Maths Leaves Me Trailing

Mentioned to Island in the comment thread about the Multiverse below, the problem that otherwise credible stories in physics are accompanied by mathematical theory near incomprehensible to laymen such as myself. I had this feeling previously when trying to understand the “Dirac Nilpotent Rewrite” behind the Rowlands and Diaz work in quantum information theory.

Reminded of this, I took a look at the latest BCS Cybernetics Group page and followed the link to Peter Rowlands 2007 book “From Zero to Infinty” and browsed the index, preface and first chapter on “Zero”. I think two facts did strike me in the maths.

Firstly, the “zero sum game” effect of creating something from nothing, where that something is plus & minus, real & anti stuff in physics … those mysterious perturbations in the vacuum. The potency of zero.  Of course potency doesn’t explain how, just the possibility, so that’s a different story.

Secondly, “re-write as algorithm” and the emergence of patterns within patterns not present in the original algorithm, simply by repeated application of the algorithm, to the zero in this case. Not just something from nothing, but something complex and interesting from nothing. Hofstadter (patterns within patterns)  and Dennett (evolution as algorithm) and of course Wolfram (ANKOS) jumped out at me as I read pages 12 to 16 of Chapter 1.

Plenty of promise in the preface too …

Obviously, no one expects to succeed instantly with a theory that will simply explain everything. What we would hope to do is to find a process, a systematic way of proceeding with strong indications that we were on the right track. This is what is being aimed at in this book. Positions that are rejected from the outset in the search include model-dependent theories of any kind; the aim of the work is resolutely abstract.

Again, we must reject the idea that a single cosmic creation event has structured the laws of physics in a particular way, and that they could have been different in different circumstances. The idea could, in principle, be true, but then we would have no abstract subject of physics, no generality, no absolute mathematics, and no meaningful concept of conservation, the process which makes physics universal. The very idea that we could discover a unified theory of physics is impossible in such a context. Physics is fractured in the very act of creation. In addition, such explanations have the habit of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. We simply refer difficulties to special conditions that occurred in the ‘early universe’, and deprive ourselves of understanding fundamental physical phenomena which ought to be valid at all places in all epochs.

Am I seeing a pattern ?

I intuitively like this sticking to the fundamental nature of physics, rather than allowing variations in different postulated universes, … as if. Didn’t I also recall something in both Chalmers and Deutsch (quite separate work in separate fields) about nothing being possible in a “virtual” world that wasn’t also possible (ie didn’t violate fundamental physics / metaphysics) in the real world ? As if impossible and inconceivable were really the same thing. Am I digressing ?

30 thoughts on “Maths Leaves Me Trailing”

  1. I don’t often talk about it, since fantastic claims require fantastic proof, but it this physics is correct, then Einstein figured most of this out a long time ago:

    http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-06/msg0069755.html
    In Einstein’s static model, G=0 when there is no matter. The cosmological constant came about because we do have matter, so in order to get rho>0 out of Einstein’s matter-less model, you have to condense the matter density from the existing structure, and in doing so the pressure of the vacuum necessarily becomes less than zero, P<0.

    The most obvious way to create new matter in Einstein’s model, (the most compatible with the spirit of general relativity), also holds it flat and stable, so any other conclusions that have been made since Einstein abandoned his notion without this knowledge, are therefore subject to suspect review!

    People don’t typically understand that, as a result, I speak from the perspective of what appears to be complete theory of everything, so I can always answer all of these questions, but the fabled ToE is more classical and simpler than anyone has imagined since Dr. E. abandoned this model because he mistakenly thought that it was unstable, and would fall off it’s balance point to run-away in the direction of expansion if the universe was expanding.

    Again, we must reject the idea that a single cosmic creation event has structured the laws of physics in a particular way, and that they could have been different in different circumstances.

    So this isn’t a big deal once we understand that the anthropic principle is a thermodynamic energy conservation law that preserves the observed structuring by enabling the universe to *periodically* “evolve” to higher orders of the same basic configuration, just like we did, and for the exact same reason, in order to preserve the arrow of time, causality, and the second law of thermodynamics… indefinitely… … …

    The Universe is “Darwinian”:
    http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html
    So there is no net change on the gravity of the universe, because the effect is two-fold… an increasing antigravitational *effect* is offset by increase in positive gravitational curvature.

