Dear Rafael,

You started out summarizing some of my prior posts. I would like to clarify a couple of points. You mentioned [vector] gravitons and [vector] gravitinos. Gravitons are spin-2 tensor bosons, and gravitinos are spin 3/2 fermions. If these quantum charges can be represented by "crystalline" lattices, then the "vectors" (reciprocal space) that connect one "gravitino-like" vertex to another "gravitino-like" vertex may represent the tensor gravitons.

You said:

"And you also mentioned elsewhere that a black hole singularity (infinitely dense) cannot exist in a finite universe. By 'finite' I am of course assuming you mean the 'scale', not the 'amount' of the components that meet the measures of the scale..."

I am proposing that the largest physical number that can exist in our Observable Universe is Dirac's Large Number of 10^41 and geometrical powers thereof, which is "close" to infinity without actually being infinity.

Then you asked the following:

"What sort of process would produce such effects? Gravitational-mass-induced mass-energy condensation? Incident gravitational-vacuum-induced radiative expansion? Could it be both? And if both, could it be alternating? simultaneous? Gravitational momentum? Perhaps, something else?"

In my book, and in the "Interelationship of Spin and Scales" paper, I proposed an SU(5) of "Hyper-SUSY" that could potentially explain these spins and hierarchies. I think that your quantized momentum approach is a more "common sense" approach to String Theory - particularly closed loops and winding modes.

I also like Lawrence Crowell's and Philip Gibbs' approaches involving quantum entangled strings.

You also asked:

"I am thinking of the scales for the range of kinematic densities exemplified by the voids at the vacuum end, by everything in the middle, and by the black holes at the superdense end. I am interested in where you place the supervoids and the superdense in your scales (or what supervoids and what superdense you put in what scales) and what processes govern their states. So, I can't help but ask:

What particular types of constructs are coarse in what scales? How are the voids made vacuous in your scales? How are the black holes made dense in your scales?"

This is the so-called "Cosmic Scale", and I think that these structures and mass-density-variations such as Black Holes and Super Voids could have been caused by Cosmic Strings and turbulent vortices in the early life of our Observable Universe.

You also said:

"You have of course given complexity numbers - but how do the processes look like in terms of incident equilibrium states between condensation and radiation in the appropriate scales?

I am interested in how the processes look like so that I can properly fit them in my idea of motion transformations. I'd like to see the processes within volumetric space. It appears to me that whatever your answers, they could fit in my ideas of "motion constructs" and "motion transformations"."

I think that the upper scale limit is the speed of light, the lower scale limit is the Planck scale, and that Spacetime warps at these scale boundaries to form lattice-like structures. Perhaps the outer boundary of our Observable Universe is a graphene-like lattice as Subir Sacdev proposes, and perhaps the core of the Black Hole is a Buckyball-like lattice. These lattice-like structures cause the Spacetime curvature to collapse such that we cannot see these scales. Simultaineously, these lattice-like structures may be useful in describing the Holographic Principle - whereby quantum gravity at the Multiverse scale is converted into Spacetime curvature at the Cosmic scale (Observable Universe).

You said:

"Ray, I've been rather alone regarding my idea of the "transformations of motion"; everyone else seems to be talking "spacetime transformations". My googling and yahooing found hardly anything consoling...

I sincerely would like to learn of your opinions regarding the above - even just the little that you can allow yourself to dislose.

I know I am being a bit devious here, since I am hoping somebody else could work out the mathematical (numbers) and logical (words) answers to my own questions. (hehe!) I carry a lot of question marks for my queries, but few exclamation marks for my own eurekas. I hope you won't mind so much."

I need to thoroughly read your paper to address all of your questions and concerns. I'm backlogged on papers - I also need to read Jason Wolfe's, Eckard Blumschein's, and Edwin Klingman's (again - like yours, I skimmed his paper) papers as well...

