Ed Witten probably has a lot better things to do than peruse the FQXi essays. The guy is utterly brilliant. He writes very long papers, where he is one of the few people who write 60 page papers I am willing to read. For the most part I prefer not to read papers over 25 pages in length. Of course one point in writing these essays is to put at least one ball into the basket so that I might get a bit of attention --- Warhol's 15 minutes of fame.

Cheers LC

  • [deleted]

I translate my french a little,

Notes of Math overlook the confusion.

Such a sweet and serene symphony clearing the unlimited sharps.

Is it important to devote training practices of these notes in series without changement of speeds?

It would become, you will agree, though unsuccessfully to play the score universal score, without these so-called harmonic overlays.

Good luck for the contest, sincerely.

Steve

Lawrence - I just noted your comment to Darth on my page and feel compelled to offer the following clarification. I am probably responsible for some of the confusion. If you are interpreting my version of the gravito-electro-magnetic field to be the same as Sweetser's GEM, then I have mislead you. 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 (GEM) 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, and less familiar to all.

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

I regret the confusion.

    The clear problem with GEM idea in general is these are an intermixing of internal and external symmetries in ways that are problematic.

    The Einstein field equations are similar to Maxwell's, and in the post^3 Newtonian form are identical (modulo a factor of 2) to Maxwell's equations. The post^2 form is similar to electric and magnetic statics. The magnetic field analogue is similar in some ways to magnetism in EM theory. This is usually what is meant by gravito-magnetic field,

    Cheers LC

    Lawrence,

    The equations are similar in appearance, but electromagnetic fields are essentially linear, whereas the gravitomagnetic (C-) field is inherently non-linear, and is therefore a Yang-Mills equation, not a 'Maxwell'-type equation. This has extremely significant consequences.

    The difficulty remains if the field theory is abelian, as in U(1) QED, or if it is nonabelian in the YM sense. This comes from the problem of characterizing the symmetries of the S matrix if there is a mass. Review the Dirac equation and the mass-gap in the two solutions which separate by a gap p ~ m on the momentum light cone.

    The S-matrix acts on shift the state or momentum state of a particle. A state with two particle states |p, p'> is acted upon by the S matrix through the T matrix

    S = 1 - i(2π)^4 δ^4(p - p')T

    So that T|p, p'> != 0. For zero mass plane waves scatter at almost all energy. The Hilbert space is then an infinite product of n-particle subspaces H = (x)_nH^n (here (x) = "otimes" or Cartesian product). As with all Hilbert spaces there exists a unitary operator U, often U = exp(iHt), which transforms the states S acts upon. U transforms n-particle states into n-particle states as tensor products. The unitary operator commutes with the S matrix

    SUS^{-1} = [1 - i(2π)^4 δ^4(p - p')T]U[1 + i(2π)^4 δ^4(p - p')T^†]

    = U + i(2π)^4 δ^4(p - p')[TU - UT^†] + [(2π)^4 δ^4(p - p')]^2(TUT^†).

    By Hermitian properties and unitarity it is not difficult to show the last two terms are zero and that the S-matrix commutes with the unitary matrix. The Lorentz group then defines operator p_μ and L_{μν} for momentum boosts and rotations. The S-matrix defines changes in momentum eigenstates, while the unitary operator is generated by a internal symmetries A_a, where the index a is within some internal space (the circle in the complex plane for example, and we then have with some

    [A_a, p_μ] = [A_a, L_{μν}] = 0.

    This is a sketch of the infamous "no-go" theorem of Coleman and Mundula. This is what prevents one from being able to place internal and external generators or symmetries on the same footing.

    The way around this problem is supesymmetry. The generators of the supergroup, or a graded Lie algebra, have 1/2 commutator group elements [A_a, A_b] = C_{ab}^cA_c (C_{ab}^c = structure constant of some Lie algebra), plus another set of graded operators which obey

    {Q_a, Q_b} = γ^μ_{ab}p_μ,

    which if one develops the SUSY algebra you find this is a loophole which allows for the intertwining of internal symmetries and spacetime generators. One might think of the above anti-commutator as saying the momentum operator, as a boundary operator p_μ = -iħ∂_μ which has a cohomology, where it results from the application of a Fermi-Dirac operator Q_a. Fermi-Dirac states are such that only one particle can occupy a state, which has the topological content of d^2 = 0. This cohomology is the basis for BRST quantization.

    This is why most physicists who work on this stuff take supersymmetry seriously. It is also one reason why many schemes which purport to derive gravitation or unify gravitation with EM in some elementary was can be subject to strong questions. Of course supersymmetry remains a hypothetical, though some signatures of it have been detected. We will have to wait for the LHC to yield such results before anything is conclusive.

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    Indeed, indeed,....but why they mix like that.

    It's even not to imply confusions.

    NUCLEAR CRYOGENICS???? magnetic polarizations..........YANG !!!

    beta particles ...electrons....see the cobalt for example!!!The apparatus of Ambler,Hudson,Wu ...mesures that whith He and N2.

    I don't see concrete mixing of our equations,physical.How is it possible to derivate or intergrate correctly if the real physicality isn't inserted with the biggest rationality.

