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

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.

Ray, about that monopole---

I have for some time been of the opinion that it may be a good thing that there is no magnetic monopole. If there were, electricity and magnetism would be truly dual and hence, I believe, degenerate. That electric and magnetic fields are dual in source free space is useful-- we get photons. But if there were magnetic monopoles all 'lines of force' would terminate on particles, and there would be, IMHO, no truly distinctive separation of fields. The whole thing would probably collapse. I am being more serious than poetic here. I'm not proposing a theory, and I have no calculations to back up what I'm saying, nevertheless, it's probably valid.

As it is, electric lines of force end on particles and magnetic lines of force are loops. This unique distinction would cease if magnetic field lines terminated on monopoles, and I suspect that the degenerate system would at some point collapse into one state. And it wouldn't look like any state that you're familiar with. So be thankful that there are no monopoles.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Magnetic monopoles are similar of S-duality. S duality exchanges IIB and I strings where the fields on them are dual. A type of magnetic monopole of this form would be a case of S duality. So if there is a U(1) field on a IIB with an electric charge a magnetic monopole on a type I string would be S dual.

Cheers LC

Dear Ray,

Having already read the ice paper a while ago, I would nonetheless like to support Edwin concerning magnetic monopoles. I should feel a bit like David in front of several Goliaths like you.

I share a lot of your arguments, and I admire your elegant representation. However, I am not sure whether "the interrelationship between Scales and SUSY may provide a mathematical umbrella capable of explaining the unnaturalness of "Infinity"" a "unification of Bosons and Fermions". Do we need an explanation for the unnaturalness of a point? Where may I find an explanation of how you understand the notion Scale? Perhaps did you mean a common theory and not a physical merger between Bosons and Fermions.

Maybe, you will agree in that cosine transform switches a discrete function into a continuous one and vice versa. Engineers like me are convinced that in reality there are neither ideal continuous nor ideal discrete signals.

If A and B do not agree it is certainly opportune to have a balanced opinion: all are half correct. However logic also allows an answer in Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's style too: Maybe both A and B are wrong.

If I am correct in my essay then some mathematical generalizations are at least questionable. I invite you to take issue.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

You said "Do we need an explanation for the unnaturalness of a point?"

I think that a point is physically unnatural, but OK as a model. A physical infinity cannot exist within a finite Observable Universe (13.7 billion light years is finite). Thus, I disagree with the idea of a Black Hole "singularity", and expect the Black Hole core to be similar to a Buckyball of Spacetime (the "Spacetime lattice" equivalent of a Carbon-60 Buckyball) as Lawrence Crowell and I presented in a recent article.

You also said " Where may I find an explanation of how you understand the notion Scale?"

I didn't really define scales thoroughly - Laurent Nottale has done that over the last two decades, and he has a book coming out this year (I've read part of it, but - as I recall - it is 600 pages long). Nottale defines scales in terms of complexity and energy content. By Scales, I mean that some numbers are large, some are small, and some are inverses. Consider the differences of conjugate (essentially inverse) scales of position and momentum (or energy and time as Lawrence Crowell developed in his paper).

You also said "Perhaps did you mean a common theory and not a physical merger between Bosons and Fermions."

IMHO, a TOE must include both Bosons and Fermions, and both Spacetime and Hyperspace, but all of these concepts might not fall into the same Lie algebra (unless it is something like SO(32)~E8xE8?) because bosons and fermions need to be inverse/reciprocal/conjugate-like variables with respect to each other.

You also said "Maybe, you will agree in that cosine transform switches a discrete function into a continuous one and vice versa."

Equation 4 in my essay is the general form of a cosine transform (using e^(ix) = cos(x) i sin(x)) in multiple dimensions, and Equation 2 is distantly related (the matrix inversion is related to a Fourier transform) to these transforms.

You also said "Engineers like me are convinced that in reality there are neither ideal continuous nor ideal discrete signals."

I agree. That was the first sentence of my Abstract, and the last sentence of my Conclusion. It all goes back to Wave-Particle Duality.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi, Dr. Ray:

It is my position that reality has both the continuous and the discrete.

The big questions are basically what fundamentals get quantized and how these fundamentals get quantized. I think my essay points to the answers.

