Agreeing on Space-Time, not just Time!

[recall15]

IOW.... you gotta go meta.

And that is one way to interpret what I mean when I talk about how we are passing from the Age of Information towards the Age of Intention... When we moved from the Age of Energy into the Age of Information (the event that marked this was the mastery of Energy in the Atom Bomb), we went from Energy to meta-Energy. We just happen to call meta-Energy "Information".

But "Information" has a meta-state just like Information IS the meta-state of Energy.

-snip-

This field (INTENTION) has a relationship to Einstein's Equivalency Principal (IMO). This might lead to an understanding of gravity, also, as a field of INTENTION.

RMT

then you got that the "crop circles" embedded "Information", and Riddles...

I noticed that the first segment was longer that the second segment which was much shorter than the third segment. It just sort of popped into my mind, ‘3.14.’ I thought, ‘Wait a minute! I happen to remember Pi to six digits, which is 3.14159 because I use that all the time in calculations.

Then I noticed right where the next segment was, was a short segment again, which might be equivalent to 1. But Pi is 3.1415, so the next segment should be longer than the previous long segment – and it was. I thought, ‘Whoa! This is really beginning to sound like it matches to Pi.’

So, I took the photograph initially and started drawing lines through all the jumps in radii. Well, they start to line up. There are three of them right where the first dot is. If you draw a straight line through that first jump, it goes right through another jump further out and another jump on the opposite side.

Then I went back and started doing straight lines through the other jumps and I started trying to figure out the lengths of the other arcs before the jump – kind of proportional to the values that you would see in the digits of Pi.

read more:
PI Crop Circle



Then Ray Said:

You heard it here first, folks: Rainman is making the claim that the meta-state of Information is a FIELD EFFECT CALLED INTENTION.

or -Self Activating Software alas "Ufo Ceiling Fan"/Palo Alto CARET Laboratory docs...

<font color="blue"> Certainly, you could code. There is definitely more information in the varying arc thicknesses than just jumping radius segments. I’ve looked at the CARET documents and the things are so complex, they are a little mind boggling! But certainly there is the similarity of using jumps in radius on an increasing diameter spiral to perhaps communicate information. [/COLOR]

Read more:
link to CARET docs :oops:

 

[Kanigo2]

You could call me a meta-hater I guess.

about themselves and their environments they operate within... their own "universes" so to speak.

I look at most STABLE systems like you do in a manner- I assume most systems have to be controlled in a fashion for stability. Doesn't matter whether it is a fusion reaction, holding helium stable in a liquid tank an ocean of water or even empty space. The conditions of stability are the design structure for recreation or we would not need meta data in the first place.

I Differ from you on the conscious platform though. Even though the system is stable is has power of "interpretation" with limited knowledge, Ya can't sense everything.....Yet even a child can imagine a concept.

Fundamentally, any theory that wants to "explain everything" will end up having to explain what "larger space (system)" that this "everything" exists within. Therefore, in order to completely describe physical reality (Grand Unified Theory?), you will have to describe it within a higher-level, systemic context.

Sadly one section of WiKis response to meta-data was Like a Word document that can hide information about the Structure of the document because it isn't necessary to the output of the program.
Is akin to the universe Space-time that we are subject to.
We see the output , but the Meta-Data used to create said structure is hidden from us.
Wouldn't it be great if we could just open the properties file on the universe and see when it was created and when it was modified and by whom?
Sadly we are reverse engineering the "universe"- which or course will lead to recreating it.

So Uhhh here is the big question?

Rainman is making the claim that the meta-state of Information is a FIELD EFFECT CALLED INTENTION.

You know you just could have said you believe in God.
BUT
Would that include Predetermination?

 

[RainmanTime]

Kanigo2:

I look at most STABLE systems like you do in a manner- I assume most systems have to be controlled in a fashion for stability.

Not a valid assumption. In fact, the very definition of an "open loop" system is that there is no feedback, hence no control. This has VERY strong links into the frequency domain analysis that I have described here and elsewhere. Any physical "thing" (we call it a "plant" in controls world) that you wish to achieve a specified state has a frequency domain equation that describes its dynamics. We call it the Characteristic Equation (CE). If the roots of the CE (frequency roots) for a plant are in the left-hand of the complex plane (i.e. x + iy), then the plant can operate open-loop and be stable with respect to the defined states you wish to operate at. If ANY of the roots of the CE are in the right-hand complex plane, those "modes" of the system dynamics are unstable. Example: Without closed-loop feedback, the F-16 airframe has two major dynamic modes whose CE roots are in the right-hand complex plane. So the F-16 is a case that meets your assumption about needing control for stability. But all commercial passenger airplanes are required that their basic aerodynamic designs be inherently stable (CE roots in left-hand plane). These are airplanes that do not REQUIRE closed-loop control to be stable.

