does explain the mass ordering of the three generations, as well as the mass ordering of electron, up, and down quarks.???

      That needs explainations.....for the standard model.

      where is your field in my fractal of the main central sphere, the biggest volume.....

      Steve

      ps don't take seriously your lines of reasoning,we need rationalism !!!

      Regards

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      • Post #55

      I like laugh of course.

      ps .....gravitation 0.5 lambda 0.5 thus maximum volume of the universal sphere....begining of contraction!!!

      Regards

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      • Post #56

      The golden ratio enters in because the icosian roots have that length ratio between long and short roots. The icosian is a root representation for SU(11) ~ SO(16). The SO(16) is in a sense half E_8xE_8 ~ SO(32). How this fits into holography with SU(4N), for 4N SUSY generators, is an interesting question.

      Cheers LC

      • [deleted]

      • Post #57

      Dear Steve,

      IMHO, Physics cannot be "complete". In the case of "Gene-man" theory, it could help explain the experimental observation of only 3 generations (the CKM and PMNS matrices describe the relative behavior of 3 generations, but do not explain why there are only 3 generations). Perhaps you are satisfied with the experimental observation of only 3 generations (there are only 3 light-weight - less than half of the Z mass - neutrinos based on the Z decay width, and we haven't yet found any heavier leptons or quarks), but I expect a theoretical symmetry to demand this observation.

      You seem critical of every creative idea that is not completely equivalent to your own creative ideas.

      I think that you should submit an essay. Your spheres are discrete entities, but are their spins, masses, and radii discrete or continuous variables? I have not seen enough of your theory to understand it. And if your spheres are "fractals", then they get into that strange "quasi-realm" between continuous and discrete.

      IMHO, your theory is similar to a Kissing Spheres or CDT theory. As such, your ideas may be distantly related to Lisi's Gosset lattice ideas (but obviously different, and uniquely "Steve"-ish). In my essay's conclusion, I claim that such ideas (as Kissing Spheres) are "half correct". Strings are the other half of the problem...

      Have Fun & Be Nice!