Rafael, I have been blogging on FQXi for nearly 3 years because I feel mostly isolated in my Physics ideas. I left acedemia (full-time in 1999 and part-time in 2003) so that I could manage my family's business. My ideas were pretty radical before I left acedemia, and they seem to have gotten more radical recently. Lawrence Crowell and I have collaborated some. I have made other friends on this blog site as well - some that I agree with, and others that I don't fully agree with. We all want to contribute something, and I don't mind bouncing ideas off of each other to see which ones stick.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray,

I am taking our discussion to my own FQXi forum link. I think this will inspire me a bit more and make our discussion more interesting. I hope you will grant me the courtesy of following our discussion at my turf. HeHe!

Rafael

    I posted this response here and on Rafael Castel's blog site (topic # 835):

    Dear Rafael,

    You asked:

    "Considering the idea of the Multiverse - what do we have in the spaces between the myriad of universes of the multiverse? Do we have quantum Gravitons there?"

    I think that the Multiverse is an infinite Cantor set - hollow but not empty - with self-similar scales. The phase transition that caused Inflation could have caused other scales of inflation. The speed of light scale limit limits us to seeing objects within 13.7 billion light years of our location, but what if more exists and we cannot see it because it expanded faster than the speed of light (with a scale of greater complexergy)? I think that quantum gravitions can exist at the Multiverse scale because of its greater complexergy, but cannot exist (abundantly - yes there may be some ridiculusly small fraction like 10^(-123)) at our Classical scale because of our lesser complexergy. The "space" between our Observable Universe and the Multiverse is separated by the speed of light scale limit, and may collapse into an effective "boundary" that provides the Holographic Principle.

    You also asked:

    "Do we have a Multiverse composed of relatively similar universes? In other words, do we have homogeniety at the level of universes?"

    Yes - our Multiverse is comprised of self-similar scales. I'm not sure I would call this homogeneity, but similar patterns would appear at every scale.

    You also asked:

    "Or would you say there are clusters of universes, clusters of clusters of universes, superclusters of universes, clusters of superclusters of universes, and so on?"

    Certainly Super Clusters of Galaxies exist within our Observable Universe. Perhaps "clusters" and "voids" are part of the pattern that we should expect at every scale.

    You also asked:

    "And finally, at what level do you see any possible decoupling of components according to the scale limits?"

    I think we have maximal simplicity at the sub-Quantum scale, and maximal complexity at the super-Cosmic scale. All of these extremes are relevant to a TOE.

    You said:

    "Ray, I must let you know - I find the articulation of a Multiverse rather superfluous, since I am inclined to believe in an infinite hierarchical cosmos and in spite of the idea of perhaps the 'decoupling' at the very large scale."

    Rafael - I agree with Nottale that at least 4 scales must exist. I think that most of us would admit to a Classical and Quantum scale. Additionally, a sub-quantum scale explains the Planck scale limit. And a super-classical scale explains the speed of light limit. I have proposed one more scale to complete the analogy with Particle Physics expectations of fundamental particles with spins of (0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2). Regardless of whether we have 4 or 5 scales, we must have at least one scale beyond the speed of light. I prefer to call the largest scale the "Multiverse", but I realize that term carries its own baggage. I don't like the idea of the common "multiverse" whereby these hierarchal numbers are part of a random number generator, but rather prefer the idea of a "Multiverse" whereby complergy content of the various scales necessitates these hierarchal numbers.

    I hope I answered your questions thoroughly. We are using slighly different terminolgy and language, but I think that we are on self-similar pages.

    Have Fun!

    Dr. Cosmic Ray

    Ray

    Excellent read (between all those numbers!) and I found myself more convinced than I'd expected with your notions.

    I've already raised this with Edwin, but have you considered the toroid form of tokamaks as a complete unit scalable both up and down, my current paper identifying them as not only the galactic black hole and quasar configuration, but also as a candidate for recycling the universe in the Big Blazar! How's that for a crazy notion.

    The point of it is it has intrinsic spin, and dual axis / helical spin, producing... anyway I'm sure you understand them much better than me.

    I feel a good score coming in your diretion. I particularly agree with the equivalent of your conclusion, most current physics is at least half wrong!