Doesn't matter whether it is a fusion reaction, holding helium stable in a liquid tank an ocean of water or even empty space. The conditions of stability are the design structure for recreation or we would not need meta data in the first place.

Again, not true. It DOES matter what the physical plant is. Physical dynamics analysis and the design of control systems are some of the hardest problems in engineering...which is why us aerospace controls engineers take several more math classes than other engineers, and also why we get paid so well! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Closing a control loop is inherently dependent upon information. A "dumb" system can be designed (and the very first generation of closed-loop control systems were "dumb") with information and without the need for metadata. However, you cannot design a "smart" (read: adaptive, reasoning) system without metadata. You just can't.

I Differ from you on the conscious platform though. Even though the system is stable is has power of "interpretation" with limited knowledge, Ya can't sense everything.....Yet even a child can imagine a concept.

A good point. And indeed "sensing too much" (trying to use too much feedback) results not only in a system with MANY failure modes, but also results in typically sluggish system response. However, also as a result of including meta-data in an adaptive control design, the system can "synthesize" state information that it would otherwise need a sensor to get. I am working on just such a design right now. And let me assure you, a child imagining a concept is made possible because that child HAS meta-data. IOW, the child has learned just enough about how some things relate to be able to reason and extrapolate. This is an area of my expertise (adaptive controls), so hopefully I can convince you that your views are limiting... and there is a LOT more "out there" to explore and understand. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sadly one section of WiKis response to meta-data was Like a Word document that can hide information about the Structure of the document because it isn't necessary to the output of the program.

This is true, but not really sad if you consider it in the appropriate format. Let me give an airplane example again: It is NOT necessary for a human that is monitoring an adaptive system to see the STRUCTURE of how the machine came to a decision and took an action. All the human cares about is to be able to watch what the machine does...to see its final result. The human does not care how it got there, only that it got the right answer. HOWEVER, meta-data *IS* very important to the reasoning, adaptive system itself.... for metadata forms the basis of how it reasons about its external environment, and it even gives the machine the ability to do "what if" simulations WHILE it is flying and BEFORE it faces a given situation.

Sadly we are reverse engineering the "universe"- which or course will lead to recreating it.

Again, to me that is not sad. We, as humans, ARE creators. It is something we do quite well. And the act of continuous creation is also behind the whole concept of Darwinism... if you keep creating, things get better (because you throw out the bad stuff and keep the good stuff as you go).

You know you just could have said you believe in God.

I do. But probably NOT in the way you are thinking or implying. There is a thread entitled "God?" here that could shed more light on how I view "a higher level systemic creator".

Would that include Predetermination?

Not at all, and let me give an example. It is well known that dynamical systems can be classified as "finite but unbounded". Sounds like a contradiction, but it is not. I wrote a paper for my Master's Thesis on the "finite but unbounded" nature of the National Airspace System... and how you must take this into account when designing "automation agents" to assist air traffic controllers. The VOLUME of the US National Airspace is certainly finite. But is is UNBOUNDED because not only can it hold a large number of vehicles, but the distribution of the dynamic states of all those vehicles (including ones entering and exiting National airspace) allows the TOTAL system dynamics to be UNBOUNDED.

In MUCH the same way you can have a system which encompasses metadata which is finite, but which is NOT saddled with a bounded (predetermined) dynamical timeline.

Understand?
RMT

 

[Kanigo2]

Sorry if I keep repeating the word "Sadly" I think it's because my foot is killing me. I get repetitive like that and have to stop my self.


Anyway. I understand the flight Envelope characteristics of an airplane in the most basic sense.
That flight envelope does make assumptions , for example that there is an atmosphere and Newtonian physics. Could you say that was an engineers joke? "What Goes up must come down?"

There is no need to measure if there is an atmosphere or gravity.

I large portion of this open loop structure reminds me of a skateboarder about to "eat it" yet recovers.
I also keep thinking of an F16 in a Stall,free fall end over end and trying to recover flight. The parameters for stability will flash in and out.

A lot of this reminds me of determining random from chaotic data in chaos theory.