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    rEVERSIBILITY OR IRREVERSIBILITY........ENTROPY CHANGEMENT.......POSITIVE IN A WHOLE !!!

    informations and entropy can better be understood.....see the demon of maxwell.

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    Hi Lawrence,

    WOW! A little bit of light reading for the next time I have trouble sleeping...

    I like these qubits - they are simultaineously discrete kissing-sphere particle-like and continuous string wave-like.

    Ceratinly, Philip's 4 qubit is an important sub-symmetry. My models require this for icosian symmetries.

    Regarding your 3 qubit idea, Could we have a 5 qubit (the NS5-brane) decomposing into a (3+2) qubit?

    Have Fun!

    The 4 quantum bits with an SO(8) realization have an 24-cell realization. The 24-cell is represented by the B_4 ~ SO(9), D_4 ~ SO(8) and F_4. With a part of what I am doing in this paper, in particular within the attachment, is to work out a G_2 holonomy for these quantum bits. The G_2 is the automorphism of E_8 and F_4 the centralizer. I think by this means we can push this up to the 8-qubit entanglement problem. A part of what I have laid out is what I think are some step in this direction.

    The 5-qubit problem I think is outstanding, though one can derive a combination of 4-quibits into a 5. Also within an E_8 system there are two dualities that exist with respect to the Steiner system (or Hamming distance). The standard one is [3, 5, 8] and the self-dual system is [4, 4, 8] that has a Hilbert space correspondence. The Steiner system has a dual between 3 and 5, so within the E_8 system the 3-quibit subsystem is equivalent to the 5-qubit subsystem. By this is would mean that the 3-qubit system would have 5 separable states plus 3-qubits in a W or GHZ state.

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    Dear Lawrence,

    If I recall correctly you promised to include pictures in your essay that will show how to imagine something like spacetime foam. Did I got you wrong, or did you decide to hide your colorful results?

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    I guess I am not seeing on this page here where I made such a promise. I might have said something about including a picture of a tessellated AdS spacetime. This is one of MC Escher's prints, where this illustrates the lattice system on the AdS_2.

    Cheers LCAttachment #1: AdS_circlelimit.JPG

    The discrete nature of time might be compared to a numerical ordering. I carry this further to consider a discrete structure in general.

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    On Dec. 7, 2010 in 782#post_29212 you wrote:"Signatures of this structure lie around us in the universe, such as the images I attach. So fractal geometry is important, and in fact what I outline above is what my essay will entail.

    Cheers LC

    attachments: cosmic_filaments.JPG, cmb_popup.jpg "

    "AdS circlelimit.JPG" is also a nice but naked figure without an explaining legend. I have humbly to admit to be a layman who not even heard of tessellated AdS. Let me try a wild guess: In't there a Tom Essel, and could dS stand for de Sitter? A? Hm, maybe Arahonov? Anyway, a certain part of your readers would certainly appreciate at least a list of abbreviations.

    Eckard

    The discussion was on fractal structure. I have a bit of a crazy idea on convolving Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) data with CMB data. After Planck has done its survey I might do this. It will be interesting to see if the Hausdorff dimensions of the two structures are equal or related in some way.

    The discrete group structure and cosets defines a Schottky set. The partitions of the manifold, or regions partitioned by Jordan curves, have a self similar structure, or a Moebius group realization, which makes it a Cantor type of set. The Cantor set, or "comb partition" of the interval, is an elementary form of a fractal geometry. Mandelbrot in fact found a self similar form of noise in transmission lines which had a Cantor set structure within any time interval.

    If this structure is present in quantum gravity and the quantum wave function of a cosmology, then it should persist through the inflationary epoch and have signatures on the large scale. This discrete fractal structure might be the source for non-Gaussian structures in the CMB.

    Cheers LC

    Dear Eckard,

    AdS stands for anti de Sitter space, and it is very important for the AdS/CFT correspondence. See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_de_Sitter_space

    So you were close when you said "and could dS stand for de Sitter?".

    Have Fun!

    Dr. Cosmic Ray

    • [deleted]

    Dear Ray,

    It happens that even the wildest guess comes close. So I will try and add one more horrible speculation: Abelian and non-abelian? I read that Abel died in a duel when he was a young man, and Christian Felix Klein was at best a baby at that time. Perhaps, Abel's symmetry was a simple one. Non-abelian sounds to a layman like me a bit like non-Euclidean, non-Newtonian, transfinite, ueberabzaehlbar, hyperreal, superluminal, postmodern, and other once excitingly modern notions.

    Lawrence Crowell wrote: "Of course supersymmetry remains a hypothetical, though some signatures of it have been detected. We will have to wait for the LHC to yield such results before anything is conclusive." Here I guess: I am too old for that.

    Right now my essay has been posted. I found three plausible deviations from very basic current tenets, and I tried my best to explain them as simple as possible. Nonetheless I hope for having selected the most compelling arguments.

    Regards,

    Eckard

    After the LHC starts up at full steam in 2012 data on SUSY should start coming in. I think it likely SUSY will be found by 2015. The Higgs particle is more difficult to separate from the noise and it might take a bit longer. I think that by the end of this decade we will have MSSM data and will be working on more sublte issues of AdS~CFT and so called soft black holes with heavy ion data.

    Cheers LC