    I'd be interested in any views on my own paper, if you can think without numbers!?

    Best wishes

    Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #48

      Dear Peter,

      Thank You!

      If you read my 2009 FQXi essay, you would know that I was holding back on those numbers!

      The torus is important. The rank of a Lie Algebra is related to the minimum toroidal dimensionality of representation of that group. When I say that E8 is 8-dimensional, I mean that it can be reduced to an 8-D torus. E8 is also cool because it can be represented by the 8-D Gosset lattice.

      In my (and Lawrence Crowell's) "The Nature of Dimensions" paper, we proposed that the Black Hole "singularity" may be similar to a Carbon-60 Buckyball lattice (only made out of "discrete spacetime" rather than Carbon). You can convolute two nested buckyballs into a torus - which once again confirms a potential toroidal application.

      Besides, I briefly worked on the TEXT Tokamak at U. Texas (Austin), and like toroidal geometry.

      I apologize that I haven't been more active in this review process. I was out of town on business last week, and haven't caught up yet. Your paper is on my "to read" list.

      Have Fun!

      Dr. Cosmic Ray

      Hi Peter,

      A little more detail to my earlier response:

      There is a smooth homotopy between a pair of nested buckyballs and a torus. Please see:

      http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TruncatedIcosahedron.html

      On Jan. 22, 2011 @ 16:15 GMT , I wrote the following to Steve Dufourny:

      "Does the core of a Black Hole approach a singularity (I reason that a phisical infinity cannot exist within a finite observable universe), or does a lattice structure prevent its full and complete collapse? IMHO, the strongest lattice with the most proper symmetries is the Carbon-60 Buckyball (once again, realize that I am talking about a lattice built up from the very fabric of Spacetime). It is true that a sphere has the perfect symmetry, but a sphere is not a lattice - there are no lattice bonds to prevent gravity from crushing and deflating a perfect sphere.

      The Buckyball might explain the non-collapse of the Black Hole core, but succesive radial layers of lattices would build one Buckyball inside of another Buckyball (with flipped symmetries). After about a thousand vertices, these layered Buckyballs will begin to resemble another lattice - the very strong Diamond lattice."

      Perhaps a static Black Hole does build layers of nested and flipped buckyball lattices into a distorted (distorted at the center) diamond lattice as I suggested earlier. But perhaps spinning Black Holes crush and rotate successive layered pairs of buckyballs into tori, and layers of tori. These layers of tori may behave like spin-2 Gravitons and/or WIMP-Gravitons and/or GEM-Gravitons (or would that be Gravi-Electro-Magnetons?)

      Also, I discussed tori on the last page of this attached article:

      Ray Munroe, "Symplectic tiling, hypercolour and hyperflavor E12", Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 41 (2009) 2135-2138.

      Have Fun!

      Dr. Cosmic RayAttachment #1: CHAOS6407.pdf

      Ray,

      You've probably noted my comment to Lawrence and to others that they should check out Joy Christian's new work here.

      It is highly mathematical, but then, so are you. I was surprised upon reflection to realize that I don't really know where you stand on issues of 'non-locality' and 'non-reality'. Anyway, I would love to hear what you have to say about Joy's work. [Some of my earlier remarks said 'she', but Joy is a man.]

      I particularly hope that you manage to study this work before drawing any conclusions about my essay. My essay is based on a theory of local realism that goes against the grain of the 50 year old 'non-local', 'non-real' entanglement interpretations that have flowed from so-called 'violations' of Bell's inequality, which, if Christian is correct, were all based on Bell's faulty calculation of 2 instead of the correctly calculated 2*sqrt(2). This is major.

      As a consequence of Bell's result, 'local realism' fell into disfavor. On another thread Florin remarked that something "has the smell of local realism", even though I pointed out many current quotes from Phys Rev Lett that clearly stated that these issues had not been proved beyond a doubt [for reasons that may no longer be relevant.] As a further consequence, any theory, such as mine, that *is* based on local realism starts off with three strikes against it. For this reason, I am overjoyed [pardon the pun] that Christian has shown Bell's calculations to be in error, thereby rescuing local realism from near death.