I will quote a section here you can read it if you like:

Essentially all measures of determinism taken from time series rely upon finding the closest states to a given 'test' state (i.e., correlation dimension, Lyapunov exponents, etc.). To define the state of a system one typically relies on phase space embedding methods.[34] Typically one chooses an embedding dimension, and investigates the propagation of the error between two nearby states. If the error looks random, one increases the dimension. If you can increase the dimension to obtain a deterministic looking error, then you are done. Though it may sound simple it is not really. One complication is that as the dimension increases the search for a nearby state requires a lot more computation time and a lot of data (the amount of data required increases exponentially with embedding dimension) to find a suitably close candidate. If the embedding dimension (number of measures per state) is chosen too small (less than the 'true' value) deterministic data can appear to be random but in theory there is no problem choosing the dimension too large – the method will work.

here:
Chaos Theory, goto "distinguishing section.

I hope that counts as understanding,

And I do apply these principles myself when I am working on electrical equipment(Closed systems), I told you I am a heavy equipment mechanic, I work with a lot of DC and lately Ac control systems, whether setting current limits or potentiometer potentials for sweep, this is the preferred method of achieving the correct "gain". That is only one place I use this method of manipulation, understanding that it is an option takes a little while to "get it" for most mechanics.
To me, it is just a tactic or method, not the end all be all.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

I think I do get your point and it would explain it very well for this interpretation.

I had not realized that the gravitational constant was still disputed, till 2 days ago.It bothers me that gravity has properties of both force and still propagates with no apparent matter. I think I am finally understanding just why they are searching for the Higgs boson.

My real problem with the entire "structure" of the gravity constant is we could not apply these principles or manipulation -just yet, we cannot remove it from the very fabric of the structure and be able to see it in a wider dimension

I would like to see or conceptualize a larger "scope" because at the moment to me what we are visualizing still appears random.

Which to me is unacceptable, hehehehe /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

 

[Kanigo2]

I also understand the point RMT that you are trying to make decisions with the most pertinent data according to your application and that redefining the actual structure of the data becomes imperative to avoid overwhelming the system with data.

I didn't want to let you think I did not get the point.

I just feel somewhat limited in our ability to redefine the operating parameters of This Space-Time Construct. The definitions we have at the moment are somewhat limiting and hard to dispute.

 

[RainmanTime]

Here is one for our local Einstein...

This post is NOT intended to be a response to you Kanigo2. At least not directly. It is more for Einstein, but the fact that I totally accept the following thoughts stated by someone else will let you know where I stand on physics and any advances in understanding gravity better.

The following is a reply from Dr. James Woodward of Cal State Fullerton. The reason I am hoping our local Einstein will pay attention to his words is because not ONLY is Dr. Woodward a physicist who understand the math of Relativity (and the math of standard physics in general), <font color="blue"> but also because he is an avid experimentalist in advanced propulsion with respect to a theory based on the work of Mach and Lorentz.[/COLOR] Dr. Woodward calls it the Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT). What is important about what follows is that Dr. Woodward also wants a breakthrough (like our Einstein), and he also is an experimentalist (like our Einstein). But where he differs from Einstein is that he also knows that there must be a sound mathematical theory to justify observations (unlike our Einstein). Furthermore, Dr. Woodward understands that you cannot simply take the approach that "Einstein was wrong with Relativity". Rather, you must look at is as "Relativity is a limiting approximation to some larger, more complete theory." The reason this is important is because experimental evidence as we have collected it so far all validates Relativity. Nothing has as yet falsified it. So any new theory which will fuel a breakthrough must come from going beyond Relativity...just as the real Einstein did with Newtonian physics.

OK, now here is Dr. Woodward's response to another physicist I know and respect, Dr. Jack Sarfatti:

<font color="red"> From: james f woodward &lt;[email protected]&gt;
Date: July 17, 2008 7:31:43 AM PDT
To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: RAAM physics

Since Jack has seen fit to include me on this circulation, let me say
that he is exactly right, I repeat exactly right, about the physics
involved and how physicists assess those who propose to contribute to
their field without having proved themselves as competent to do so.
That's why, now nearly a year ago, I told Gordon that he needed to get
every capable physicist of good repute he could lay his hands on to do
the core work of his project. They are the only ones who will be
regarded as worthy of investment (of serious money after they have been
vetted by competent physicists), and they are the only ones with the
competence to actually have even a slight chance of pulling off what you
want to do. If you don't get these people, you will be wasting your time
and somebody else's money.

As for the physics per se, no competent physicist would tell you that
general relativity is fundamentally flawed. Period.

As for rapid spacetime transport, since Kip Thorne, at great professional risk to
himself, laid out the physics of how this must, I repeat must, be done 20
years ago, there has been no, I repeat no, serious discussion of any
alternatives, especially those that are based on the assumption that GR
is wrong in some way. Since Thorne's work, the only serious question is:
can we find a way to accumulate large amounts of exotic matter? That, in
fact, is the only interesting question in this business. Jack thinks it
has something to do with dark energy -- and perhaps in some sense it
does. But I would add, not the local stuff. There isn't enough of it
(at 10^-27 g/cm^3 density). The real question is: Is there some way to
induce a state change in normal stuff so that it exhibits ridiculous
amounts of exoticity? IF someone gets this right, then there is a chance
that your project can be made to succeed. But without a "good" physics
(in the sense of "good" as Jack uses it) answer to this question, you are
wasting your time.


My two cents. I expect a lot less email traffic now.

Best,

Jim

P.S. The Baez crackpot index is also exactly right (and the reason why I
didn't put some above stuff in all caps). It's been hanging in my lab
right below a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon since Baez first put it out a
decade ago. All physicists understand it and live by it. [/COLOR]

Anyone who does not have a solid comprehension of the mathematics of standard theory physics, and who thinks merely by trial and error testing they are going to come up with some breakthrough based on Einstein being wrong, or missing something, is in for a rude awakening, and likely lots of time wasted trying to come up with alternate, non-mathematical explanations for something they observe.

RMT

 

[Kanigo2]

Re: Here is one for our local Einstein...

Nope that explained it in it's entirety to me right there RMT.

Hardly a math major, I still don't feel at all let down and still feel I have a pretty good grasp of the subject. As my infant mind tends to theorize.

The manipulative properties of:

exotic matter

Was definitely the request I had at first and more then adequately described and answered my question of the gravity wave and your thoughts on it. It also explains and environment of empty space that is subject to manipulation.
I would also like to point out that I have always been intrigued by the Casamir effect and to find out that it can be used to produce a locally mass-negative region of space-time only confirms some suspicions I have had.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

If someone else cares to look into also, somewhere on that page it also specifies why a finite Tipler cylinder cannot be used as a time machine. Thus resolving many issues with me.

Seriously Thank you.

Ok, I will let local Einstein in here.

 

[Darby]

Re: Here is one for our local Einstein...

The Baez crackpot index is also exactly right (and the reason why I didn't put some above stuff in all caps). It's been hanging in my lab right below a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon since Baez first put it out a decade ago. All physicists understand it and live by it.

Ray,

I'm "pretty sure" that we have the index laying around here somewhere. I think that I posted it a couple of years ago.

Anyway a repost is always nice:

