Scales Solve the Continuous vs. Discrete Paradox by Ray B Munroe

Dear Ray,

I enjoyed your essay and understand a few of your points better than before.

As I mentioned to Lawrence elsewhere, while I agree with you that "a physical infinity cannot exist within our Observable Universe", it certainly appears that infinite numbers of math formulas, relationships, solutions and structures can exist in the 'representational' universe.

Should a Theory of Everything focus on the infinite representations, attempting to produce "the one" universe, represented as the sum of some finite combination of representations, or attempt to begin with 'one' universe, the simplest possible, and physically evolve the universe we know today. Some of these essays appear to wish to accomplish this with a photon (a single photon?), some with a qubit (or two or four qubits). I wish to do so with a single field, the field of gravity.

The gravity field begins with perfect symmetry. A quantum of action implies that this symmetry can break, and a circulational aspect of the field come into existence, in addition to the original radial field. This circulation leads to vortices that can reach a limit (implied by the speed of light) and new Calabi-Yau curved structure come into existence-- particles.

These physical vortices are bosons, producing physical effects--fermions-- 4D stable Calabi-Yau structures... stable, that is, unless sufficient energy 'unwinds' them into a new vortex (boson).

'Struts' (reciprocal lattice vectors) that connect the direct lattice vertices "represent bosons", but it is mathematical, not a physical representation.

In this sense our approaches are 'reciprocal' or 'inverse'. In trying to find the simplest physical theory of our universe, I judge my success by the number of physics anomalies that aren't anomalous in my theory, regardless of representations. You seem to be trying to find the simplest mathematical representation of our universe without worrying about how bosons physically "produce" fermions (or vice versa).

Vortex bosons as physically real field phenomena lead to the particles and generations of particles that we have. Vortices of a left-handed C-field can only produce left-handed neutrinos. There are not, and will not be, right handed neutrinos, whereas SUSY, I believe, expects three right-handed neutrinos to explain the mass of the left-handed neutrino.

Your version of bosons, while not physically explaining how they work, represent connections between vertices (particles) and may be useful for predicting undiscovered particles.

A few more years of LHC operation should reward one of our approaches.

Yours is an impressive approach. You make many things fit together.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Ed,

Thank you for the comments.

I would like to believe that my ideas are not that different from your field approach (fields represent the continuous wave half of wave-particle duality) or Philip's string qubit approach (strings represent the continuous wave half, and qubits represent the quantum particle half of wave-particle duality) or even photon approaches (Light is a quasiparticle with both EM wave and photon particle properties. Properties of light affect Spacetime, so light is a good place to start, but it isn't the only boson). I hope that my approach can establish a mathematical umbrella capable of explaining all of these effects.

You said "'Struts' (reciprocal lattice vectors) that connect the direct lattice vertices "represent bosons", but it is mathematical, not a physical representation." I apologize for not going deeper with the details (these papers were limited in length. Although I did not use my length as efficiently as you, I felt that certain levels of detail would have been "too much"), but the vertex/strut analogy also ties in with Feynman diagram representations. A typical Feynman vertex has a fermion in, and a boson and a fermion out. In my lattice model, a "strut" (boson) converts one type of vertex (fermion) into another type of vertex (a different fermion) - in direct analogy with Feynman's diagrams.

I think that any TOE will introduce enough degrees of freedom to account for vortex bosons, although I didn't try to build a specific TOE in this paper. Magnetic fields behave like vortex fields, and it is not unreasonable to expect vortex fields out of every long-range force (such as gravity).

You said "There are not, and will not be, right handed neutrinos, whereas SUSY, I believe, expects three right-handed neutrinos to explain the mass of the left-handed neutrino."

