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

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,

I should have said that "the vacuum energy computed by QED was off by 120 orders of magnitude." And since vacuum energy is the source of virtual particles that play into all Feynman diagrams, one might expect that fifty years of QED calculations might be revisited. It hasn't happened. Neither has it happened that the 'sea of strange quarks' that QCD expected in the proton have shown up. Neither has the Higgs. And the vaunted QED accuracy of a dozen or more places has been reduced to one-place accuracy in the simplest possible atom, muonic-hydrogen. And the negative core of the neutron is calcualted as positive in all QCD calculations. And it goes on and on, but these real anomalies are ignored so we can focus on what is outside of our universe or inside of black holes, which are safe places to theorize, since no one will be experimentally falsified.

I will try to look at Section 6.2 of your book to understand Variable Coupling Theory.

If you've had a chance to re-read my essay, come over to my thread and comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

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

Dear Ray,

I agree with you that our Observable Universe seems to be finite both in spatial and temporal dimensions. My Hole Theory also is based on Finite Universe. The difference is only that you say: We are limited from seeing beyond the Observable Universe by the Relativistic speed-of-light Scale limit. And my theory says that "We are limited from seeing beyond the Observable Universe by the Edge of the Universe. Perhaps, both propositions have the same sense.

Best Regards

Constantin

Dear Constantin,

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. I consider the speed-of-light to be our upper Scale-limit. As a result, our Observable Universe is finite because a finite age (13.7 billion years) times a finite speed limit (c) is a finite number.

Your quantum holes are probably lattice defects in the Dirac Sea (in the context of Solid State Physics, a "hole" is a quasi-particle lattice defect in a crystal), and therefore, a direct extension of my essay's lattice-based ideas.

Good luck in the essay contest!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

I also posted this comment on Edwin Eugene Klingman's blog site:

Dear Ed,

Your Master Equation seems to generate the correct types of fields, but I am concerned that these limited fields (G,C,E,M) in 4 dimensions do not contain enough degrees of freedom to account for all known generations of "fundamental particles" - at least an SO(10) of fermions and an SU(5) of bosons. You begin with continuous fields only, and try to insert quantized "fundamental particles", but you omitted talking about Second Quantization, and this is the most accepted method for obtaining quantized particles from continuous fields. I also didn't discuss Second Quantization in my essay, because I proposed that fields and particles are both necessary complementary inverse scales.

Tajmar's explaination of a mass increase in Niobium Cooper-pairs is interesting. Superconductivity has also been implied to be the bridge between electromagnetism and gravitation by Chiao's and Podkletnov's research teams. You mention a kappa ~ 10^31, but Chiao says that a gravitational wave should have an effect of 42 orders in magnitude. I agree with Chiao because this is of order Dirac's Large Number ~ 10^41, which is one of my scale numbers (please see Equation 15 of my book for the relationship between electromagnetic and gravitational couplings). Now we can explain the Cosmological constant of Lambda ~ 10^(-123) ~ (10^41)^(-3) by the fact that we have three spatial dimensions (you said "If scale invariant is motion invariant, time has no obvious meaning"). I think that your inverse square-roots (~10^61) and inverse fourth-roots (~10^31) of Lambda should be replaced by inverse cube-roots (~10^41 - Dirac's Large Number) or by new modeling.

By the way, this variance in Niobium Cooper-pairs is fairly small. A change in the application of Statistical Mechanics may make-up this difference. Please contrast my Prespacetime Journal volume 1 issue 9 paper with Chapter 4 of my book.

You said that the "curvature of space is limited". I agree. At some energy level, we will promote matter-anti-matter pairs out of the Dirac Sea, and this may have a lattice-like "pinching off of Spacetime" effect. I propose that the core of a static black hole may be surrounded by a Buckyball (a nearly spherical lattice that has lattice bonds to resist it from being deflated by the gravitational near-singularity) consisting of the very fabric of Spacetime. The curvature of the Buckyball initiates Spacetime curvature. There is a smooth homotopy between a pair of nested Buckyballs and a lattice-like torus (donut), and this application may be appropriate for rotating Black Holes. In fact, normal Carbon fullerenes (such as the Buckyball) may have superconductor characteristics. Is the Black Hole core a Superconductor? If so, then a rotating superconducting GEM torus would produce a powerful dynamo. That would tie your ideas, my ideas, and Tajmar's, Chiao's and Podkletnov's ideas together...

I still disagree about 4 fundamental particles, but your field approach is interesting...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Ray,

Maybe this is just a bad luck. I chose some essays at random. You know, there is probably more than 100. The first one was quite easy to get (with some help from the Internet). The next impossible. Yours is the fourth and it is also too hard to understand and evaluate. Too much equations and professional jargon. For example:

"In covariant notation, the Dirac Equation [4] is:

-ih ¶my + y = 0" (I is not pasted correctly!)

I am not a professional physicist. I am only Scientific American reader. According to FXQi: the essays shall be accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature.

Anyway I wish you good luck!

Walter John

Dear Walter,

I understand that we have an interesting mixture of backgrounds here - some professional scientists, some "former scientists" (if such a thing actually exists - I can't get science out of my head even though I left the field as a full-time professional 12 years ago), and a lot of science enthusiasts.

This paper was less mathematical than my last FQXi essay, and less mathematical than most of my publications. I appealed to Dirac's Equation as a basis for my modeling, but spared the audience the full mathematical details. Many of the numbers were inserted to show the properties of powers of the Golden Ratio and Lucas numbers.

I have been blogging on FQXi for nearly three years, and we have built-up many friendships on this blog site. A couple of my FQXi friends, Thomas H. Ray @ topic #871 and Georgina Parry @ topic #860 wrote non-mathematical essays (Tom is well-versed in mathematics, but Georgina seems to have an aversion to mathematics). Some of my FQXi friends were at least as mathematical as I was (such as Jason Wolfe @ topic #828 and the Edwin Eugene Klingman essay that you have read). Lawrence Crowell's essay @ topic #810 (and similarly, vixra's Philip Gibbs @ topic #798) is very mathematical, very deep from a philosophical perspective, and very relevant to the primary essay question, but it is the kind of paper that needs to be read several times over (even by professionals) before it can be fully appreciated.

Good Luck in your reading!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

p.s. - If anyone has specific questions about my essay, please ask, and I will try to answer them. As a former teacher, I may have alternate analogies to these concepts.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Ray,

I try to understand what you wrote, correct me if I am wrong. You say that there is more then one scale. At least four scales in an hierarchical order. Some scales are smaller then the quantum scale (Dirac Sea scale?) and other scales are bigger then the classical scale (Multiverse scale). SUSY unites classical and quantum scales.

Next to the Classical scale we have the Quantum Scale. I think that we can divide Quantum Scale into two different dual descriptions: First a Probability Wave description which has a continuous character. Second a Physical Objects description. This Physical Objects description has both a discrete and a continuous character: Particles have discrete character and spacetime (= relativity) has a continuous character.

Do you think that the difference between the Probability Wave description (= continuous) and the description of particles (= discrete) is only a mathematical problem?

Friendly regards

Peter