The Crackpot Index
John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

CURRICULUM VITAE
John C. Baez Born: June 12, 1961 San Francisco, California EMPLOYMENT University of California at Riverside, Department of Mathematics. Full Professor, 1995-2007. As-sociate Professor, 1991-1995. On leave, visiting Wellesley College, 1990-1992. Assistant Professor,1988-1991.Taught: Applications of Mathematics without Calculus, First Year Calculus, Vector Calculus, Differ-ential Equations, Advanced Calculus, Foundations of Mathematics, Methods of Theoretical Physics,Mathematical Physics, Graduate Real Analysis, Graduate Complex Analysis, Graduate AlgebraicTopology, Quantum Theory and Analysis, Symbolic Computation, Low-Dimensional Topology andPhysics, Knots and Quantum Gravity, Quantum Gravity Seminar.Additional activities: Research. Served on Executive Committee, Committee on Preparatory Edu-cation, Library Committee, faculty hiring committees in mathematics and physics, and other com-mittees.Yale University, Department of Mathematics, Instructor, 1986-1988.Taught: Calculus of Several Variables, C&amp;#8727;-algebras and Physics, Nonlinear Wave Equations.Additional Activities: Research with National Science Foundation summer support, 1987-1988.EDUCATION Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D., mathematics, 1986.Honors: National Science Foundation Fellowship, 1982-1985.Princeton University, B.A., mathematics, 1982.Honors: Phi Beta Kappa.HONORSElected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1999.Elected Member of the Foundational Questions Institute, 2007.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
CONFERENCES ORGANIZEDKnots and Quantum Gravity workshop, U. C. Riverside, May 14–16, 1993.Knots and Quantum Gravity session of the Seventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Stanford, July 26, 1994.Low-dimensional Topology and Quantum Gravity session of Workshop on Canonical and Quantum Gravity II, Stephan Banach Institute, Warsaw, May 26 – June 6, 1997.Low-dimensional Topology and Quantum Gravity session of Joint Mathematics Meetings, Bal-timore, January 7 – 8, 1998.n-Categories: Foundations and Applications, workshop at Institute for Mathematics and its Applications, Minnesota, June 7–18, 2004.Higher Categories and Their Applications, workshop as part of the Thematic Program on Geometric Applications of Homotopy Theory, Fields Institute, Toronto, January 9-13, 2007.BOOKSAn Introduction to Algebraic and Constructive Quantum Field Theory, with Irving Segal and Zhengfang Zhou, Princeton University Press, 1992.Knots and Quantum Gravity, editor, Oxford University Press, 1994.Gauge Fields, Knots, and Gravity, with Javier Muniain, World Scientific Press, 1994.PAPERS Recursivity in quantum mechanics, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 280 (1983), 339-350.Conformally invariant quantum fields, doctoral dissertation, advisor Irving Segal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 1986.Bell’s inequality for C-algebras, Lett. Math. Phys. 13 (1987), 135–136.Is life improbable?, Found. Phys. 19 (1989), 91–95.The global Goursat problem on R×S1, with Zhengfang Zhou, Jour. Funct. Analysis 83 (1989),364–382.Scattering and the geometry of the solution manifold of &amp;#8851;&amp;#8852;f + &amp;#955;f3= 0, Jour. Funct. Analysis83 (1989), 317–332.Analyticity of scattering for the &amp;#966;4theory, with Zhengfang Zhou, Comm. Math. Phys. 124(1989), 9–21.Scattering for the Yang-Mills equations, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 315 (1989), 823–832.Wick products of the free Bose field, Jour. Funct. Analysis 86 (1989), 211–225.Scattering and complete integrability in conformally invariant nonlinear theories, Jour. Math.Phys. 31 (1990), 757–762.The global Goursat problem and scattering for nonlinear wave equations, with Irving Segal andZhengfang Zhou, Jour. Funct. Analysis 93 (1990), 239–269.Conserved quantities for the Yang-Mills equations, Adv. Math. 82 (1990), 126–131.Scattering and complete integrability in the massive &amp;#966;4theory, with Zhengfang Zhou, Jour.Funct. Analysis 94 (1990), 397–414.Topological lower bound on the energy of a twisted rod, with Rossen Dandoloff, Phys. Lett. A155 (1991), 145–147.The vacuum and lightcone quantization of interaction Hamiltonians, Lett. Math. Phys. 21(1991), 117–121.Differential calculi on quantum vector spaces with Hecke-type relations, Lett. Math. Phys. 23(1991), 133–141.Renormalized oscillator Hamiltonians, with Zhengfang Zhou, Adv. Math. 92 (1992), 106–127.On quantum fields satisfying a given wave equation, with Zhengfang Zhou, Jour. Funct. Analysis106 (1992), 439–453.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