      I have placed some further comments summarizing Christian's results on my page, and don't wish to clutter up your page with such.

      I look forward to any comments you might have.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #51

        Dear Ed,

        Yes - I saw your conversations about Joy Christian's paper. I fell behind last week with my business trip to Orlando, and I've been playing catch-up. I have downloaded JC's 23 page paper and plan to read it.

        Where do I stand with Hidden Variables?

        Garrett Lisi's E8 TOE *might* imply hidden variables, because all particle properties are (supposed to be - Lisi goofed it a little) a result of their position within the 8-D Gosset lattice "charge space".

        To correct Lisi's goof, Lawrence Crowell and I have proposed an SO(32)~E8xE8* TOE that could correctly imply hidden fermionic variables within the direct E8 lattice (that could be a "local" hyperspace), and hidden bosonic variables within the reciprocal E8* lattice (the reciprocal scale to a quantum or sub-quantum hyperspace may be a cosmic or super-cosmic multiverse).

        However, this SO(32) model seems too small to include all of the Dimensions or Scales or Holography that I expect. And if Holography occurs at a super-Cosmic Scale, then Gravitation cannot be a local hidden variable unless infinitely fast tachyons redefine the concept of "local".

        Do tachyons redefine our concept of locality? I'm pretty sure that my 5-fold "pentality" symmetries (similar to my essay's Appendix Figure) predict tachyons.

        Does my answer sound too wishy-washy?

        Have Fun!

        Dr. Cosmic Ray

        • [deleted]

        • Post #52

        I wonder how complex a hidden-variable theory which is deterministic and local must be to reproduce the "random" outcomes at each measurement-device?

        Dear Ron,

        Good point! We could probably build an arbitraily complex model to "reproduce the "random" outcomes at each measurement-device", but that might fail Occam's Razor unless that model also explains other poorly understood phenomena.

        I am trying to build a TOE that might explain Fermionic generations, the CKM and PMNS matrices, the origin of mass, the differences between left and right handed helicities, Supersymmetry, the Holographic Principle, Quantum Gravity, the origin of Large Numbers such as Dirac's 10^41, etc. If that model also explains the Continuous vs. Discrete paradox and the EPR vs. Bell paradox, then those are added benefits. In order to appeal to a more general audience, I did not present all of my TOE ideas in this paper, but I invite everyone to research my references.

        Please contact me if any references are difficult to find. A free preview of the first 60 pages of my book is available at:

        http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/new-approaches-towards-a-grand-unified-theory/2903242?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1

        (and click on preview). My FQXi papers are at:

        http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/520

        and my PSTJ papers are at:

        http://www.prespacetime.com/

        (and search for "Munroe").

        I attached a difficult-to-find CS&F article on this blog site a couple of days ago on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 14:42 GMT.

        Have Fun!

        Dr. Cosmic Ray

        Ron,

        I assume you are discussing the 'entanglement' measurements. There is no 'randomness' when both particles are treated the same way. They are found to be the same (as would be expected) within the detector efficiency.

        It is when the particles are treated differently from each other that variations show up. My theory has a local 'pilot wave' induced by the particle's momentum, and this field interacts with mass. It would seem that local interactions with the apparatus could induce enough variation to explain the measurement distributions, although beam splitters, polarizers, and half mirrors are a little too complex for me to say for sure.

        Ray,

        Your answer doesn't sound 'wishy-washy' but neither do I claim to understand it. After you've had a chance to study Christian's work, I'd like to hear your opinion. As I mentioned above, my theory assumes 'local realism' so I am biased in believing that Christian is correct in his analysis, although I can't prove it. It makes sense to me. Obviously he will have to fight a lot of vested interests, not to mention all of those who were educated after the entanglement "phenomena" became part of the curriculum.