    But that means that tension between the vacuum [and ordinary matter] must increase as particle pair creation drives vacuum expansion if the universe is finite, and the offset increase in both, negative pressure, and positive gavitational curvature necessarily holds the vaccum flat and stable as it expands, so it cannot run-away! Increasing tension between the vacuum and ordinary matter leads to a prediction that the integrity of the forces that bind this finite structure will surely eventually be compromised by this process and we will have another big bang.

    So the second law of thermodynamics is never violated when the entropy of the universe always increases via the described perpetually inherent thermodynamic structuring, which enables the universe to continuously “evolve”.

    1 and -1 is zero when something never came from nothing.

  2. So I did see a pattern. Thought so.

    I recognized your Einstein was right, G=0 arguments from our previous exchanges. I recognized those previous posts too. The symmetry and balance are intuitively attractive.

    The bit I couldn’t get before (but am comfortable with now) was the idea of multiple big bangs in the SAME universe … I’d already been brainwashed. Whatever the maths of proving this (and I appreciate that is probably simpler than the maths and speculative physics of accounting for and explaining the asymmetry, but nevertheless “hard” for the layman) I will still need a metaphor for the “integrity being eventually compromised” Like what is happening before the next big bang.

    On the proper physics front, as opposed to humouring an amateur like me, I’d be interested what you think of the Rowlands work … I have other interests in this.

    Your “Darwinian” universe statement … I’m gonna call it Island’s Anthropic Principle … I like too, naturally. The main thing about “periodically” is “but long enough” for the said levels of life and consciousness to evolve … does your model predict timescales for the “eventual compromise” that are consistent with observed evolution ?

  3. I recognized your Einstein was right, G=0 arguments from our previous exchanges. I recognized those previous posts too. The symmetry and balance are intuitively attractive.

    The bit I couldn’t get before (but am comfortable with now) was the idea of multiple big bangs in the SAME universe … I’d already been brainwashed.

    But not so much “in” as “of”. The finite universe has innumerable big bangs, but time restarts when the planck scale gets breached during re-thermalization.

    Information about the current universe gets projected into the next in the form of a “footprint”, or a pre-existing asymmetry in the energy that serves as an imbalance that *must* be reconciled. So it’s actually a futile effort toward absolute symmetry between matter and antimatter that can never be resolved no matter how near-“flat” the universe gets.

    “Antimatter”, (before it becomes a particle pair), is simply the mass-energy that comprises the vacuum in a less-dense state than ordinary matter has, rho<0, and this “super-thinned” mass energy gets further rarefied each time that we and others like us make matter/antimatter pairs from vacuum energy.

    The *inherent* asymmetry means that you never start with Einstein’s zero pressure metric, (See above: the cosmological constant came about because we do have matter), which would be depicted by an absolutely “flat”, matter-less, zero G vacuum structure that has no pressure. But this *is* still an excellent way to understand how it works, as numerous postings to the research group makes clear.

    1>0G=0<1=”-“M. The negative sign is in parenthesis because mass isn’t really negative, and that’s the *trick* to the solution to the negative energy states that fall from the Dirac Equation that Dirac missed.

    This *appears to* unifiy Quantum Theory with General Relativity in the same manner that Dirac had successfully unified Special Relativity with Quantum Theory, so the re-interpretation that Quantum Theory currently lives by is incomplete, and therefore is THE carried flaw that causes ALL further extensions of this distorted interpretation to produce ludicrous philosophical absurdities at some point or another, like Multiverses and Singularities.

    Whatever the maths of proving this (and I appreciate that is probably simpler than the maths and speculative physics of accounting for and explaining the asymmetry, but nevertheless “hard” for the layman) I will still need a metaphor for the “integrity being eventually compromised” Like what is happening before the next big bang.

