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

Hi Steve,

I was at the beach for the last couple of days. It was relaxing to get away. What if the "sphere" is a Buckyball that surrounds the Black Hole "near singularity", and "spinning" tetrahedra (Vladimir Tamari's basic idea - perhaps of red-green-blue-white "color"?) are situated at each of the 60 vertices (of the Carbon-60 Buckyball). This would yield 240 degrees-of-freedom similar to Garrett Lisi's E8 roots, but we would only have 3 dimensions at each of two different scales (the 3-D buckyball scale, and the 3-D tetrahedra scale). I've always liked Buckyballs, and one of the discoverers of Carbon-60, Sir Harry Kroto, lives im my neighborhood.

In case of a rotating Black Hole, the Buckyball symmetry may not be stable enough, and two nested Buckyballs may transform into their homotopic cousin, a lattice-like near-torus (similar to a lattice-like Tokamak) with spinning tetrahedra at each of 120 vertices. This would yield the 480 degrees-of-freedom of a Supersymmetric model similar to Lisi's.

I need to reread Vladimir's essay, and think more on these ideas.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi Ray,

Your application of Lucas Numbers is verry interesting. Also what you say about the different dimensions that it is possible to see them as different scaled dimensions.

In my model I treat dimensions like time and length in the same way as the dimensions of mass, momentum and energy. But I don't have any justification for that. Maybe only because I say that the speed of light and the gravitational constant are the same kind of constant. Both expressing relativistic properties. But there are some nagging things with this view.

For example. we can have different velocities below the limit of the speed of light, but are there also different gravicities below (or above) the gravitational constant? (gravicity is the variable quantity of which the gravitational constant is the limit.)

And the problem with the planck values: 'wooden' quantities like Mass, momentum and energy have upperlimits and 'marble' quantities like time, length and gm-flux have lower limits. Why? what is the meaning of this?

Mostly the planck constant is the product of a marble quantity together with a wooden quantity. (but in my model it is also possible to have purely marble or purely woorden 'planck constants', but that is only theoretical.)

Friendly regards

Peter

you make me more crazzy than I am .At the beach, if I could, I will rest me and hop a little of surf.hihih you know I have always dreamed to learn the surf.But in belgium of course you shall understand it is difficult.

Ray do you know how I must do for having a kind of bourse at harvard, I d like learn the computing and enginiering.I have more than 200 inventions you know, and I don't speak of ideas, in all humility.My lacks of knowledges is in the computer language and the programmation for computing.I need to learn more about semiconductors.and linux and this and that ....and more about programmation.I have always dreamed to be in an university in fact in USA. I need to learn more Ray, there I need to learn still and always more.I am frustrated to rest at home.I become really crazzy.

ps Vladimir essay is relevant indeed if we consider the first division, this ultim mitosis meiosis of the main central sphere, the biggest volume in logic.The polyhedrization and the spherization are so the same.

Regards

Steve

Dear Peter,

I am still formulating some of these ideas. From the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, position and momentum seem to be reciprocally scaled dynamic variables. The same might also be true of time-energy, and many of your other dynamic units.

You asked "And the problem with the planck values: 'wooden' quantities like Mass, momentum and energy have upperlimits and 'marble' quantities like time, length and gm-flux have lower limits. Why? what is the meaning of this?"

I think that the upper limits imply at least one scale beyond (larger than) our perception, and the lower limits imply at least one scale within (smaller than) our perception. These scales may all have different complexergies (complexity-energy), and different upper speeds (c), and lower energy-times (Planck's scale). I think that G is the same value for every scale that admits its existance, but the Multiverse scale has numbers of even greater complexergy than 10^41, and thus admits an even weaker fundamental force - perhaps related to quantum gravity (or similar to the WIMP-Gravity in my book).

You also said "Mostly the planck constant is the product of a marble quantity together with a wooden quantity. (but in my model it is also possible to have purely marble or purely woorden 'planck constants', but that is only theoretical.)"

Equations 2 and 3 of my essay imply that "the planck constant is the product of a marble quantity together with a wooden quantity". Effectively, this is because they are reciprocally scaled dynamic variables. If "it is also possible to have purely marble or purely wooden 'planck constants'", then that would have very interesting implications for this scale approach to unification.