        Been havin' more fun since Christian, Joy showed up.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #55

        I posted this comment on Jason Mark Wolfe's blog site in response to Edwin Eugene Klingman's questions about my research:

        Hi Ed,

        You asked:

        "By the way, as I understand it "Beginning with O(alpha^2) one finds in the guts of the radiative corrections contributions from all species of charged particles in the physical world." [Abraham Pais, "Inward Bound"], where alpha is the fine structure constant.

        Have you given any thought to the implications of this with all of the new particles you propose?"

        My response:

        You might want to read my latest paper in PSTJ 1,9: "The Interrelationship of Spin and Scales". I've known about radiative corrections for decades, and had applications in my book. Radiative corrections might imply Variable Coupling Theory (in my book), or might imply errors in our model (PSTJ 1,9).

        I fully expect these new particles to either 1) be tachyons (How do you observe something faster than the speed of light? Would that be confused with electronic feedback?) or 2) to be much more massive than our known particles (at one of these heirarchal scales that are stable against radiative corrections because of their dependance on the Weak force or the Gravitational force). R parity is expected to cause a stable Weak-scale heirarchy for SUSY particles.

        But this is Jason's blog. We should probably discuss my ideas on my blog site.

        Have Fun!

        Dr. Cosmic Ray

          Ray,

          I read "The Interrelationship of Spin and Scales" but had forgotten most of your fine structure constants treatment. You quote the 2008 value of the FSC. But I'm still unsure what you are saying. Are you saying that the current value is actually based upon all of your particles, because they exist and therefore must be represented in the FSC?

          But I seem to remember that Kinoshita(?) has evaluated 12,000 Feynman diagrams in his latest calculation of alpha. Surely these are based only on the known particles. So how can such accuracy be claimed if the actual number of particles may be double or more the known particles?

          Are you saying that tachyon's won't contribute? I suppose I can see that very heavy particles might have a minimal effect, but I still find it hard to believe that the value alpha=7.297 353 5376(50) x 10^-3 has that much room for twice as many particles.

          Where am I going wrong?

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Ray,

          I never responded to an earlier comment about 'monopoles in a magnetic analog of ice'.

          I quote several of the statements in this article:

          .

          "suggested that defects in the spin alignment of certain oxide magnets can create separated effective magnetic monopoles"

          "the low-energy excitations in spin ices are reminiscent of Dirac's elementary magnetic monopoles"

          "The monopoles in spin ice act like magnetic charges: They obey analogous electric field laws and exhibit an effective Coulomb's law for their interaction strength."

          "Such quantum magnets could provide condensed matter physicists with systems that mimic the physics of quantum electrodynamics."

          .

          So, "suggested", "effective", "reminiscent of", "act like", "obey analogous", "mimic" seem to be key words.

          Of course I recognize the great power of analogy in physics, especially for pointing out which approaches will likely be most promising. I even love analogy for it's own sake. For example, a missing negative ion in a lattice can be treated as a positive center about which an electron can be trapped and form an 'atom' whose energy levels can be computed and these 'atomic' energy levels shifted by interaction with lattice phonons [my Master's thesis].

          Nevertheless, such analogy, as interesting as it may be, is *not* a magnetic monopole, or indicative that such exist.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

            • [deleted]

            • Post #58

            Hi Ed,

            The answer to your questions probably depends on your model. If you follow Eddington's model, then you would probably expect 137 particles at most. El Naschie's models imply a limit to the number of observable low-energy particles (133 if I recall correctly). Perhaps the number of particles depends on the complexergy of the respective scale, and the quantum scale depends on alpha.

            Quite frankly, I am still building my model. I omitted specific details about fundamental particles from this essay for two reasons - 1) it would have made the essay too complicated (as was my 2009 FQXi essay), and 2) I'm still working on these ideas.

            Have Fun!

            Dr. Cosmic Ray

            • [deleted]

            • Post #59

            Hi Ed,

            These ice monopoles are Solid State Physics quasiparicles - an analogy to Dirac's Magnetic Monopole as you correctly observe. Perhaps the magnetic monopole cannot exist in our scale, or perhaps these magnetic monopole degrees of freedom are absorbed into another phenomena.

