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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ray,

You ask: "Are our theories explaining some of the same phenomena with different approaches?"

I certainly hope so!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,

I d like have your point of vue about my posts on APS linkedin,I found that yesterday in fact.You are going to understand,I think it's revolutionary also.

1In fact it's a discussion about E=mc²...

I love as all this equation. I think that this equation must be completed.We have indeed the mass,the E,c² this linearity,spherical. We need to insert the rotations spinals and orbitals.Thus let's insert the speeds of these rotations,which can complete this equation, the aim is to proof that all possesses the maximum quantity of E,in the two senses,quantic and cosmologic, .Thus in logic this constant (c²vsvovn)thus,E=m c² vs vo vn.Considering thus the light with 3 max mainly if we consider only 1 rot spinal and 1 orbital,thus c and its linearity, s the max of speed spinal and o the max of speed orbital. What are these constants s and o and this new constant c² (s² o² )m=E.

PS considering a specific entanglement and a specifc number....we see the volumes and their rotations...if the mass turns in the other main gauge...thus ...

now we can insert also the increase of entropy and mass on the line time, these proportions are very relevant.

Best Regards

Steve

2

The entanglement of photon has 3 maximums ,that's why it has no mass.On the other side, in the other sense, it's the maximum of E,or max of mass(see that the evolution is important as the increase of entropy).Just to a main changement of sense, the o mass and the maximum is explained in this simple logic.

And as light is the same than mass......you shall understand the fusion mass/light in time space evolution.But for that the real number of entangled spheres is essential as their volumes.

Best

Steve

3

I have an other new universal equation which can be linked with this one ,I d like share it with you also dear all, with humility and transparence. If we consider that the ultim entanglement of spheres exists and if this number is finite and the volumes precises.If the quantic number is the same than the cosmological number of spheres.Thus we see the link mass/light......and the increase of density.

Now here is this equation ,considering still the rotations spinals and orbitals....m vs vo vn V=constant thus mass of a sphere, or a systems of entangled spheres that depends of your derivations,velocity of rot spin, and vel of rot orb and others vel of rot around the centers and the center(the biggest volume for this main central sphere) and finally V the volume of this sphere you can simplify with mvV =constant for all physical spheres, quant or cosmologic and their relativistic point of vue.

Best

Steve

4

You know in fact even the equation of Newton can be optimized.Let's take the force between two mass we know the general equation of Newton,now there also we can correlate with the entangled spheers and cosmological spheres, here our planet for example and us a body composed by particles, evolved.We can thus calculate all forces between all spheres.if and only if the correct number is understood.

Considering for example a person on this planet...we know G m1m2/r².....now imagine that the planet is composed by quantum evolved spheres and us also, we see thus an universal relation correlated with the newtonian vue.These spining spheres are fascinatings. we can correlate with the two others equations cited above.

F=ma is interesting also at my humble opinion.....

Regards

Steve

It seems that the photon has its energetic unity with these 3 essentials

max linear spead

max orbital speed

max spinal speed

The photon is analyzed with its pure number, finite linked with volumes of the fractal from the main cnetral sphere.

Regards

Steve

Dear Steve,

Let me read and think about this more before I give a complete response. I agree that within our scale, and to the best of our current experimental data, the photon seems to have the maximum speed and the photon seems to have the maximum spin of a fundamental particle (although that spin is the same as gluons, W's and Z's).

Theoretically, the graviton should have a spin-2 (which would be maximal spin), but we haven't yet observed a graviton within our scale. Likewise, tachyons are mathematically possible within the framework of our theories. Tachyons should travel faster than the speed of light, but we also haven't yet observed them within our scale.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi Ray, thanks it's cool.

It's intriguing and fascinating this maximum E in all things.

About particules which can go faster than light,I think it's in an other logic than with our light perception.In all case if a technology is invented, it's sure that it's the rotations of these spheres the secret.If we take a gauge of perception,and a specific system of rotations, thus...perhaps it's possible to accelerate these stabilities,but the problem is what we can't see them in logic.An extrapolation , topological thus becomes essential, and a center also, here the sphere and its center , cosmological and quantic.

Best Regards

Steve

Dear Steve,

If you insert real masses (tardyons) into Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, you find that it takes an infinite amount of energy for a real mass to asymptotically approach a speed as fast as c - the speed of light.

However, if you insert imaginary masses (tachyons) into Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, you find that they naturally travel faster than the speed of light, and that you must put an infinite amount of energy into them for them to asymptotically approach a speed as slow as c.

Our experimental methods are limited by the speed of light (speed of observation), and the (slower) speed of electrons (speed of electronic response). A tachyon travelling through free space will outpace all of these techniques and appear to be an unidentifyable accident, or electronic feedback. Our best chance of identifying a tachyon is at a supercollider where we can reconstruct all of the event jets and imply the existance of a tachyon.