On the Hopf term in a 2-dimensional sigma model for antiferromagnets, with Alan Bishop andRossen Dandoloff, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 5 (1991), 2003–2005.R-commutative geometry and quantization of Poisson algebras, Adv. Math. 95 (1992), 61–91.Scattering and complete integrability in four dimensions, in Mathematical Aspects of ClassicalField Theory, eds. Mark Gotay, Jerrold Marsden and Vincent Moncrief, Contemp. Math. 132,American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1992, pp. 99–116.Link invariants of finite type and perturbation theory, Lett. Math. Phys. 26 (1992), 43–51.Quantum gravity and the algebra of tangles, Class. Quantum Grav. 10 (1993), 673–694.An algebraic approach to discrete mechanics, with James Gilliam, Lett. Math. Phys. 31 (1994),205–212.Generalized measures in gauge theory, Lett. Math. Phys. 31 (1994), 213–223.Diffeomorphism-invariant generalized measures on the space of connections modulo gauge trans-formations, in Proceedings of the Conference on Quantum Topology, ed. David N. Yetter, WorldScientific Press, Singapore, 1994, pp. 21–43.Strings, loops, knots and gauge fields, in Knots and Quantum Gravity, ed. J. Baez, Oxford U.Press, Oxford, 1994, pp. 133–168.Hochschild homology in a braided tensor category, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 344 (1994), 885–906.Strings and two-dimensional QCD for finite N, with Washington Taylor IV, Nucl. Phys. B 426(1994), 53–70.Link invariants, holonomy algebras and functional integration, Jour. Funct. Analysis 127 (1995),108–131.Topological aspects of spin and statistics of solitons in nonlinear sigma-models, with MichaelOdy and William Richter, Jour. Math. Phys. 36 (1995), 108–131.Higher-dimensional algebra and topological quantum field theory, with James Dolan, Jour.Math. Phys. 36 (1995), 6073–6105.Quantum gravity hamiltonian for manifolds with boundary, with Javier P. Muniain and DardoP&amp;#305;riz, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995), 6840–6845.Spin networks in gauge theory, Adv. Math. 117 (1996), 253–272.Spin networks in nonperturbative quantum gravity, in The Interface of Knots and Physics, ed.Louis Kauffman, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1996, pp. 167–203.Four-dimensional BF theory as a topological quantum field theory, Lett. Math. Phys. 38 (1996),129–143.Knots and quantum gravity: progress and prospects, in Proceedings of the Seventh MarcelGrossman Meeting on General Relativity, ed. Robert T. Jantzen and G. Mac Keiser, World ScientificPress, Singapore, 1996, pp. 779–797.Higher-dimensional algebra I: braided monoidal 2-categories, with Martin Neuchl, Adv. Math.121 (1996), 196–244.An introduction to n-categories, 7th Conference on Category Theory and Computer Science,eds. E. Moggi and G. Rosolini, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 1290, Springer,Berlin, 1997, pp. 1–33.Higher-dimensional algebra II: 2-Hilbert spaces, Adv. Math. 127 (1997), 125–189.Functional integration on the space of connections, with Stephen Sawin, Jour. Funct. Analysis50 (1997), 1–27.2-Tangles, with Laurel Langford, Lett. Math. Phys. 43 (1998), 187–197.Quantum geometry and black hole entropy, with Abhay Ashtekar, Alejandro Corichi and KirillKrasnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998), 904–907.Higher-dimensional algebra III: n-categories and the algebra of opetopes, with James Dolan,Adv. Math. 135 (1998), 145–206.Spin foam models, Class. Quantum Grav. 15 (1998), 1827–1858.Degenerate solutions of general relativity from topological field theory, Commun. Math. Phys.193 (1998), 219–231.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
Diffeomorphism-invariant spin network states, with Stephen Sawin, Jour. Funct. Analysis 158(1998), 253–266.Quantization of diffeomorphism-invariant theories with fermions, with Kirill Krasnov, Jour.Math. Phys. 39 (1998), 1251–1271.Categorification, with James Dolan, in Higher Category Theory, eds. Ezra Getzler and MikhailKapranov, Contemp. Math. 230, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1998,pp. 1–36.The quantum tetrahedron in 3 and 4 dimensions, with John Barrett, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.3 (1999), 815–850.An introduction to spin foam models of BF theory and quantum gravity, in Geometry andQuantum Physics, eds. Helmut Gausterer and Harald Grosse, Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer,Berlin, 2000, pp. 25–93.From finite sets to Feynman diagrams, with James Dolan, in Mathematics Unlimited - 2001and Beyond, vol. 1, eds. Bjorn Engquist and Wilfried Schmid, Springer, Berlin, 2001, pp. 29–50.Higher-dimensional algebra and Planck-scale physics, in Physics Meets Philosophy at the PlanckLength, eds. Craig Callender and Nick Huggett, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 177–195.Quantum geometry of isolated horizons and black hole