    Think of a perfectly flat version of the classical rubber sheet analogy for the space-time metric, which has zero pressure, zero matter and zero gravity. Now, imagine that you can stick a fork into this rubber sheet and twist spacetime into a knot around the fork until you have condensed enough layers of the energy to attain the matter density over this finite region of space. This would be a virtual particle because it hasn’t received the necessary energy to make it real yet, but it does serve to illustrate what happens to the rubber-sheet vacuum, which quite apparently pulls back harder each time that you twist the fork. Negative pressure increases in proportion to the quantity of matter that is produced from an increasingly thinning vacuum, so the increasing stress that this structure is under will eventually cause it to “snap”, so to speak.

    On the proper physics front, as opposed to humouring an amateur like me, I’d be interested what you think of the Rowlands work … I have other interests in this.

    I will need to take this up in a separate post, maybe tomorrow, if that’s okay?… because I need to do a lot of research into this guy’s stuff as I have only done a cursory search and have not read his book. I do see some very familiar sounding stuff, but I also see a lot of stuff that maybe isn’t necessary if everything that I appear to have stumbled on, pans out. And my knowledge is highly specialized due to the fact that I lucked into this, so please don’t place me on the same level as theorists, or whatever because that’s only partially true when it comes to this subject, and I’m nowhere close when I get out of my forte’ so to speak.

    Your “Darwinian” universe statement … I’m gonna call it Island’s Anthropic Principle … I like too, naturally. The main thing about “periodically” is “but long enough” for the said levels of life and consciousness to evolve … does your model predict timescales for the “eventual compromise” that are consistent with observed evolution ?

    It could be as near as the Large Hadron Collider.

    This is a real possibility that has never been considered by the theorists who assure us that they know what they are talking about on the basis of flawed theories that have achieved partial successes because the absurdities do not manifest everywhere, since the modern reinterpretation of Dirac’s negative energy states is partially correct, just as Dirac’s original Hole Theory is partially correct, and works just fine in electronics, for example.

    Or not, and I have my doubts about that, since the Goldilocks Enigma extends to predict that there are similarly evolved “biospheres”, in similarly evolved galaxies, that has similar life-forms that use similar technologies. I, personally, don’t have the capability for calculating this, but I can tell you that the Drake Equation doesn’t factor-in this common denominator or it would be very accurate.

    I do know that the “idea” behind the impetus is to prolong the event as long as possible in order to attain what is known as “maximum energy”. The longer that you can prolong the expansion event, the more uniformly dispersed will be the energy of the universe, the more “flat”/balanced/symmetrical will be the *next* universe, so it is only inherent asymmetry that prevents the absolute from becoming the reality, forever and ever… ah man!… 😉

    whew!

  4. 1>0G=0<1=”-”M

    Whatever that was got altered by the system when I posted. It was supposed to depict matter as represented by the number, 1, which causes gravity to net to zero when negative pressure mass-energy counter-balances with matter and is represented by the number -1. The point that I was trying to make is that negative pressure mass-energy does not have negative mass, but it has all of the characteristics of a negative mass object, and that’s where they got lost trying to equate Dirac’s negative mass solutions.

  5. Hi Island,

    Got distracted by day job pressures, and other correspondence, but wanted to come back to this … this is making progress for me.

    Thinking of the metaphor of the rubber sheet (as the “fabric” of the universe) and the end of the (current) universe as an unstable rip in that sheet, starting anywhere, but compromising the whole … was OK … what I had lost was, so where does the next universe come from. I see the metaphor now.

    Time restarts (!), and a new fluctuation in the void allows another big-bang creation event, and we’re off again. So no different to the standard model there, except ….

    Note added Dec 1st … the fabric of the “material universe” and the fabric of the space-time-void itself are different things … the former is the rubber sheet, but the latter has independent existence, the two being connected by the creation and destruction events (Wow) … and …

    Physics has no inexplicable “asymmetry”, but each new universe inherits some information from the previous one(s) which means each universe will have different levels of symmetry / asymmetry, which affect it’s lifecycle and the potential for evolution of intelligence, etc.

    We have an explanation for multiple differently symmetric universes without the need for inexplicable gaps in the mathematical / theoretical physics.

    Obviously, to a layman, time retarts and information from one collapse resonates in the next big-bang, sound “meaningful” even without the “but how” questions of credibility. I guess you are saying that to an expert theoretical physicist, it should be apparent that the mathematics is made more consistent, as part of normal kinds of theoretical physics explanations of such things.

    I’ll come back again on the Dirac Rewrite stuff … thanks for commenting on that too … just getting my head around your unified quantum / gravitation model. I can see why you would want to be cautious about what you claim whilst still wanting those physicists who should know better to notice the significance of the fix you are proposing. (I can still also see the “rewrite” algorithm metaphor in the universal time restarting and going round again, with an echo of the previous loop – that is VERY EXCITING – fits so many other metaphors that would have seemed mystical, but now with a possible scientific basis. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.)

  6. Hi Ian, I get busy too… plus I wander around a lot, so thanks for the email.

    I guess you are saying that to an expert theoretical physicist, it should be apparent that the mathematics is made more consistent, as part of normal kinds of theoretical physics explanations of such things.

    Yes, and the physics is also extremely intuitive, once you understand how the mechanism works, (as you now do), you can yourself easily resolve the alleged perplexing problems surrounding the anthropic principle, as well as quantum gravity.

    http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html

    This is without need of string theory or loop quantum gravity or naked singularities, and therefore, no need for inflationary theory. For example, when a universe with certain pre-existing volume has a big bang… the horizon problem simply disappears, since the universe was causally connected.

    As I understand it, quantum field theory falls directly out of the revised interpretation of Einstein’s Unified Field Theory, AND then Dirac’s corrected Large Numbers Hypothesis becomes valid!

    So it takes physics Back to 1917, when Einstein was forced by proper logic, (given what was known at the time about the quantum vacuum), to abandon this model, and nobody on the cutting edge of physics is going to entertain any such a notion until and unless the large hadron collider puts them out of business, since Einstein’s corrected physics doesn’t include any of the symmetry splitting particles or extensions that modern theorists currently pursue.

    The nearest thing that I ever get to a falsification from theorists is the suggestion that I need to establish that this physics doesn’t have the same problems that Hoyle’s Steady State model had.

    I can’t do this, but it is intuitively obvious that it doesn’t, once you understand how the simple mechanism works that enables our Darwinian Universe to evolve.

    Not to mention the fact that nobody wants to hear that there really is quantifiable meaning to this world.

  7. All I can say for now is “Wow !”

    Thanks Island … for your confidence that I have understood … I need to digest where this is going … but don’t worry I won’t be holding my breath 😉 (See my “manifesto”) It is typical of paradigmatic shifts to go unnoticed for two or three (human) generations.

    Need to think about (rational) plans to help it along.

  8. Thanks Rick, that is a very interesting page, in fact a very useful site that Ned has … just working my way though his tutorials.

    So anyway, evidence is being generated (and the significance noted) so maybe just a waiting (and learning) game ?

  9. Hi Island,

    I’ve come around to following up where I’d got to on this, so I re-read, especially your comments #3 and #4 above.

    Wow again – I think I’m getting it more and more. I spotted a very significanty point, which I didn’t almost a year ago … at the end of comment #4 where you say …

    This is where “they” go lost trying to equate Dirac’s negative mass solutions.

    Were you referring to physicists in general or the specific “quantum information physicists” in the Rowlands / BCS / Zero-to-Infinity work I referenced ?

    If the latter did you ever try to approach these people with your comments ?

  10. Okay, I was referring to physicists in general, but I had to review the book to determine if this applies there, as well, and I can’t find anything wrong. I was very much struck by everything that I read, especially the following:

    a truly unified theory cannot come from an act of unification; that is,
    we cannot, for example, create a truly unified theory simply by combining
    quantum mechanics and general relativity in a new mathematical superstructure.

    Such attempts have always failed in the past, and will continue to do so in the
    future, because the concept of unification as combination is invalid. Unification
    is really about finding descent from a common origin. Creating a sophisticated
    mathematical superstructure will not provide answers to the fundamental
    questions that we would expect from a truly unified theory, a theory of
    ‘everything’.

    I think that Einstein’s vacuum solution is what they are looking for, and no, I have not tried to contact anyone.

  11. Oh, I see you have acted very quickly Rick. Good luck – I was about to attempt my own summary – or at least pull together a number of threads into a new page or post.