I think that this question is related to Scales. Perhaps an observation speed greater than c exists at a scale of greater complexergy than ours. This scale limitation might then explain our speed limitation, c. If tachyons and/or greater speeds than c exist, then this might allow us to explain the so-called action-at-a-distance behavior of gravitation in terms of Spacetime curvature and intermediating quantum gravitons - both simultaineously, not just one or the other. It would also be interesting if tachyons are somehow involved in entangled states. Likewise, I expect gravitons (of spin-2 which is greater than the spin-1 photon) to exist at Black Hole cores and/or a scale of greater complexergy.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Ray,

Good to see you in the contest. I have actually read your essay and I am congratulating myself for doing so. It is presented in a clear way, including helpful big diagrams and table, but my non mathematical background, in particular, is as ever a handicap. I wish to congratulate you for making, what is to me something very complex, a little more comprehensible than many of the "conversations" we have had on FQXi blogs, and that you have had with other mathematically competent contributors.

It does not seem foundational to me but I understand that you and others such as Lawrence Crowell do think that these kinds of ideas and mathematics really are promising avenues of investigation, potentially leading to more complete predictive models of the universe. I do not feel qualified to argue with that.

Sometimes it seems that this modeling is a puzzle like "Eternity 2". Some pieces fit easily together but it is never so easy to complete.A board full of linked pieces looks good but so does the empty board that is full with potential.I agree that reality is most probably both digital and analogue and that the wave- particle duality is an important consideration.

I hope you you receive lots of interesting and positive feedback. Good luck and Kind regards, Georgina.

Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,

If we take E=mc².....let's imagine a finite mass and thus let's imagine the last field at the Planck Scale.Thus the fisrt unity of mass and the last field, thus the maximum E.

Now with (c²o²s²)m=E.........We have this constant c²o²s² multiplicates by this smaller unity of mass.

That gives us the real maximum, but we must consider that the entropy increases at all moments due to a polarization mass/light.Thus a parameter of time, constant becomes essential also for a concrete understanding of this universal equation.Now all that can be linked with thermodynamics and mecanics with the rotating spheres.

Regards

Steve

Dear Georgina,

You said "I wish to congratulate you for making, what is to me something very complex, a little more comprehensible than many of the "conversations" we have had on FQXi blogs, and that you have had with other mathematically competent contributors."

Thank you for your comments. I apologize that I have been busy lately and have not read as many essays (including yours) as I would like to read. At least I have another month to read these essays...

These essays gave us an opportunity to explain our ideas better - whether "better" means more diagrams, more references, more analogies, more explainations, or more mathematics than we would ordinarily use on these blog sites.

You also said "It does not seem foundational to me but I understand that you and others such as Lawrence Crowell do think that these kinds of ideas and mathematics really are promising avenues of investigation, potentially leading to more complete predictive models of the universe. I do not feel qualified to argue with that."

The recent results by Coldea et al (attached) have convinced me that a 5-fold "pentality" symmetry, and the related Golden Ratio, are relevant to the origin of mass.

You also said "Sometimes it seems that this modeling is a puzzle like "Eternity 2". Some pieces fit easily together but it is never so easy to complete.A board full of linked pieces looks good but so does the empty board that is full with potential.I agree that reality is most probably both digital and analogue and that the wave- particle duality is an important consideration."

I agree. I kept this essay more basic, and did not include all of my radical ideas, because I am constantly reconsidering those ideas. For example, I think that Fibonacci's sequence is relevant: 1,1,2,3,5,8,... partially because 1*1*2*3*5*8=240 roots of the largest classical exceptional group, E8, and partially because of its relationship with the Golden Ratio and Coldea et al's paper. However, at vixra log:

http://blog.vixra.org/2011/02/12/string-theory-and-partitions-numbers/

Philip Gibbs has presented Ken Ono's ideas about partition numbers: 1,1,2,3,5,7,... which differs from Fibonacci's sequence beginning with the sixth entry (and includes more small prime numbers than Fibonacci). Partition functions occur in Statistical Mechanics and are relevant to concepts such as Information and Entropy which are proportional to N*ln(N). But should partitions be additive, or multiplicative, or a hybrid function of both? To further confuse the picture, I have a 14-fold (G2 or Klein's Chi(7)) symmetry in my TOE models, but I don't think it is a 7-fold symmetry, and I don't think that it exactly supports Ono's ideas.

Questions such as these have caused me to focus more on specific components of a TOE - such as my Quantum Statistcal Grand Unified Theory (new developments in Prespacetime Journal volume 1, issue 9), on the pentality symmetry and Golden Ratio (new developments with Lawrence Crowell in Prespacetime Journal volume 1, issue 7), and on the possible application of Laurent Nottale's Scales.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic RayAttachment #1: Coldea_Golden_Ratio_Mass.pdf