Have Fun and Good Luck in the essay contest!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

no dear Peter and Dr Cosmic Ray the extradimensions do not exist...only a differernt relativistic scale in 3D exitss...the rest is vain and even not similarities.You don't understand thus the gravity and the realivity.And thus the evolution and its entropy and its UNIQUENESS is not understood....

Best Regards

Steve

Ray,

I just read Paul N Butler's essay at http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/849. This may be good reading for you, too.

Rafael

Dear Ray Munroe,

You have written an essay which is not only good but also focuses attention on unifying reality from many angles.However,I was disappointed in the end to know that,according to you,reality is dual and currently there is no way of reconciling digital with its counterpart analog.But,I have other thoughts as well according to which it is possible to reconcile both from a still fundamental concept.So,please,go thro' my essay and your openion is welcomed.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath B N.

The "Fly-by" mysteries:

There exist half a dozen or more instances, first noted in 1931 and as recent as 2010, where neither Newton's gravity nor Einstein's general relativity account for the observed accelerations, from NASA satellites, to planets, to stars, to galaxies. These are collectively known as the 'Fly-by' mysteries, and are addressed in my essay.

Dear Ray,

I am finding it difficult to read all 170 or so essays and the thousand or more comments, so it took me a while to become aware of your 'drive by shooting' on Rafael's thread in which you state the following:

"And if you use the electron rest mass of 9.11x10^(-31) kg as your "dipstick", then your energy increase is 4x10^(-51), which is a reasonable coupling factor (~10^-10 because Earth's gravitational field is relatively weak) times the inverse of Dirac's Large Number of 10^-41, and is in no way related to the inverse of Klingman's large number of 10^-61 (which would require an unreasonably large non-linear coupling factor of 10^10 in Earth's weak gravitational field).

Sorry, Ed - I like you, but I think you missed the mark with 10^61. Rather than (10^61)^(-2) ~ 10^(-123), it should be (10^41)^(-3) ~ 10^(-123). I think that this correction eliminates some of your declared agreement with experimental data, but it does not destroy your fundamental GEM-like idea."

Well Ray, I like you too, and you're right, it doesn't destroy my GEM idea, but it is significant. Over four years ago I worked out the FLRW equations of Einstein's relativity including the energy density of the C-field and showed that the C-field appears exactly in the same place and manner as Einstein's cosmological constant. Since I had already shown that the C-field produces the "dark energy-like" inflationary effects and that it would produce the correct behavior for half dozen mysteries currently summarized under the rubric 'fly-by' mysteries, ranging from Pioneer data to planetary orbits to the 'flat rotation curves' of stars and galaxies. I published these explanations in "The Gene Man Theory" and derived the FLRW equation in "Gene Man's World" and filed the relevant copies with the Copyright office to be sure that my explanation (the first, other than MOND) was recorded and dated.

But I did not have the actual numbers until about one week before I submitted my essay, when on Nov 19 Grumiller published his results in Phys Rev Letters. Although I had essentially finished my essay, I rewrote it in order to be able to include half a page on this important data (page 8 in my essay.)

This is some of the most important supporting data for my theory, so I cannot let you trash it without response.

Ray, Maxwell taught us that the energy of a field is proportional to the square of the field amplitude. So when I am given a value for the energy of the field, I compute the amplitude by taking the square root, NOT the CUBE ROOT. This then gives me the value that is used for the accelerations, and I find EXACTLY the correct value and range of values, based on my GEM equations. That is significant. You complain that this is a large value for the earth's gravity, and my whole point, based on Tajmar's data and my calculations is that the C-field is much stronger than Maxwell and Einstein believed based on simple symmetry considerations. That's an argument for me, not against me.

Now because you have some numerological ideas, based on Dirac's large numbers (which I'm sure was simply speculation, since I don't believe Dirac actually practiced numerology) you claim that I should be taking the cube root to obtain the number you want instead of the actual number that I do get that is physically well reasoned and matches ALL of the 'fly-by' data. You are simply mistaken, and have no physics on your side, only numerology.

The next time you feel compelled to attack one of my major results that agrees with reality, please do so on my thread so I can respond appropriately.

Your friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Sreenath B N,

Thank you for your comments.

You said "However,I was disappointed in the end to know that,according to you,reality is dual and currently there is no way of reconciling digital with its counterpart analog."