entropy, with Abhay Ashtekar and KirillKrasnov, Adv. Th. Math. Phys. 4 (2001), 1–94.Integrability for relativistic spin networks, with John Barrett, Class. Quantum Grav. 18 (2001),4683–4700.The octonions, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 39 (2002), 145–205.Positivity of spin foam amplitudes, with J. Daniel Christensen, Class. Quantum Grav. 19 (2002),2291–2306.Spin foam models of Riemannian quantum gravity, with J. Daniel Christensen, Thomas R.Halford and David C. Tsang, Class. Quantum Grav. 19 (2002), 4627–4648.Uncertainty in measurements of distance, with S. Jay Olson, Class. Quantum Grav. 19 (2002),L121–L125.Asymptotics of 10j symbols, with J. Daniel Christensen and Greg Egan, Class. Quantum Grav.19 (2002), 6489–6513.Spin foam perturbation theory, in Diagrammatic Morphisms and Applications, eds. David Rad-ford, Fernando Souza, and David Yetter, Contemp. Math. 318, American Mathematical Society,Providence, Rhode Island, 2003, pp. 9–21.The quantum of area?, Nature 421 (2003), 702–703.Higher-dimensional algebra IV: 2-tangles, with Laurel Langford, Adv. Math. 180 (2003), 705–764.Higher-dimensional algebra V: 2-groups, with Aaron D. Lauda, Th. Appl. Cat. 12 (2004), 423–491.Higher-dimensional algebra VI: Lie 2-algebras, with Alissa S. Crans, Th. Appl. Cat. 12 (2004),492–528.On Quaternions and Octonions: Their Geometry, Arithmetic, and Symmetry, by John H.Conway and Derek A. Smith, review in Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 42 (2005), 229–243.The meaning of Einstein’s equation, with Emory F. Bunn, Amer. Jour. Phys. 73 (2005), 644–652.Quantum quandaries: a category-theoretic perspective, in Structural Foundations of QuantumGravity, eds. Steven French, Dean Rickles and Juha Saatsi, Oxford U. Press, Oxford, 2006, pp.240–265.Higher gauge theory, with Urs Schreiber, in Categories in Algebra, Geometry and Mathemat-ical Physics, eds. Alexei Davydov, Michael Batanin, Michael Johnson, Stephen Lack and AmnonNeeman, Contemp. Math. 431, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2007,pp. 7–30.Quantization of strings and branes coupled to BF theory, with Alejandro Perez, Adv. Theor.Math. Phys. 11 (2007), 1–19.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
From loop groups to 2-groups, with Alissa S. Crans, Danny Stevenson and Urs Schreiber,Homotopy, Homology, and Appl. 9 (2007), 101–135.Exotic statistics for strings in 4d BF theory, with Alissa S. Crans and Derek Wise, Adv. Theor.Math. Phys. 11 (2007), 707–749.Lectures on n-categories and cohomology, with Michael Shulman, to appear in n-Categories:Foundations and Applications, eds. John Baez and Peter May.The classifying space of a topological 2-group, with Danny Stevenson, to appear in proceedingsof the 2007 Abel Symposium.Physics, topology, logic and computation: a Rosetta Stone, with Mike Stay, to appear in NewStructures of Physics, ed. Bob Coecke.RECENT INVITED LECTURES“Simplicial Quantum Geometry,” CUNY Graduate School and University Center, March 2000.“From Finite Sets to Feynman Diagrams,” University of Memphis, April 2000.“Quantum Geometry and Black Hole Entropy”, 13th International Congress on MathematicalPhysics, Imperial College, London, July 2000.“n-Categorical Physics”, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, Oc-tober 2000.“n-Categorical Physics”, American Mathematical Society Meeting, San Francisco State Univer-sity, October 2000.“Spin Networks, Spin Foams and Quantum Gravity”, Department of Physics, University ofWisconsin, Milwaukee, February 2001.“The Meaning of Relativity”, Departments of Mathematics and Physics, University of Wiscon-sin, Milwaukee, February 2001.“Spin Networks in Canonical Quantum Gravity” and “The Quantum Tetrahedron”, Departmentof Mathematics, Pennsylvania State University, March 2001.“Lorentzian Spin Networks”, Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry, PennsylvaniaState University, March 2001.“The Meaning of Einstein’s Equation,” Physics Department, University of Texas at Brownsville,April 2001.“Real Numbers, Complex Numbers, Quaternions and Octonions,” Mathematics Department,Calfornia State San Bernardino, May 2001.“New Developments in Canonical Quantum Gravity,” plenary talk, 9th Canadian Conferenceon General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, Edmonton, Canada, May 2001.“Discrete Riemannian Geometry and Gauge Theory” (4 lectures), Graphs and Patterns in Math-ematics and Theoretical Physics, a conference at SUNY Stony Brook in honor of Dennis Sullivan’s60th birthday, June 2001.“Categorification and Computation,” Conference on Algebraic Topological Methods in Com-puter Science, Stanford University, July 2001.“Normed Division Algebras: A Categorical Perspective,” Category Theory Seminar, Depart-ment of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, Cambridge University, August 2001.“Spin Foam Models of Quantum Gravity,” conference on Discrete Random Geometries andQuantum Gravity, Spinoza Institute, Utrecht, October 2001.“n-Categories in Algebraic Topology”, Algebraic Topology Seminar, Mathematics Department,University of Chicago, March 2002.“The World of n-Categories”, Mathematics Department, University of Chicago, March 2002.“Quantum Riemannian Geometry and Gauge Theory” (6 hours of lectures), Korea Institute ofAdvanced Studies, Seoul, March 2002.“The World of n-Categories”, Mathematics Department, University of California, Santa Cruz,April 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