I think this is a misunderstanding of current data. In 1998, the great Japanese neutrino detector, Super Kamiokande, discovered neutrino oscillations. This requires a mixing of the electron, mu and tau neutrinos. The simplest mixing mechanism (that doesn't require new interactions) is mass (although your GEM-like triality is a "new" interaction that could provide this mixing). If neutrinos have mass - regardless of how small that mass is - then a neutrino cannot travel at the speed of light (maybe 0.99999 c, but not 1 c), and we could always Lorentz transform ahead of the neutrino (say at 0.999999 c), look backwards at the neutrino, and observe a right-handed helicity neutrino. These right-handed neutrinos are "sterile" (don't interact) with respect to interactions involving Color, Weak Hypercharge and Weak Isospin (the set of quantum numbers in Table 1 of my essay), but they may interact via gravity (through mass), or new interactions (such as your GEM and/or my Hyperflavor).

The three neutrino result is based on the decay width of the Z boson. That decay width (which was measured very accurately by the now obsolete Large Electron-Positron Collider at CERN - Geneva) suggests that there are only three light-weight (less than half of the Z mass) neutrinos that the Z can couple with (remember that right-handed neutrinos are sterile to Z interactions).

SUSY is important to my model in a couple of ways. First, SUSY solves the hierarchy problem, and thus addresses the biggest scale problem in Particle Physics. Secondly, SUSY allows us to frame our theory properly (see the Coleman-Mandula and the Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorems). For instance, Garrett Lisi framed his E8 TOE in terms of bosonic charges only, and thus failed the Coleman-Mandula theorem from the start.

Remember, everything is a quasiparticle involving both discrete particle Quantum-scaled phenomena and continuous wave Classical-scaled phenomena. If we over-emphasize one aspect of this wave-particle duality, then we underemphasize the other aspect. We need balance, and satisfying the Coleman-Mandula theorem is the crux of that balance.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

In solid state physics the reciprocal lattice is what gives the discrete momentum spectrum of phonons. With T-duality involves an interchange x_9 - -> x_9 2π with the compactification of a dimension. A particle running around this circle has a momentum ~ 1/R, and this does connect in part with the idea of a reciprocal lattice. The mass of the particle running around the circle is m = n/R. A closed string can also wrap around a circle. The winding of a string w contributes and energy E = 2πwRT, T = 1/2πα' the string. The mass is related to the winding number by

M^2 = (n/R)^2 (wR/ α')^2 (1/ α')(2N w -2)

This has the reciprocal structure as well. The connection between the lattice and compactification and string/brane wrappings will have to be brought in tighter with a connection to compactified spaces.

Cheers LC

Dear Lawrence,

Thank You for the details relating String winding modes with Solid State lattices!

The reciprocal lattice argument is equivalent to T-duality, and the Large Numbers/Inverse Large Numbers argument is equivalent to S-Duality. I know that I've said that before in one of these blogs. Maybe I should have put it in this essay, but I was trying to find that balance between "enough" vs. "too much" detail in my essay...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi all,

In fact , it's not you insert details, but errors.

Thus of course you confound details and errors in a general point of vue.

It's sciences fiction all that.

I just try to change your line of reasoning.Because it's a lost of time simply to focus to all these ironic pseudo sciences.

I can understand that many continue the strings because it exists jobs and others but frankly where are we , on a rational platform I hope.

The creation of ideas you say, the fun, it's an other story than our foundamentals at my humble and sincere opinion.

There we see thus why we have an international scientific commission and a system of international unities.

At this moment I don't see strings, higgs, micro BH ,extradimensions, tachyons,multiverses,.....where are these equations....answer ....nowhere.

Steve

Ray,

The Duff et al approach to 4 qubit entanglement is STU. The 4 qubits are assigned 4 electric charges plus their S dual magnetic monopole charges. S duality interchanges charges within a string type by a Bohr-Sommerfeld qg = nħ. This does permit one to switch a strongly interacting field with a weak field which is a perturbative field theory. This gives a correspondence between a non-perturbative field with a perturbative one. This is one component of what I am working on. For AdS_4 with a black hole the near horizon condition is AdS_2xS^2. The hyperbolic dynamics on AdS_2 is mapped to the sine-Gordon equation, which is S-dual to a Fermi field theory.

Cheers LC

Ok Lawrence ok we know already that in the strings false road.We know already these errors.You confound really the foundamentals of physics and maths with a computing.Your age has nothing to do with a discussion between "said" rationalist.Thus of course the real respect is about humility /our universal sphere, like a humble walker of stars.The rest is vain.After all we" have all the same age no,13.7 to15 billions...).If now people must take gloves to speak about sciences, where are we going????

Ray, first don't take me for a non respectuous person....Wheere are you seen I insult you or other, I just say my point of vue and opinion.If you can name my insults,thus copy them and put them here now.If now insults are compared with critics and points of vue, there it's still more serious than I imagined.

,don't be too much frustrated, or jaleous you and your friend , it's not serious.

Hihihi it's true I begin to have fun, hihihi you know it's easy.Let's be serious please, a time for all.

Well , for physics let's act with a deeper analyze.

You speak about FCC,BUCKYBALL,GRAPHENE .....well that needs explainations.

What is in fact your real architecture about the whole of the entanglement.In fact it's domage you don't take a foundamental road, because you could have interestings results, I try to make understanding but it's difficult apparently.

Cheers like say some people.

Steve respectfully of course.don't confoud your own vanity with a frank person.

Hi Ray,

I enjoyed reading your essay. As usual, I was not disappointed in how you establish surprising connections and try to uncover the truth behind them, where others may see just coincidences. I particularly like and adhere to your openness to the possibility that things which seem incompatible, may be able to coexist.

Good luck!

Cristi Stoica

Dear Ray,

In an effort to keep relevant points linked, I'm reproducing part of a response I gave to Cristi Stoica that relates to the above, particularly your statement that, "satisfying the Coleman-Mandula theorem is the crux of that balance."

The point was made that, "in Quantum Theory the time evolution is unitary, hence the information is preserved." I agree with this but think the following is relevant.

Veltman notes that Feynman rules are derived using the U-matrix, even though formal proofs exist that the U-matrix does not exist. (Diagrammatica, p.183). The U-matrix is unitary by construction, and implies conservation of probability, probability being "the link between the formalism and observed data." In my mind, this leaves some room for 'free will' in the universe, (with consequences for information) but I have not pursued the U-matrix much farther than that. Veltman claims the U-matrix and the equations of motion are to be replaced with the S-matrix, in which the interaction Hamiltonian determines the vertex structure.

Ray you attach significance to the Coleman-Mandula theorem, which (according to Wikipedia) states that "the only conserved quantities in a "realistic" theory with a mass gap, apart from the generators of the Poincare group, must be Lorentz scalars." But this seems to constrain only symmetries of the S-matrix itself, not spontaneously broken symmetries which don't show up directly on the S-matrix limit.

As the 'scattering' matrix is used to make sense of particle collisions, this seems reasonable, but 'scattering' of particles is a very artificial (if necessary) way of studying particles, that may attach undue importance to symmetry and, as I've noted in my essay, leads to a Lagrangian that is based on inventing fields, whether or not those fields actually exist in nature. If they can be solved for then they are considered in some way 'real', and this leads, IMHO, to much of the confusion today.

Veltman also says that "unitarity, Lorentz invariance, locality, etc, are in some sense interchangeable." It seems to me that this is problematical in light of today's push to banish locality from QM.

I don't claim to understand the solution to these problems, just to note that there seems to be some circular logic going on, and I'm not sure that logic is preserved around a complete loop of the circle.

This is part of the reason I start with the logic of one field, and work from there, ignoring, for the most part, the established formalism's of QM and GR if they don't map 100 percent into my model in a way that will satisfy experts in either field.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

In further response to your above remark that "everything is a quasiparticle involving both discrete particle Quantum-scaled phenomena and continuous wave Classical-scaled phenomena", I would call attention to the figure on page 6 of my essay, depicting both a massive particle and a mass-less photon. Both have momentum, which is 'mass current', mv, that is the gravitomagnetic analog of the 'charge current', qv, for electro-magnetics. Therefore both massive and massless particles induce a local gravito-magnetic or C-field circulation, which is inherently 'wave-like' while the particles are inherently 'particle-like' as well as providing a 'pilot-wave' type of phenomena accompanying the particle.

You state: "If we over-emphasize one aspect of this wave-particle duality, then we underemphasize the other aspect." I believe my approach is the most balanced in that both are linked through "del cross C = p" and neither is unduly emphasized.

Finally, as I've hinted elsewhere, Peter Jackson and others have stimulated me to focus more on photons and I am finding fascinating results which I hope to describe soon.

It's always fun conversing with you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi

dear American friend,

hihihi people are going to say I am crazzy, let's have fun.

I repeat Ray and it's very very veryyyyyyy important.

Imagine a sphere, now a serie 1 2 3 and after we continue with a decrease of volumes, spherical.....how are your lattices, for me they disappear if we insert the serie towards a kind of very important number of spheres, smaller and smaller towards our planets and bigger and bigger towards the center Ray.

Your lattices do not exists thus because all spaces are completed by the serie, the fractal .Incredible Ray no!

Well now let's assume like our Unievrse a space between spheres ,it's spheres without rotations thus without mass......thus of course it's always spheres and the lattices in fact do not exists simply in realistic and relativistic point of vue.

ps you are surprising in fact,perhaps I am in the error when I am parano,but we evolve.My other big default is my arrogance and of course it's a bad road,Sometimes I say me , Steve be more quiet and why you have said that or that.I say me you don't respect really people, you are right for that.I am parano and I become crazzy ,my emotions pass above my quiet simply.I am going to meditate about that a little, I think ,yes that becomes even essential.

You know Ray you are going to take me still for a unstable,I contacted Berkeley and The DR Horst ,I was a little arrogant still, probably my past hihihi and my health , my head hihihi he probably thinks also I am crazy.

ps good luck in the contest, I stop to bother you,

Regards

Steve

Dear Steve,

Again, I have never read your complete theory. Suppose you start with a close-packing lattice of equal-sized spheres, then fill the empty spaces with progressively smaller kissing spheres. I'm pretty sure that the centers of these smaller spheres represent the Miller indices of the Reciprocal lattice - please see:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indices_de_Miller_et_indices_de_direction

I think that the biggest difference between our models is that I represent "infinity" by expanding outwards (building a larger crystal) whereas you represent "infinity" by collapsing inwards (with more and smaller kissing spheres).

Perhaps you heard about that crazy guy (Jared Lee Loughner) who shot the congresswoman (Gabrielle Giffords) and 17 other people in Arizona. Apparently, Loughner smoked Salvia, and it can cause paranoia. I understand that lots of stuff is legal in Belgium, but be careful with your agricultural experimentation...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Ed,

Aren't we both guilty of creating symmetries or fields that haven't yet been observed? My approach anticipates a symmetry between Fermions and Bosons. Your approach anticipates a symmetry between electric-like and magnetic-like charges. Sure - your approach has already been observed in Electromagnetism, and it is a reasonable expectation for Gravitation, but that has not yet been observed.

My essay didn't directly address the issue of information, but I assumed that the Multiverse has a very large (perhaps infinite?) complexergy (complexity-energy), and that our Observable Universe is limited to complexergies of order Dirac's Large Number or geometrical powers thereof. If Dirac's Large number is ~10^41 (41 is closer to the real experimental result, but I often round to 40), and the information limit is 10^123 (Dirac's Large Number cubed in 3-D, see Stefan Weckbach's essay), and the Cosmological Constant seems to be 10^(-123) (the inverse of the information limit - more coincidence?).

In some weird way, your question of information is related to my question of scales.

Check out:

http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/145

where Andrei Linde said that time does not exist in the Multiverse, but when we separate one Observable Universe from the rest of the Multiverse, then time suddenly arises in both realms.