I did not intend to sound indecisive (in fact, I worried that my last sentence is so blunt that it may sound obnoxious). There were many essays that left the question open - as if we cannot currently determine the true nature of reality. I think that reality is clearly BOTH digital and analog. Ultimately, this goes back to Louis de Broglie's Wave-Particle Duality. "Analog" is simply a near-infinite (where "near-infinite" is ~10^41) number of "digital" samplings - the same idea as a CD disc and player but taken to a scale extreme - way beyond Blu-Ray's blue laser sampling vs. standard CD or DVD red laser sampling...).

I would like to believe that my ideas are "Universalist" ideas in that digital (discrete quantum particles and charges) and analog (continuously differentiable field functions) are complementary concepts that each have their proper scaled place in a TOE.

I have limited time in which to read these essays, but have enjoyed reading them, and even gotten some fresh ideas from these essays. Hopefully, I can get to your essay by next week.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Previously, I said ""Analog" is simply a near-infinite (where "near-infinite" is ~10^41) number of "digital" samplings". This statement might imply that reality is fundamentally digital, and can always be "digitized", so I thought that I should clarify a point. When we have a very large number (~10^41?) of overlapping wave functions, we may have intereference and non-linear effects that cause this analog function to be inherantly different from the "digitized" version of the analog function. Thus reality is BOTH analog and digital, and cannot be reduced to one or the other.

Hi Ed,

I think that three degrees of freedom gives us a factor of three, not the power of three that coincidentally distinguishes the inverse Cosmolgical Constant from Dirac's Large Number.

In my essay, I said that fine-tuning on the order of ~10^41 (or its inverse) is not mathematically probable or philosophically reasonable. I deduce that 10^41 must, therefore, be a number that is mandated by our scale.

What about 10^123 (and its inverse)? Is it the ultimate scale number for our scale, and 10^41 is its cube root? Or is 10^-123 "leakage" from a scale of greater complexergy than ours? [By the way, I did enjoy your reference to Nottale's scales.] If this number was different, say 10^-100, then I would be more willing to accept it as leakage from another scale.

If it has a bill, webbed feet, and quacks, then it might be a duck. The similarity between 10^-123 vs. (10^41)^-3 is too striking to ignore.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray,

I must admit that I don't understand the relevance of what might be entirely accidental numerical relations.

For example, in attempting to calculate the strength of the C-field, I found it 10^31 stronger than Maxwell assumed (he did so for no good reason, just simple symmetry) and recently Tajmar has measured the C-field and found the same factor of 10^31 greater than expected.

Now these numbers are not "exact" but they are very close being the EXACT FOURTH ROOT of 10^123 , that is, (10^31)^4 = 10^124 [close enough for government work].

Is that too striking to ignore?

So it may or may not be legitimate to play the numbers game where there is not real physics to back it up, only theories of scale.

By the way, I owe the use of Nottale in my essay to you. Thanks.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Sreenath,

Your paper is an interesting approach towards quantum gravity. Personally, I think that quantum gravity is more complex than your model, but this is a good start. I see some overlapping commonalities in our ideas.

You said "Now if the acceleration (or gravity) varies,let us say exponentially as in the case of EM field (bremsstrahlung) as well as in the QG field, test-masses of classical size still describe continuous path although in QG field they describe logarithmic (or equiangular) spiral path on a plane or conical spiral path in three dimensions as they are subjected to 'Torsion'."

I think that the Golden Ratio helps explain the problem of infinity by introducing self-similar scales. One special logarithmic spiral is the Golden Spiral based on the Golden ratio.

You also proposed Č/C ≈ 10-21, where Č is a lower speed for our scale. This sounds like my expectations for scales - where a finite observable Universe requires all numbers to be truncated at the high and low ends of the spectrum. And your 10^-21 is the inverse-square-root of Dirac's Large Number 10^41.

I think that the Black Hole (near) "singularity" is truncated by a discrete lattice of spacetime itself (call it quantum gravity?). The most likely geometry for the core of a static Black Hole is a Carbon-60 Buckyball. A rotating Black Hole would produce enough torsion that a pair of nested Buckyballs may morph into their homotopic cousin, a lattice-like near-torus. This lattice-like behavior would only exist in the region of quantum gravity, and must (somehow?) transition to the continuous expectations of General Relativity as we move radially outward from the (near) "singularity".

Good Luck in the Essay Contest!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

HA! We might both be playing a little bit of numerology - perhaps time will tell if either of us guessed even closely...