Because we obviously have hierarchical discrete/quantized phenomena, it is plausible that overall the cause is also a hierarchical process. Perhaps this is why you have your scales.

You might also consider a full-tensor (3-D) factor in the relativistic mass equation, instead of just the Lorentz half-tensor (2-D) factor -- after all mc2 (final E) is not m0c2 (initial E0).

Castel

Dear Raphael,

Please call me Ray.

You said "It is my position that reality has both the continuous and the discrete."

I whole-heartedly agree! And this conclusion is due to Wave-Particle Duality.

You said "The big questions are basically what fundamentals get quantized and how these fundamentals get quantized. I think my essay points to the answers."

I propose that the sub-quantum (Dirac sea) scale behaves like a close-packing lattice, and the near-lattice and discrete properties of my essay's Table 1 (and Lisi's E8 Gosset lattice TOE) are caused by this close-packing property.

You said "Because we obviously have hierarchical discrete/quantized phenomena, it is plausible that overall the cause is also a hierarchical process. Perhaps this is why you have your scales."

Yes - there is a hierarchy. Why are both the Weak and TOE energy scales stable when radiative corrections should drive the Weak scale up to the TOE scale? This hierarchy implies the importance of SUSY and Scales.

You said "You might also consider a full-tensor (3-D) factor in the relativistic mass equation, instead of just the Lorentz half-tensor (2-D) factor -- after all mc2 (final E) is not m0c2 (initial E0)."

In the absence of fields, we can decompose the general 3-D Lorentz transform into an equivalent 2-D transform with components that are parallel and perpendicular to the motion.

My E=mc^2, etc. equation on page 1 is the same as your E=mc^2, etc. equation at the bottom of page 5 of your essay, but you further break the equation down into the low-energy classical approximation. I didn't because that approximation wasn't necessaary for my argument.

I quickly skimmed your essay, but need to reread it more carefully before I'm in a position to comment on it.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Ray,

Thank you for confirming that we agree in almost all questions. However, I am not sure. How may I interpret your refusal to rebut my main argument? I found overwhelming indications for a suspicion of mine: Ideal symmetries tend to be artifacts. You are quite right the matrix inversion is related to a Fourier transform. The question is, does our possibility to describe nature allow and possibly even require matrices that do not exhibit Hermitian symmetry?

If it is possible, reasonable, and as I am arguing natural to restrict scales to merely positive values by appropriately shifting them, then only half-matrices are required. Please feel challenged to object here. Edward Klingman so far confessed being unable to object. I pointed to consequences.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Ray,

I was actually impressed by your view's bit of focus on the wave-particle duality. Basically, my bit of focus is on the fundamental idea of motion.

The electromagnetic theory describes transverse wave motion. So, to me, light, the phenomena in nature, is of the fundamental essence of motion - and the electric and magnetic are of the same fundamental essence.

My idea regarding particles is that the waves/motions get wrapped or folded into the particulate essence - perhaps in somewhat the same manner as that of the loops of space of Astekhar, Smolin and Rovelli, only that I see loops of motion instead of space.

I have been thinking about the idea of a hierarchical cosmos wherein the cosmic subsystems have alternating periods of densification and attenuation that establish the upper and lower limits for the quantization of the particulate cosmos. My idea is that gravity gathers and densifies the cosmic subsystems, and eventually, with their increased mass-energy, each cosmic subsystem is taken by its own increased orbital momenta towards an orbital apex that initiates a period of attenuation with the cosmic subsystem getting fragmented. This renders a picture of an expanding and spiralling cosmos but with cosmic mass-density accordingly maintained and the particles multiplied.

The above is a difficult picture. But, is this possible in your view?

It would be a beauty if you can describe a picture of how your scales look like - especially if you go 'vectorial' just a little bit in your explanations.

(What I've described above is still a rather simplistic picture. What I really envision is a process that involves relative motions from all directions for each cosmic subsystem in the hierarchical cosmos. This suggests to me the reason for the occurrence of gravity and why the observable phenomena are 'waves' of radiant motion or 'particles' of concentric motion wrapped around their centers. This is somewhat like the cyclical chicken-or-egg reasoning; and I am therefore a bit abashed to present the idea in full.)

Anyway, I just wanted to express my opinion - hoping that I might get some positive ideas from you.

In any case, many thanks to you.

Rafael