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

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!

Dear Sir,

By fundamental principles we meant, evolutionary statements beginning with creation. All our theories flow from the single source of creation. In stead of Big Bang, we accept Big Bounce. From this we derive multiverses. In the process, we derive the primary field for each universe with its five different manifestations. The same mechanism evolves all other forces that logically flow from one another. These forces confine different localities to create different structures. The interaction between these structures and forces give different results than their interaction with the primary field. This creates the secondary field, which you describe as locality. From this we have derived the other extensions to predict the results earlier. Entanglement is related to both fields. But the results are different in each field. We find that you mix up these fields (our definition of fields) on many occasions.

We differ from the modern theories widely in many areas. For example, we do not accept the Coulomb's law. We accept the opposite and accept the seemingly attraction of opposite charges from our concept of particles and fields. Our description of the atomic structure is much more elaborate. Thus, we explain the double slit experiment and the diffraction experiment differently. From this we have theoretically derived the charge of the quarks, proton, neutron etc and the value of the fine structure constant reported earlier. These predictions can be verified. This will provide the validity of our theory or otherwise. Similarly, only by treating gravity as a composite force, we have been able to explain the various anomalies.

Once again we repeat Sir, we are an arm chair scientist and not an experimental scientist. Hence our observations and theories are subject to physical verification. But we find many inconsistencies in modern physics and attribute reductionism, superstition and the cult of incomprehensibility for the present state of affairs. The colossal waste of public money in chasing mirages like the LHC Experiment pain us. It is high time someone should stand up and call a spade a spade. Hence we thought that we may point to the truth of the Emperor's new cloth.

Regards,

basudeba.

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 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!

Hi Edwin,

Regarding information, I like Stefan Weckbach's essay. I briefly talked about complexergy (complexity - energy), but didn't really talk about information. In my essay, I suggest that Scales mandate all large numbers and their inverses. I think that all large numbers in our observable universe are based on Dirac's Large Number ~10^40 (10^41 is closer to the experimental value, but 40 is a nice round number), and geometrical powers thereof (Note that Stefan's number is approximately this large number cubed - cubed because of 3 spatial dimensions? Likewise, the cosmological constant is approximately the inverse of Stefan's number, so we are dealing with "Infinity" and its inverse as Cristi's essay addressed).

Is information lost? Lawrence and Philip have entangled qubits of strings (with "electric"-like and "magnetic"-like charges) that may keep track of this information of order ~10^120 using the combinatorial spin-flips of, say, 496 (496 is E8xE8*~SO(32)) different "particle states".

Chriti's essay is interesting, but he seems to imply that Spacetime is divisible ad infinitum, and I don't buy that idea. I think that scales collapse these continously "smooth" Spacetime manifolds into discrete lattice structures. What lattice structure? I'm not certain, although FCC, BCC, HCP, graphene, buckyball, and diamond structures are all worthy case studies.

Also, Christi implies that these infalling particles can be separated by "zero" distance. I don't think it is exactly "zero", but rather the inverse of a very large scale number. Even IF it this distance of separation is exactly zero in the x, y, and z coordinates, these "degeneracies" could still be broken by other dimensions, such as string theory's hyperspace.

I didn't consider the core purpose of these essays to address information, but we seem to be going in that direction...

Have Fun!

Ray,

always a mixing with some names of pseudos extrapolations.

Conclusion You need to restudy your foundamentals and you need to buy an other t shirt ahahaha.

Are you really conscient of what you say in fact ??? I doubt.Like many You speak and that's all.You proof in fact your errors in live.

The most impressing is that some doctors are so vanitious, that's implies that they continue in their road and in fact they don't continue to learn the foundamentals.In fact it's just a play for recognizing.

It's the reason why probably they speak always about the same stupidities.

A real open minded accepts the foundamentals and rationalities, it's only simple like thaty, when a people is right, I accept.It's the real soul , the real mind of a real searcher of truth.

Diract large number??? Can you inert it where you want for the study of the real number of entanglement, I doubt, and even for the calculation of the infinite spaces, thus like I said, totally withut sense.

Spheres entanglerment and lattices(FCC,...)???? where uis the real fractal and the latticers between spheres if the number is finite,and the volumes increase towards the center ,and the number decreases towards this center.Futhermore the expansion contraction must be inserted in the two senses, quantic and cosmolog.

qbits of strings????? you confound really the computing and the reality,the duality is logic and the system is finite.The oscillations are correlated with spinning spheres an their volumes.The sense of rotations spin. and orb. are essential.

Extradimensions E x....???? a pure joke ....I have an idea, you must rethought your interpretation of the - the 0 and the infinity.

Regards

Steve

Hi Eugene,

your questions show that you are a careful and thoughtful reader. It was a pleasure to see your questions, which I did my best to address on the page of my essay, where you asked them originally.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica