The Three and a Half Layers of Dynamics: Analog, Digital, Semi-Digital, Analog by Tejinder Singh

Dear Dr. Singh,

Ingenuous your vision of a fundamental continuous layer underlying the quantum one, then the classical level, interfaced through the semi-digital layer, in the context of trace dynamics. It seems to capture a deep meaning of the quantum world and its relation with the classical level. The title is very suggestive; it also makes me thinking at the three and a half layers of the dynamical energy.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica, Infinite Resolution

Dear member Tejinder Singh,

You wrote: "... your criticism is most welcome. I plan to read your essay soon and will leave my comments on your page."

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Tijender

My spirits were raised by your exceptional essay. In my view you are absolutely correct in virtually all your assumptions and conclusions (at least all those I think I understood).

I believe the concepts within our essays completely parallel each other, yet yours is a physics paper and mine is in a wholly different, naive but fully falsifiable and predictive, empirical language. I offer a link between the micro and macro space time structures, equivalent to non commuting matrices or discrete manifolds, with time emerging from it's simple dynamics. You may read my essay title as equivalent to the block universe, using a discrete field model (DFM) and well known boundary mechanism. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Duality emerges as the simple symmetry transition to implement any change to the analogue energy of motion, i.e. changing f and Lambda to preserve c and E locally.

You'll see from the thread there are a number of other very consistent essays which build to a fuller picture consistent with yours.

Our failure would prove to have been in ability of dynamic conceptualisation.

I truly hope you are able to read and understand the structure behind the model. I will be as happy with any scientific (rather than belief) based falsification as with confirmation, as I have as yet had none.

I currently have papers in preprint and under consideration further exploring important fundamental consequences. If you have time I will post links.

Very best wishes and thank you humbly in advance for your views on my essay.

Peter Jackson

Dear Dr.TP Singh,

Thanks for your reply and query.I have identified QG field to 'exponentially varying accelerated field' in which the gravity/acceleration varies exponentially.So it is possible for us to derive GR from QG but not vice-versa.Regarding how I have done this can be seen in my article on QG,which you find in my web-site I have mentioned in my essay("http://www.sreenath.webs.com" and click on abstract).The path described in QG field is Logarithmic (Equiangular) spiral path on a plane and conical spiral path in three dimensions.So QG field is a 'Torsion" field.When torsion vanishes QG field becomes uniform accelerated field i.e.,GR.

I have different views on QM which you see in my above article.In it,I have tried to connect the Schrodinger equation to 'how a particle gains energy in the QG field'.If you want me to send my article by e-mail to you,please,inform me and your mathematical frame work to my work I welcome most.

Best regards

Sreenath B N

Hi to both of you,all, you are relevant.here is some ideas for fun.

The caratheodory method of axiomatization seems universal and I like it, I suppose you also, in logic the kelvin Planck satetment of the the second law is interesting also.Because all is under these universal thermodynamical laws.The specification of an intergrer is always logic respecting the momentum and the kinetic energy.It's really the base of many things our thermodynamics and this heat.The quantum statistical mechanicsis precise and the real degrees of freedom are there in a pure thermodynamical logic.A little of maxwell law of velocities and vibrations and a Boltzmann helping with the correct finite numbe, and it's very relevant.1/2mv²...1/2m alpha²..1/2m beta².....correlated with volumes.The pression and the volumes dance with the velocities of rotations orbitals and spinals and the kinetic energy.....more mvV constant, general for all physical entangled spheres and hop all our thermodynamics and all our Quantum statistical mechanics is simplified and generalized in a spherical logic as the ideal gas.Avogadro will agree no hihii, in all case if the time operator is inserted, thus the relativity can be inserted rationally respecting the entropy and the arrow of time.But the axiomatization still is essential with its limits due to the finite universal serie.That implies an intrinsic cause in the gravitational stability, thus of course not actions at distance, but simply some informations arriving in the gravity and which fuses, it's totally different than a instant action from an other point inside this Universal sphere.The thermodynamics prove that.

Best to all and good luck in the contest.

Steve

Tejinder,

Masterful!

To your point of experiencing spacetime as classical, while acknowledging the infinite linear superposition of quantum states (and the challenge of computability in finite time) -- you might appreciate a less technical treatment of the same conclusions in my essay ("Can we see reality from here?")