Hi to both of you,to all,

It seems to me that it's essential to differenciate the scales always in 3d,smaller or bigger with their pure limits and on the other side, the extradimensions without respect of these 3 dimensions and its time constant implied by rotating entangled spheres.In fact the scales are just smaller or bigger,that's all, that's why fortually we have the realitivity.The laws rest the laws in a pure deterministic road at all scales.Fortunally for our proportionalities....

Best Regards

Steve

Dear Ray Munroe,

Thanks for your openion on my article.Since the path described in the QG field is logarithmic (or equiangular)spiral path as it is an exponentially varying accelerated (or gravity) field.So your openion that it is related to Golden ratio is justified.Iam also surprised to learn that the ratio of Č/C Лњ 10-21 is related to Dirac's Large Number 10^41.

In the limited space available in the essay contest,I couldn't,present my complete views on QG field and Black-Holes (BH).So for this,please,go to my web-site which I have mentioned in my essay (http://www.sreenath.webs.com).

Regarding BH,a BH can never be a static object for it is a pure state of vacuum surrounded by densest matter whose mass is related to the radius of BH.That is why matter cannot be crushed to singularity as to be expected from GR,because it is the force of QG which dominates inside the BH and GR just stops when matter attains its gravitational radius.The metric of GR breaksdown and gravitation is takenover by the brute force of QG.The force of QG is 'diabolically' active and never allows the BH to remain static but fluctuate periodically.There is still more to it but for now it is enough.

Since QG force is an exponentially varying accelerated (or gravity) field which implies torsion and when torsion vanishes the field becomes uniformly accelerated field (i.e.,gravitation as described by GR), away from the BH.

Wishing you too good luck in the essay contest .

cheers

Sreenath B N.

Dear Sreenath,

I like your torsion quantum gravity idea. It reminds me of Edwin Eugene Klingman's "C" GEM-like field taken to the extreme example of a Black Hole singularity.

A fullere-like near-torus (the homotopic cousin to a pair of nested buckyballs - I still need to cut up a couple of soccer balls so that I can envision this near-toroidal lattice) of spacetime lattice might behave as the gravitational equivalent of a superconductor and repeal Gravitational fields. After all, Carbon Buckyballs have electrical superconductor properties and can repel Electric fields.

In addition, stars usually have a rotational spin. As they collapse into Black Holes, conservation of Angular Momentum should cause the Black Hole to spin faster as its effective radius decreases.

Perhaps the combination of spin/ torsion, quantum gravity, and/or gravitational-superconductor effects prevent the Black Hole from fully collapsing into the singularity point.

Earlier, I was worrying about the transition from a quantum lattice of spacetime to a continuously differentiable spacetime. The answer could be as simple as qubits of strings (Philip Gibbs and Lawrence Crowell's essays are recommended reading) - where the near-singularity end of the string behaves like a quantum lattice point, and the strings extend outwards (a logarithmic spiral is an effective way to overcome these scale differences) through the Event Horizon, and into our relatively flat realm of spacetime.

I have enjoyed bouncing ideas off of other contestants. Perhaps we can collectively build ideas that may help solve old problems. As an individual, I run out of ideas in my own little world.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray,

I have a new post at my thread. I'd appreciate your comments very much...

I'd like to know how you fit the idea of self-similarity at the level of the galaxies. I'd like to know what components you see at that scale and what you don't see and where they should be located 'physically'.

Rafael

Dear Rafael,

Laurent Nottale predicts at least one scale of greater complexergy than ours. My analysis of fundamental particle spins (including spin-3/2 gravitinos and spin-2 gravitons) leads me to think that there may be at least two sclaes of greater complexergy than ours.

Within our Observable Universe, there is some interesting structure, such as Superclusters. Are Superclusters part of our Classical Scale, or are they part of a larger scale that we can observe (just like the Quantum scale is a smaller scale that we can observe)? I haven't given this possible scale-level as much thought as it probably deserves, but my friend Len Malinowski has. Max Tegmark is working along similar lines.

At the top scale, we have the Multiverse. It is (near?) infinite in space and time, always has existed, always will exist, and each Observable Universe is a fragment of fractal dust within its composition. Perhaps this fits into Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation, but the "many-worlds" have always existed - we don't need new Big Bangs to provide those alternate worlds/ realities/ possibilities.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray