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

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!

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.

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

I like laugh of course.

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

Regards

Steve

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

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!

sorry Ray but you don't understand really the whole and I lost my time.

You know Ray the human nature and its vanity is not my road.

You confound the creativity and the foundamentals.

You need probably like many here a recognizing but be sure, it's not with your ideas, you shall have this recognizing.

Make what you want Ray after all it's not my problem.

Use strings, extyradimensions, spheres....you can even have my theory also you know with your friends.I have other things to do that these stupidities.

Here I read some relevant ideas but be sure it's not yours or them of Lawrence or Lisi or Th....no I read for example this thread from Lev or Edwin or John, And Stefan,and Moulay....frankly it's the only persons I read because they are universals and they understand the whole.

Well I repeat quantum spheres(finite number, fractazl of the main volume)....rotations spin.and orb.proportional with mass.......cosmological spheres(probably the same number)....UNIVERSAL SPHERE(UNIQUE OF COURSE THIS UNIVERSAL SPHERE LIKE ITS CENTER)

How can I speak with people who likes strings and extradimensions and multiverses.and you say me that you have faith and that you are a christian , let me laugh Ray, a multiverses but let's be serious please and what after that it doesn't exist an universal entity with the number 1 and that the 0 multiplicate by 1 gives 0 no but I dream !!!

Are you sure we speak about physics or pseudo physics.

ps I am nice and always transparent and always frank.

But I dislike the strategy of business.I see quickly when a road is chaotic, we see indeed in the whole the details.I analyze, I extrapolate, and finally I answer.It's simple no Ray.

Cheers

Steve

Don't be too much frustrated and jaleous because a young belgian has found.you know it's not always USA which finds.I can understand that my theory of spherization is revolutionarry and has a big big potential but please it's bizare the human nature.

vanity+money=chaos

For the 4 intereactions........fractal of sphere ...finite number, volumes of spheres....rotations implying mass polarity , the volumes of entangled spheres more the sense of rot......show the road for the real unification of 4 interactions....think about the two main senses/center.......thus a gravitational stability and a linear light....the fractalization of light is made by coded gravity.....

Eureka with humility.......all is composed by spheres, all are on spheres, all turns on this sphere, all turns around the spheres , all that inside a beautiful sphere in optimization and all turns around a central sphere, the biggest spherical volume after the universal maximum volume of the universal sphere..........0.5 gravitation(0.3) 0.5 lambda(0.7)....0.5/0.5 =maximum volume of the universal sphere, begining of contraction, end of expansion!!!

It was logic, it's logic, it will be logic.The sphere is foundamental and has so many properties.Fortunally that this exists in fact , the spheres and their volumes and their rotations spinals and orbitals(numerous if we consider the number of spheres between BH and the center of our universe.)That's why my new equation between all spheres can be optimized ...mv1v2????V

mass, speed of rot.spinal,speed of rot.orbital 1,and we continue with the others orbitals rotations towards the central sphere.V volume of the sphere.

This equation implies a constant between all physical spheres,quantics or cosmologics.

Cheers

Steve

Dear Sir,

We have some comments on your post above.

We do not accept empty space or quantum fields because of fundamental reasons. Space is the interval between objects. Hence empty space means the absence of objects. Since only objects are perceptible directly and forces are perceptible through their effect on objects, absence of objects to be described as empty space does not make sense. The space, that is the interval, is always empty - without objects - irrespective of the measure of its separation.

Quantum fields does not make sense because it is an oxymoron. Quantum is digital, but fields are analog. We cannot have a digitized analog description.

You say: "gravity is the primordial or underlying field, then it may provide the 'medium' in which E and M trade energy as the photon travels, and the C-field circulation". Also: "a distributed light wave/photon would 'bend' as a function of the variation in mass density, dm/dx, (where, in the most general case, dm is the change in gravitational energy with x.)". We agree with this description with some modification.

Firstly, fields and forces are not the same. There is a fundamental reason why fields behave the way they are perceived. The perceived effect of such behavior is the force. We go beyond gravity, as we consider it as the first perceptible force only for structure formation and stabilization. We consider it to be a generated force, which gave rise to all other forces. We have a complete model, which we will publish soon.

We also have a different definition for time dilation. We accept that time has a directionality. This we have proved in our essay. We also accept that the forces behave in the same way in all frames of references. Thus, time evolution of all objects follow a similar process. Since time is the interval between events (physical changes with time), and since we treat elasticity as the third inertia, based on modifications of Newton's third law, we prove that all evolutions are cyclic. These cycles are different from one system to another based on the local dynamics. When we compare time evolution of two different systems subjected to different local dynamics, we find an anomally that we call as time dilation. We consider photon as a particle that moves through a field. Since the field interacts with the particle in specific ways that appear as the force, the photon bends as per the same principle.

In short, we have a complete model of an alternative theory that can explain all physical interactions classifying it to 122 categories. In this system, gravity is a composite force of (3, 5, 7 and 11 varieties).

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

We have the following comment on the above post.

The framework in which the 'robot' is processing measurement data is a mechanical process and not a conscious process. Since the robot is limited by energy/volume constraints and design constraints (g.i.g.o.), it will not be able to perform conscious functions. The reason lies in the nature of infinity and its difference from a very big number. A robot functions within a very big number, whereas consciousness is in the realm of the infinity as explained below.

Number is the property of all substances by which we distinguish between similars. If there are no similars, we designate it as one. Infinity is like one - without similars - but with the exception that whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not fully perceptible. The robot can compute, which means it can do mathematics with bigger and bigger numbers, but not infinity, because even the designers of the computer have not perceived infinity.

When we think of any conscious action, one similarity that distinguishes it from other actions is that while the application of forces and their effects vary in each case, the contents of the "conscious" part is always similar. We might have knowledge about different objects, but the "knowledge" part is always similar. Since it has infinite varieties, it is one of its kind, but infinite in its spread. Secondly, like all infinite objects like time and space, it does not interact with others, but exists by itself, while all objected are covered by it in different proportions. For example, measurement is a mechanical process, but the perception of the result of measurement is a conscious process. The result of measurement is always a number, which is time invariant as explained in our essay. Since the perception of the result of measurement does not change or interact with the time evolution of the system, it fits the above description. A robot may continue to measure higher and higher numbers, but reaching infinity is impossible theoretically and practically.

Yet, we derive digital big and small numbers from the analog infinite description. Hence, we can still know the conscious process. In fact, we derive all mechanical processes from conscious processes. But the mechanism is different.

Regards,

basudeba.

Hi all,

Sorry dear Edwin for your thread.

Dr Dr Cosmic Ray,

Hope you see the uniqueness of our Universal sphere, really hope you understand this essential evidence.

It's so important this uniqueness.

You see, I hope, the fractal of sphere ....

ps you are skilling but you don't analyze foundamentally the generality.

Sincerely

Steve

Hi Ed,

Certainly in the application of DVD's (red lasers vs. blue lasers) it is appropriate to say that a Blu-Ray disc can hold more information than a standard DVD. But does this analogy apply to Spacetime? Is information lost and regained (How can it be regained? Does digital reconstruction occur?) or is Spacetime simply stretch and compressed? Perhaps Spacetime is compressible (at least to a point?), and it is this property that allows so much information to be stored in a Black Hole. Regardless, I don't think that a physical infinity can exist in our finite Universe, so even a Black Hole has a limit as to how much information it can hold (~10^123).

Have Fun!