Best,

Tom

I am having to read your paper again. I forgot that I had written on your space here. I responded to your comments on my space at

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/810

and I will try to comment further. I will have to finish reading your paper on Monday.

Cheers LC

Tejinda

I greatly appreciate your supportive comments on my essay and the discrete field model, (DFM). I repeat me response below;

"Thanks for your agreement and sympathy. I'm acutely aware of the need to extend it with mathematical proof to allow physicists to "feel more at home". If you feel you may be of any help in collaboration I'd be delighted. As it's a logic and empirically based 'conceptual' theory the first problem is what to calculate!"

Perhaps nature is too complex for a single human brain process to make sense of. In the Architectural profession astonishing things are only achieved by teamwork. I not only have to have specialist skills but conceptual overview, and understand and co-ordinate a wide range of brilliant specialists, with entirely different ways of looking at things, into the whole. It seems physics as a whole may benefit from more of that, being more inclusive and holistic rather than exclusive and disparate. I'd be interested in your view, generally and specifically to exploring the DFM.

Very many thanks for your time.

Peter

I read your paper through in detail last night and started writing this. I wrote further today, so this got a bit long. I even looked at Adler huge paper, though being 175 pages in length I of course could not read the whole. The A-M matrices, traceless diagonal elements of i = sqrt{-1} and -i, forms is related to the Kahler matrix. This is a line bundle form of the symplectic matrix. To include commutator structure between position elements [q_i, q_j] = αħ, for α a constant, and similar commutators for momentum, this can be generalized by the Gelfand theorem and Connes' noncommutative geometry.

For gravity this is clearly an important aspect of quantum gravity. Of course we have a lot of funny ideas about this. In your paper you have the "digital" as a world with quantum gravity. This appears evident by just looking at the Schwarzschild metric element 1 - r_0/r, for r_0 = 2GM/c^2, the Killing vector K_t = (1/sqrt{1 - r_0/r})∂_t. This forms a natural operator for a Schrodinger type of equation Hψ = -iħK_tψ. However, the momentum operator p_r = -iħ∂_r does not commute with K_t, and there is a noncommutative geometry. Another way of looking at this is the element r_0 exhibits fluctuations so that r_0 = δr_0, where δr_0 = f*sqrt{Għ/c^3} = f*L_p for f \in [0, 1]. So a fluctuation of mass-energy in a region of space there is then a fluctuation in the proper time ds ~ (1 - δr_0/r)dt^2, which is a noncommutative situation in energy and time. So there are curiously two different ways of looking at this.

We have two snags with our ideas of quantum gravity. One in string theory, where the action is formulated as

L = ∫d^nx sqrt{-1}(R α'R_{abcd}R^{abcd} O(α'^2))

Requires there to be a classical background, or R_{ab} = λg_{ab}. This background dependence is a major criticism which has been lodged at string theory. However, the LQG folks who raise this complaint have problems of their own. In the assignment of a degree of freedom with each strut in a discrete spacetime there is a vacuum E = 3kT/2 element, which when summed up results in a huge entropy to spacetime. For this reason LQG is not able to reconstruct classical spacetime. String theory on the other hand employs holographic principle which vastly reduces the number of degrees of freedom to horizons and boundaries and these problems are avoided.

The string perturbation series is also problematic. It appears almost incomputable. We may then be able to work with some finite series, as in an effective theory. The near horizon for a black hole in an AdS_n is where the spacetime becomes AdS_2xS^{n-2}. The AdS_2 has an equivalency to the CFT_1 with isometries of the SL(2,C) group. This is the elementary group which constructs the quantum SLOCC quantum bit structures equivalent to BPS black holes. The CFT_1 is the Diff(S^1) which is the Virasoro algebra, and in this case with two copies bounded on a conformal map of S^1 to a strip. This defines the Hartle-Hawking quantum states.

The Hartle-Hawking state is constructed by a map from Calabi-Yau three-fold. This constructs the states according to a type of modular form which is related to the partition of integers. This modular form in a Dirchlet L-series has the Riemann zeta function, where its zeros determine the eigenvalues.. The 3-fold in the conjugacy classes of a maximal tori on the F_4 gives the cycle [0, e^{2π/3}, e^{4π/3}], which defines the Eisenstein series E(z), E(2z) E(3z) and the partition function for the quantum states of the AdS_2 ~ CFT_1 spacetime. This is quantum gravity to one loop. This is also equivalently determined by the G_2 group, which in the E_8 is the centralizer of the F_4 group. This extends the work which I present in the paper I wrote for FQXi Building up to AdS_7 will take us up to 6 loop calculations, and extended to 11-dimensional SUGRA to 7 loops.

What comes after that? Frankly, nothing for in effect we run out of algebra. However, there is something which is going on. The hyperbolic dynamics on H_2 ~ AdS_2 is S-dual to a quartic theory of fermions. This is not my work, but was demonstrated by Zamolodchikov (among the other amazing things that guys did), and physically it means the underlying physics of strings in the AdS_2, or equivalently on the boundary as CFT_1, is that of a fermion condensate.

The high temperature domain for the string is the Hagedorn temperature. The density of states for a string with respect to modes n is

η(n) ~ exp(4πn sqrt{α'})

that defines a partition function Z =~ ∫ η(n)exp(-n/T)dn. The Temperature is computed by 1/T = ∂Z/∂n and the path integral diverges for a temperature greater than

T_H = 4π sqrt{α'}

which is the Hagedorn temperature. This is proportional to the reciprocal of the string length. The entropy of the system is the logarithm of the density of states the S ~ 1/nT_H, which in the large n limit is zero. The modes number is given by n = 1/(sqrt{d}M_s), for d the number of degrees of freedom and M_s the string mass. String theory on the AdS_2 transitions into a theory of fermions at this high energy. Strings are then similar to the topological states, such as Skyrmion states.

continued from above

If this is so then gravity is an effective theory with a classical background. The middle or semi-digital aspects of the world are a form of effective theory. If gravitation or quantum gravity is an emergent theory, we might also ask the same about quantum mechanics? This is based on some aspects of my paper, which I did not illuminate much. Lightcone structure is a projective structure in the completion of the AdS_n spacetimes by quotient geometry. The lightlike geodesics in M_n are copies of RP^1, which at a given point p define a set that is the lightcone C(p). The point p is the projective action of π(v) for v a vector in a local patch R^{n,2} and so C(p) is then π(P∩C^{n,2}), for P normal to v, and C^{n,2} the region on R^{n,2} where the interval vanishes.

The space of lightlike geodesics is a set of invariants and then due to a stabilizer on O(n,2), so the space of lightlike curves L_n is identified with the quotient O(n,2)/P, where P is a subgroup defined the quotient between a subgroup with a Zariski topology, or a Borel subgroup, and the main group G = O(n,2). This quotient G/P is a projective algebraic variety, or flag manifold and P is a parabolic subgroup. The natural embedding of a group H - -> G composed with the projective variety G - ->G/P is an isomorphism between the H and G/P. This is then a semi-direct product G = P x| H. For the G any GL(n) the parabolic group is a subgroup of upper triangular matrices. An example of such a matrix with real valued elements is the Heisenberg group of 3x3 matrices

[/math]\left(\matrix{

1 & a & b\cr

0 & 1 & c\cr

0 & 0 &1}\right)

[math]

which may be extended to n-dimensional systems to form the 2n+1 dimensional Heisenberg group H_n of n + 2 entries

[/math]\left(\matrix{

1 & a & b\cr

0 & I_n & c\cr

0 & 0 & 1}\right)

[math]

where for O(n,2) the Heisenberg group is H_{2n+3}. The elements a and c are then n+2 dimensional row and column vectors of O(n,2). These are Borel groups, which emerge from the quotient space AdS_n/Γ, where the discrete group Γ is a manifestation of the Calabi-Yau 3-cycle, and which as it turns out gives an integer partition for the set of quantum states in the AdS spacetime. So both spacetime and quantum structure as we know them are emergent.

If we return to our more ordinary world, where gravity is classical and for that matter flat and ignored, quantum mechanics does bring to us a series of difficulties. I tend to agree with you that interpretations of quantum mechanics do not appear effective, for they have no empirical means of falsification. The quantum world may be seen equivalently as a many worlds splitting off continually or as Bohmian be-able particles guided on some path by a pilot wave. The simple fact is that quantum physics assumes two things: The first is that a measurement apparatus is infinite, or has an infinite number of atoms or degrees of freedom, and further that an infinite number of measurements can be conducted. These two assumptions are clearly idealizations.

The difference between a superposition and entanglement is the following. We consider a two slit experiment where a photon wave function interacts with a screen. The wave vector is of the form

|ψ> = e^{ikx}|1> + e^{ik'x}|2>

as a superposition of states for the slits labeled 1 and 2. The normalization is assumed. The state vector is normalized as

= 1 = + + e^{i(k' + k)x} + e^{-i(k' + k)x}

The overlaps and are multiplied by the oscillatory terms which are the interference probabilities one measures on the photoplate. We now consider the classic situation where one tries to measure which slit the photon traverses. We have a device with detects the photon at one of the slit openings. We consider another superposed quantum state. This is a spin space that is

|φ> = (1/sqrt{2})(|+> + |->).

This photon quantum state becomes entangled with this spin state. So we have

|ψ,φ> = e^{ikx}|1>|+> + e^{ik'x}|2>|->

which means if the photon passes through slit number 1 the spin is + and if it passes through slit 2 the spin is in the - state. Now consider the norm of this state vector

= + + e^{i(k' + k)x} + e^{-i(k'+k)x}.

The spin states |+> and |-> are orthogonal and thus and are zero. This means the overlap or interference terms are removed. In effect the superposition has been replaced by an entanglement.

So we may think of the these two entangled systems as that for an electron and the other for a C-60 buckyball in two different states of some sort. One of these particles is pretty clearly in the quantum domain, while the other pushes the envelope of what is quantum. However, people have performed two slit experiments with buckballs, where they have to be supercold. We do not have to cool down electrons. So we might imagine the two slit experiment with electron where one slit contains a buckyball that has some phonon state entangled with the electron being present or not. We may then think of there being an atomic force microscope which then measures the buckball and ... up the scale to the Schrodinger cat. There is a process of entanglement which proceeds up the chain. The scale in length or time diminishes, or the complement in momentum and energy diminishes, as the ratio of mass or action between the system and apparatus approaches zero.

So the curious thing is that we really are operating in the quantum world all along. However, we only see one of the outcomes; we do not see the measurement apparatus in two states or the alive/dead cat. This then leads us to the emergence of the next level in the world, the classical world. While everything is ultimately quantum mechanical, "all the way down," there is the emergence of this classical world which we observe through our senses. It is also the world which we first came to understand with the progression from Galileo and Kepler and culminating in Newton. Of course the Bohmist might object to the idea of the classical world as an illusion, for they say the quantum world is ultimately classical-like or objective in some sense of nonlocal hidden variables. In that language, the classical world is a domain where the Bohm quantum potential is zero. From a many worlds perspective the observer is eigen-branched along only one entanglement path.

So this is how I would interpret this layering of continuous and discrete structures. At the emergence of gravity this seems to connect with the semi-digital. The extremely high energy world consists of quantum states given I think by the zeros of the Riemann zeta function. However, the fields are continuous, so there is I think at this level a complementarity between the continuous and discrete. Once gravity is classical then you have a 1/2 continuum and 1/2 discrete perspective. This then leads to the classical world which appears continuous.

Cheers LC

Tejinder,

My approach is that you can never fully know reality in spite of models that simulate discrete points in time, but my support for this seems meager after reading your impressive essay.

Jim Hoover

Dear Tejinder,

I found your essay, with its idea of multiple layers, most fascinating! I enjoyed your discussion of quantum measurement theory and the role of stochastic fluctuations.

Best wishes,

Paul

Paul Halpern, The Discreet Charm of the Discrete

Dear Dr. Singh,

Congrats for being in top 5. It seems that winning prizes is easy and efforless for you because of your indepth knowledge and vast experience of the subject with which you skilfully deal.

Sincerely,

Sreenath.

Dear Tejinder,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top ten placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the top front runners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

Thanks for the reply Tejinder. I need to do more w.r.t a simulation model of the proton and neutron in action I think.

Best wishes,

Alan

Dear Tejinder,

Congratulations on winning a prize. I did think your multilevel consideration of reality was very interesting. Wish I could have grasped more of what you were presenting. I am glad though that the judges found what they were looking for in your essay. Well done.

Congratulations for your win!