Dear Rafael,
On your essay's blog thread, you said:
BEGINNING OF QUOTE
Ray, I am interested in your lattices because I realized that the various points of a lattice may be indicative of the kinds of particles stabilized (quantized) in various regions of the "outer layer or secondary kinematic field" generated around a "black hole singularity".
In the above, the "outer layer or secondary kinematic field" is quite similar to what EE Klingman refers to as the "secondary C-field". I use "black hole singularity" to refer to the super-massive toroidal kinematic core-configuration that is analogous to a quantum particle but in the very large (super-massive, super-dense) scale.
Also, the points in your lattices may be indicative of the prevalence-distribution of the various elements in galaxies - if applied to the structure of the galaxies.
But these are rather of a long-shot idea...
-
Ray, regarding the scales threshold - I agree, the scales threshold is related to the speed of light (I have also mentioned this elsewhere and in my other postings above).
The luminal velocity is a property of the seed-mass or rest-mass in the relativistic mass-energy genesis formula. The seed-mass in the genesis formula is expressed in terms of c2/c2, which to me means that the luminal motion is rotated and folded in the form of the seed-mass.
The seed-mass or rest-mass of the quantum particle indicates the particle's stabilized mass unit and the mass-coefficient for c2/c2 and for the v2/c2 in the relativistic mass-energy genesis formula.
The applied 3D acceleration (the v2/c2) is the increase over the threshold. I've used the gravitational g for the 3D acceleration - the G(mo/r2).
The seed-mass is the catalyst for the mass creation.
The seed-mass absorbs the kinetic (motion) increase supplied by the 3D acceleration and, as I envision it, the kinetic increase is wrapped into the toroidal configuration of the seed-mass. This is of course beyond the consideration for merely the increase in linear momentum.
The absorbed kinetic energy is then emitted partly as radiant energy and partly as a particle or particles, with the seed-mass re-established to its original kinematic configuration.
If the seed-mass is not re-established to its original kinematic configuration, the seed-mass with its kinetic increase may get broken up into new particles with some excess energy emitted.
(The way I understand it, this is pretty much the generalized picture of the particle production in particle physics and of the quantum energy radiation in quantum theory. In the particle accelerators the particles are accelerated and collided to their 'targets' whereupon the particles with the increased energies get broken up into resultant particles with accompanying energy radiations.)
It appears that the natural gauging process for the particle production and quantum energy emission is an oscillating process that stabilizes the quantum particles - although of course the natural gauging process may also produce unstable particles. In comparison, the artificial gauging process in particle accelerators generally produce unstable particles. Apparently, the gauge theories may be applicable in both.
The gravitational acceleration appears to be the firm candidate as the prime factor in the natural gauging process because the gravitational tensor's component vectors are of the "low-high" velocities of the elliptical orbits of the revolutions of the cosmic gravitational masses, and the low-high velocities indicate oscillation in the infinite hierarchical cosmos.
In my idea of the origin of gravity, I have proponed that the relative vectors of the revolutions of the gravitational masses in the hierarchical cosmos provide (are) the vector components for both the large-scale (analog) and the quantum-scale (discrete) gravitational fields. This of course suggests a TOE. I've explained these in my website and a bit in my other postings above.
-
My 'origin of gravity' idea is different from E Verlinde's proponed origin of gravity in that I do not consider gravity and space as emergent according to the thermodynamics law and also in that I do not find any necessity for the hyped holographic principle.
In E Verlinde's work, the holographic principle poses the idea that the tensors-characterized cosmic process is a 3D hologram projection of the information from the 2D flat-projection (the linearized formulations) of the actually tensors-characterized cosmic process.
The holographic principle is obviously only a round-about way of expression and is quite wrong because we already know that we have the 3D cosmic process. We've simply expressed the 3D cosmic process in linearized formulations for ease. So, the holographic principle is only a complexified repeat of the "flat-landers story" - the same animal...
Apparently, E Verlinde's entropic origin of gravity is only another form of the big bang idea. It is quite like what can be considered via EE Klingman's idea of the C-field that radially expands from a big-bang 'centered-everywhere' scenario in which the G-field may be viewed as an 'emergent' background of the expansion.
Obviously, both E Verlinde's idea and EE Klingman's idea allow the idea of an inflationary and attenuating entropic cosmos. But the idea of an inflationary and attenuating entropic cosmos does not sit well with the idea that gravity is a condensive and a quantum-stabilizing cosmic process.