Photons are important, but we don't know about the properties of Gravitons and Higgs - which should also be important (if they exist).

Lawrence and I have been bouncing ideas off of each other. I wonder if there is an S-duality between the QCD triality and the generational (CKM & PMNS matrices) triality.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Ray,

Never a theory is finished and I have difficulties to resume.

I will publish in the future probably if I have a good team with me perhaps.

For me it's not important the publication, only the research of truth is essential.

Ray I have already explained you my past and my problemns in Belgium.

They took me all Ray here in Belgium with my production of plants, I have lost 12000 plan,ts in 1 day Ray, due to bad people here.It was my rentability for my enterprize and its begining.A work of 3 years Ray.And ho they kill my plants and my monney, even my piano they took it and my car of work.I love horticulture and vegetal multiplication, it's a big passion for me.

After that Ray, you shall be how after all these human comportments.

For my health Ray, I have like I say you some neurologic problems many headacke due to a kind of epilepsy.

My revenge will be with love and rationality, I have a revenge for the politicians of my country.If you know people who wants create an enterprize here for this nice and logic revenge, all are welcome.I just want create jobs and put into practice my inventions and models.

The vegetal multiplication after x time arrives at an exponential.

See my post on the thread of Dr Loty about ecology.

Regards

Steve

Ray-

You are a heck of a lot smarter than I am, and I think I understood a little bit of what you are talking about. Next time I see you, maybe you can explain it to me in person.

Vic

Thanks Vic,

I'm sure that we'll eventually bump into each other.

Ray,

I believe that you are quite mistaken: the gravitomagnetic field *has* been observed.

Two days after I submitted my essay I received the 3 Dec 2010 issue of Physical Review Letters 105, 231103 ("...on Non-Newtonian Gravity") which describes a 13 year study of LAGEOS satellite(s) that tracked the relativistic precession with one centimeter rms accuracy ("the most accurate measurement for the pericenter advance of a satellite orbiting the Earth ever made.") The results differ from general relativity's predictions by up to 0.2% and the difference is attributed to the C-field, or gravito-magnetic field.

Darth Sidious then scolded me for saying that the gravito-magnetic field is not well known: "I regret, but you makes confusion on this point. Actually, gravito-magnetic effects are well known within General Relativity, i.e. the C-field...is indeed a part of General Relativity, see for example the recent review published in Astrophys. Space Sci. 331:351-395, 2011."

Probably the best detection of the C-field is the experiment performed by Martin Tajmar, with, I believe some confirmation from experiments in Japan and New Zealand. A good paper is one where he notes the results 10**31 orders of magnitude higher than expeced:

Martin Tajmar, et al, http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf 'Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment'.

So Ray, I don't think it is accurate to say that the C-field hasn't been observed. It's been observed on earth, and in space, and is implicated in the 'flyby' anomalies, (see Grumiller, 'Model for Gravity at Large Distances', PRL 105, 211303, 19 Nov 2010.) Grumiller provides numbers needed for quantitative analysis and he reports the scale of observed anomalous accelerations which are compatible with my calculations.

And there is, for most of us, little doubt that the "gravito-magnetic charges" exist. The gravito-magnetic charge is simple 'mass' (which I believe exists whether or not a Higgs is found) and the analogy to "charge current, qv" is simply "mass current, mv", also known as momentum.

Ray, I invite you to read my essay again. I think you've missed something. I do read yours several times, and each time have been impressed with your treatment of the 'golden ratio'. As you know, complex things cannot be digested in one reading.

I hope you look at some of the above references (I have many more) if you are still not convinced. I was surprised by your statement that mass (the gravitomagnetic 'charge') does not exist.

The fact that I am the only person who has applied the Yang-Mills non-linearity of the C-field to particle physics has nothing to do with the existence of the field. It has more to do with habits of thinking that are based in linearity and the (always surprising) effects that derive from non-linear interactions.

Edwin Eugene Klingman