            I like the Coldea et al paper because it reinforces the possible importance of E8 and tetrahedral symmetries.

            Have Fun!

            Dr. Cosmic Ray

            • [deleted]

            • Post #60

            Hi Ed,

            I would like to add more to this comment thread...

            In the Coldea paper, the ratio of the second lightest quasiparticle to the lightest approaches the Golden Ratio with stronger magnetic fields. They attribute this result to a (presumed) underlying E8 symmetry. My point is that the Golden Ratio occurs in all groups with a 5-fold "pentality" symmetry (see my Appendix Figure), and could thus occur in icosahedral (the buckyball is a truncated icosahedron), SU(11)~SO(16)~H4, E8, E8xE8*~SO(32), etc. symmetries. One of my complaints against Lisi's E8 is that he overlooked the natural 5-fold symmetry (240 roots = 8x(2x3x5)) within E8. I think that this 5-fold "pentality" symmetry introduces tachyons and the origin of Fermionic masses (the Higgs is related to W and Z Bosonic masses).

            Also, the Coldea "quasi-magnetic-monopole" is modeled as a string of tetrahedra. This yields String Theory-like effects. And the tetrahedron is the underlying symmetry of a Face-Centered-Cubic close-packing lattice (Figure 1 of my essay).

            We also discussed radiative corrections. In my "The Interrelationship of Spin and Scales" article, I also predicted V_ud (the Cabibbo angle component of the CKM matrix) within 1.4 sigma of the currently accepted experimental value WITHOUT APPLYING ANY RADIATIVE CORRECTIONS! It would be interesting to see if future experiments and radiative corrections bring their value closer to or farther from my value. Perhaps the proper model doesn't need radiative corrections (or perhaps those radiative corrections converge faster say ~Order(alpha^4) rather than ~Order(alpha^2) in the proper model).

            Have Fun!

            Dr. Cosmic Ray

            Thanks Ray,

            Since I expect only 4 particles (neutrino, electron, up and down quarks) and 4 bosons (photon, Z, W, and W-) then we should have a lot of fun seeing what shows up at LHC.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            • [deleted]

            • Post #62

            Ray,

            I have no objections to "quasi-magnetic-monopoles" or "quasi-anything" since I interpret these as meaning 'somehow analogous to...'. We live in an incredibly rich world, and multiple scales, as you rightly discern, probably account for much of this.

            If you were proposing your symmetries as a means of predicting possible solid-state or Bose-Einstein condensate or other many-body complex systems, then I would probably buy the model lock, stock, and barrel. But because I already have a model for particle production that spans all know particles, and seems to apply to anomalies like the muonic-hydrogen proton QED anomaly, and since I see no way to produce other particles from my theory, I'm sticking with it.

            As I said, the use of symmetries to produce 'quasi-anything' in complex systems is fine with me. But I don't view the fundamental particles as a complex system. It's actually pretty simple.

            As for radiative corrections, I have by now scattered comments all over these threads to the effect that the 1998 realization that QED was off by 120 orders of magnitude has been greeted with all of the perspicacity of an ostrich, burying his head in the sand. So it does not surprise me that you don't need radiative corrections to get close to your goal.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            • [deleted]

            • Post #63

            Hi Ed,

            Four fermions and four bosons? Check out Section 7.2 of my book. I think that even a simple tetrahedral symmetry yields more than four fermions and four bosons...

            Please explain "the 1998 realization that QED was off by 120 orders of magnitude has been greeted with all of the perspicacity of an ostrich". I know that the original "string theory" was created to explain the color force, and later mutated to gravity when people realized that it was off by 40 orders of magnitude. But I hope that you aren't confusing "Dark Energy" with a defect in QED. If the two are related, then Section 6.2 of my book can explain this phenomenon in terms of Variable Coupling Theory. Are our theories explaining some of the same phenomena with different approaches?

            Have Fun!

            Dr. Cosmic Ray