One cannot therefore find a convincing idea regarding the origin or source of the infinite number of vector components for the gravitational tensor in both the works of E Verlinde and EE Klingman.
In my idea of the origin of gravity I propone that the revolutions of the gravitational masses in the hierarchical cosmos provide (are) the vector components for both the large-scale (analog) and the quantum-scale (discrete) gravitational fields. This, however, requires that an infinitely hierarchical cosmos always existed...
END OF QUOTE
My answer is:
To touch on a few points:
My concept of gravity and mass is that these originate at other scales (gravity is super-cosmic and mass is sub-quantum) and are transferred to our scale via some process such as holography. In the process, masses that may be quantized in another scale are "scrambled" such that the masses of fundamental particles seem to be random. Similarly, gravitational "charges" in another scale are better-represented by spacetime "curvature" at our scale.
Your "seed mass" idea may be an appropriate way to represent the mass of a proton because the the component up and down quarks are relatively light-weight and the component transient gluons are (assumed) massless, so the rest mass of the proton is primarily due to the sum of average potential and kinetic energies of these component quarks and gluons.
But to represent an electron rest mass as a "seed mass" requires a preon-like model whereby the electron is composed of "smaller" fundamental particles. Perhaps this preon scale is the sub-quantum scale, and a complete TOE might need to address *ALL* scales. At this stage in the game, I would prefer not to make the model this "complicated".
IMHO, the TOE (if it exists) is a set of symmetries, and these lattices are a legitimate way to represent some of the properties of these symmetries. One example is Garrett Lisi's "E8 triality" symmetry. As I understand Lisi's model, this "triality" is due to an underlying C_3 3-fold rotational symmetry in the 8-D Gossett lattice that Lisi uses to try to explain the origin of three generations of matter. Certainly a 3-fold rotational symmetry *DOES* exist within the Gosset lattice, but other symmetries exist as well. What if the Tevatron and/or LHC discovers a fourth generation of matter? Then we might ascribe the C_3 3-fold Gosset lattice symmetry to color, and we would have to look for another symmetry to explain the number of generations...
Regarding Erik Verlinde's ideas, holography would allow "charges" in 5 AdS spacetime dimensions to reduce down to "curvature" in 4 CFT spacetime dimensions. This is the AdS/CFT correspondence. The idea of gravity being generated in an unseen fifth dimension goes back to Theodor Kaluza ninety years ago, and holography is a known experimental method to reduce 3 dimensional visual information down to a two dimensional piece of film.
I don't think that gravity is "random" ("scrambled" some maybe, but not random), and I therefore dislike the comparison of gravity with entropy and thermodynamics. There is stuff that we don't fully understand at the level of time, space, entropy and mass. Should we scramble everything together into one nice big omelet, or do we need to need to understand the individual components?
Regarding Edwin Klingman's ideas, a "rotational" or "magnetic" component of gravity is another one of those ideas that has been around for a while, and makes sense when we compare a Poisson-like Gravitational field equation with Gauss' law for Electric fields. Although these initial steps of his ideas are correct, Edwin's claims sound exagerated when he starts talking about new ways of representing the Strong force, "trialities" of generations, the cosmological constant and "consciousness". As a Particle Physicist myself, I really don't see how you can build everything out of 4 fundamental types of particles (or even symmetries!). I'm not an opponent, but I am still skeptical...
You worry about the idea of an ever-expanding Universe, but if the Cosmological Constant is "leakage" from another scale, then this result should be expected.
Regarding a Cosmic scale, I haven't done much work on that scale of thinking, but Len Malinowski has at www.scalativity.com.
Towards the end, you said "In my idea of the origin of gravity I propone that the revolutions of the gravitational masses in the hierarchical cosmos provide (are) the vector components for both the large-scale (analog) and the quantum-scale (discrete) gravitational fields. This, however, requires that an infinitely hierarchical cosmos always existed..."
There is a thread at:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/962
that Xiang He started at:
Apr. 8, 2011 @ 05:50 GMT
where Xiang, others, and I discuss the observational consequences of a rotating Universe.
An infinite Big Bang created an infinite Multiverse an infinite period of time ago, and our Observable Universe is a self-similar finite fractal fragment of the Multiverse with a finite age.
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