    I await feedback with interest.

  12. Well, I would expect to hear something by now, but I see that he has been banned from publishing pre-print papers, so he’s probably just brushed off as a crank by the idiot mainstream anyway.

  13. Yes, I’m pretty certain he falls outside the mainstream 😉 I was always intrigued he maintained a visible profile at the illustrious BCS. But that’s what makes this interesting.

    I’ve corresponded with this group before, let me see if I can tickle their interest.

  14. You get out the wrong side of bed Rick ?

    Which specific “stupid theory” ? I will pursue the BCS guys – they have annual conferences and the like – right now everyone is either busy or on vacation.

    Anyway – another avenue – a hero with whom I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and corresponding, is Nobel prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson. A real campaigner against prejudiced science … check him out. http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/

  15. Thanks Ian, I’ll check that out now, and no, I’m not in a bad mood, I am just frustrated by my inability to penetrate the theoretical and ideological righteousness of the cutting edge with this theory:

    http://www.longbets.org/476

    It prompted me to start this blog and I am seriously thinking about calling out these losers by name and hammering them for their individual unscientific prejudices:

    http://thephysicistsblog.blogspot.com/

    Other than that, I’m just peachy… 😉

    Thanks again for your interest and your effort.

  16. Ooooh – the battle hots up – I’ll take a look at those (but it will be sometime over the weekend). Have a good one.

  17. Hi Rick,

    I did take a look at both of those. The Long Now, is an initiative I have interacted with before – pity your long-bet is closed to responses ?

    I see the blog page is a summary of your position – I’m guessing the subjects “tags” are the names you are calling out ?

    Incidentally I have had correspondence from Marcer (re BCS / Rowlands & Diaz) and Josephson (self-organizing physics) at the weekend. I’ll keep you posted by email.

  18. Hi Ian,
    pity your long-bet is closed to responses ?

    Yes, but it had to be done until they come up with some kind of filter, because the page was covered with spam advertising, which was much worse. I didn’t close the discussion, but I’m not complaining, and a Long Bet is for the duration anyway, so there will be years of time for anybody to say whatever they want to before the Higgs gets eliminated.

    Years of wasted time…

    I’m guessing the subjects “tags” are the names you are calling out ?

    Yes, those are just some of the physicists that I can write about experiences with that prove my point.

    And thanks for the effort, I look forward to hearing from you, Ian.

    Rick

  19. Hi Ian, I received this from Peter Rowlands today and I wanted to keep you posted:

    Dear Richard

    Sorry not to have replied earlier. I have been away at several conferences and have some catching up to do on previous mails. I had a look at the sites you incorporated but, probably partly because I am still mentally tired from some very recent travels, have not yet fully grasped the meaning. I have to go to another meeting next week and most of my immediate attention is focused on that, and another one follows soon after. I’m not sure that I’m the most useful person to contact as I am not primarily a cosmologist, but interested rather in the foundational aspects of physics. I have a deep distrust of contemporary cosmology, as it seems to have abandoned the methodological principles which are assumed to hold in the rest of physics. I have to say also that I am not a huge fan of explaining physics through cosmology, rather the reverse – maybe, of course, that’s what you are doing. I have largely aimed at making fundamental physics a self-contained subject independent of the universe’s history, and my book Zero to Infinity makes this point very strongly. My own views on vacuum are conveniently outlined in the arXiv paper:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0224

    I will have another look when I am back from the next meeting.

    Best wishes
    Peter Rowlands

    My reply:

    Dear Peter,

    Thank you for your reply. I think that we are very much on the same
    page and I hope that you will see this when you have time, because
    everything that you said in your book hits home with my understanding,
    which derives the same exact conclusions that you do.

    I would love to write or even co-author a paper on this if I could get
    a little help. This is what I’ve been told that I need to do, but the
    format alone makes this nearly impossible.

    Thanks again for your reply, and I patiently await future
    correspondence because this appears be the answer that science has
    been looking for.

    Rick Ryals

  20. Pingback: Psybertron Asks
  21. Pingback: Psybertron Asks
  22. Pingback: Psybertron Asks

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.