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

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

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

Dear Ray,

We are definitely in agreement that a solid state model is a good approach to understanding space-time. I'm not certain I agree with a fixed point lattice approach; yet there remains something "odd" about that whole issue. Fixed point lattice structures are incompatible with expanding universes. Well, I suppose the stress-energy tensor would agree with my sentiments.

Physics is replete with relationships like:

AA^-1=1

B(-B)=0

...

The list of symmetries is endless. When you said, "SUSY was introduced to solve the Standard Model Hierarchy Problem - "Why are both the

Weak and TOE energy scales stable?" which IS a Scale Problem."

It got me thinking about the nested loop nature of reality. In other words, parentheses are not just the irritating mistakes that screwed up our homework, they are something more fundamental and deeply entrenched within the laws of physics.

Ray,

Be safe in your travels, and have fun.

Yes, with one (possibly two) exceptions, the other research papers are using the same GEM model that I am. Maxwell's GEM was based on symmetry of Newton's and Coulomb's equations, so he just substituted mass for charge, and G-field for E-field and C-field for B-field, and wrote down the Maxwell GEM equations. (He did not call it the C-field, he called it the gravito-magnetic field).

The GEM equations also fall out of Einstein's general relativity as the 'weak field approximation', and has been known to for 80 years or so. But all of these treatments follow Maxwell in assuming that Newton's gravitational constant (which is 10**39 times weaker than E and B) is the only factor in the equations.

For reasons that aren't important here, I decided that there must be another factor, and computed it to be 10**31 times stronger than normally believed. Around 2005 or so, Martin Tajmar performed an experiment in which he measured the C-field dipole produced by 'mass current' (rotating supercooled ring of Niobium) and, to everyone's surprise, found it to be 10**31 orders of magnitude stronger than expected. His explanation has varied, but his experimental data stands on it's own. One of his papers, describing his experiment, is listed in my previous comment.

So the question at hand is not really the 'existence' of the C-field, but the 'strength' of the C-field. I'm the only one proceeding as if Tajmar's experiment and my previous calculations are real.

If I am wrong, then the C-field will have cosmological implications but probably no particle physics implications. If I am right, there will be significant particle implications. As I mentioned above, my experience at NASA and in other instances convinced me that non-linear phenomena such as shock waves, are very non-intuitive, and for this reason people don't extrapolate far enough when dealing with non-linearity. 80 and 90 GeV bosons, if based on C-field circulation in approx 10**-18 meter distances, represent a very non-linear opportunity for Yang-Mills self-interaction, as do all nuclear particle phenomena.

I am pleased that you'll re-read my essay. I really want you to understand it.

Also Cristi Stoica has asked for good GEM references. Because I have a 4-inch notebook full of GEM, I need to review it for the 'best' papers, and will notify you when I produce a short list of the best GEM papers.

Thanks for your continued interest in my theory. The fact that I am not focused on the same symmetry as you does not mean that I discount the relevance of such symmetry in understanding how things fit together so nicely.

Again, have a safe trip.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Ed,

I need to read up on this correction factor of 10^31. In my book, I make a big deal about the fact that there must be more to Gravity. Is it GEM? Is it WIMP-Gravity? Are they all related and mixed up? What symmetries do they imply? My understanding of scales is that you cannot make up 31 orders of magnitude unless you have a strong energy or mass dependance on the coupling (for instance, the Weak force has a mass-squared dependance on coupling which allows it to range from a multiple of the fine-structure constant down to 10^(-13)).

I think the Gravity symmetries from Quaternion and Octonion algebras imply a tetrahedral (4-fold) symmetry SO(4)xSO(5) ~ SO(6)xU(1) ~ SU(4)xU(1), but you have a triangular (3-fold G2-like) symmetry. Somehow this tetrahedron is decomposing - perhaps into a triangle of Space and a broken symmetry of Time. As I've previously said, I think you are addressing the reason for 3 generations (CKM and PMNS matrices), but there may also be an S-duality relationship with QCD (which I consider a 4-fold symmetry: red, green, blue and violet/white).

Fields and Particles are interrelated. I fully expect a "new" field to introduce "new particles".

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray,

You make a very astute comment:

"My understanding of scales is that you cannot make up 31 orders of magnitude unless you have a strong energy or mass dependence on the coupling (for instance, the Weak force has a mass-squared dependence on coupling which allows it to range from a multiple of the fine-structure constant down to 10^(-13))."

My GEM coupling actually does have a mass dependence, showing up as a dependence on 'local mass density', so I find it very interesting that you seem to call this correctly, based on your understanding of principles, not on GEM in particular. That is why, at nuclear densities, GEM is significant, while in the 'vacuum' of interstellar space, not as much. You're a pretty sharp guy.

You also state: "Fields and Particles are interrelated. I fully expect a "new" field to introduce "new particles".

One of my major points has been that the Lagrangian provides a convenient mechanism that allows the "invention" of fields (see Goldstein, "Classical Mechanics", page 370). It is my contention that it has been used to invent fields, which, as you say, predict new particles. Therefore, you may expect my field to introduce new particles, but consider the fact that it may actually replace one or more current fields, leaving us with only the known particles.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Ed,

You said "Therefore, you may expect my field to introduce new particles, but consider the fact that it may actually replace one or more current fields, leaving us with only the known particles."

You very well could be correct - after all, we haven't yet discovered a true magnetic monopole as Dirac expected (although Gingras' "Spin Ice" has monopole-like quasiparticle behavior [I think the reference is in my and Lawrence's "The Nature of Dimensions" paper], so don't give up on the idea).

In my book, I proposed that the WIMP-Gravity (which may or may not be related to GEM?) coupling has a (mass)^8 dependance (pages 30-33).

We need at least 3 degrees-of-freedom for the W and Z longitudinal polarizations. I'm not opposed to a Higgs-like approach, but suppose GEM provides those dgf's? I'm interested to see if you can derive the CKM and PMNS matrices.

I'm driving to Orlando tomorrow. Its supposed to rain all day, and then I'll be in meetings for two days (joy!). You would think there are good flight options between the state capital, Tallahassee, and the vacation capital, Orlando, but there are no direct flights.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Ray,

The other argument against a closely packed lattice is that it would result in light traveling at different velocity dependent upon which way it was going. It would be possible to test for a preferred orientation. I would continue to use the model because it is helpful. We just have to remind ourselves that the model doesn't work for a Lorentz transformation.