“n-Categories in Homology Theory”, Workshop on Nonabelian Hodge Theory and Higher Cat-egories, Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, April 2002.“Categorified Gauge Theory,” Joint Meeting of the Pacific Northwest Geometry Seminar andCascade Topology Seminar, University of Washington, Seattle, May, 2002.“n-Categories and Homotopy Theory” (5 lectures), Department of Pure Mathematics and Math-ematical Statistics, Cambridge University, July, 2002.“The Vector Cross Product in Dimensions 0, 1, 3 and 7”, Department of Mathematics, GeorgeWashington University, September 2002.“Building Spacetime from Spin”, Dirac Centenary Conference, Baylor University, Texas, Octo-ber 2002.“Higher-Dimensional Algebra and Quantum Gravity”, Philosophy of Science Association, Mil-waukee, November 2002.“The Vector Cross Product in Dimensions 0, 1, 3 and 7”, Department of Mathematics, Univer-sity of California, San Diego, December 2002.“Categorified Lie Algebras and Lie Groups”, Algebra Mini-Conference, Department of Mathe-matics, University of New South Wales, Australia, January 2003.“A Categorical Approach to Division Algebras”, Australian Category Seminar, Department ofMathematics, Macquarie University, Australia, January 2003.“Categorifying Quantum Mechanics” (4 lectures), Australian Category Seminar, MathematicsDepartment, Macquaries University and University of Sydney, Australia, February 2003.“The Octonions”, Pure Mathematics Department, University of Adelaide, Australia, February2003.“Lie 2-Groups and Lie 2-Algebras”, Pure Mathematics Department, University of Adelaide,Australia, February 2003.“From the Octonions to E8”, Mathematics Department, University of Western Ontario, London,Canada, March 2003.“New Directions in Spin Foam Theory”, Spin Foam Seminar, Perimeter Institute of TheoreticalPhysics, Waterloo, Canada, March 2003.“Categorified Gauge Theory”, Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Canada,March 2003.“Quantum Geometry and Its Applications”, plenary talk at Gravitation: a Decennial Perspec-tive, conference at the Center of Gravitational Physics and Geometry, Pennsylvania State University,June 2003.“Categorified Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, Bundles and Connections”, plenary talk at the Work-shop on Higher-Order Geometry and Categorification, Superior Tecnico, Lisbon, Portugal, July2003.“Struggles with the Continuum”, plenary talk at the Young Researcher’s Symposium of theICMP, Instituto Superior Tecnico Lisbon, Portugal, July 2003.“Euler Characteristic versus Homotopy Cardinality”, Fields Institute Program on Applied Ho-motopy Theory, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, September 2003.“Categorification”, Workshop on the Ramifications of Category Theory, a conference at theUniversity of Florence in honor of F. William Lawvere’s 60th birthday, Florence, Italy, November2003.“Spin Foam Models”, talk at Nonperturbative Quantum Gravity: Loops and Spin Foams, CentreInternationale de Recontres Mathematiques, Luminy, Marseille, May 2004.“Why n-Categories?”, “What n-Categories Should be Like”, and “Space and State, Spacetimeand Process”, n-Categories: Foundations and Applications, IMA, Minneapolis, June 2004.“n-Categorical Physics”, 4 lectures at the Department of Applied Mathematics and TheoreticalPhysics, Cambridge University, England, July 2004.“Loop Quantum Gravity, Quantum Geometry and Spin Foams”, plenary talk at the 17th Con-ference of the International Society of General Relativity and Gravitation (GR-17), Dublin, Ireland,July 2004.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
“The Problem of Dynamics in Quantum Gravity”, Workshop on Quantum Gravity in the Amer-icas, Perimeter Institute, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, October 2004.“Categorified Gauge Theory”, lecture at Arithmetic, Geometry and Topology, a conference inhonor of Larry Breen’s 60th birthday, Institute Galilee, Universitee Paris 13, France, December 2004.“Loop Quantum Gravity”, plenary talk at the ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms(SODA), Vancouver, British Columbia, January 2005.“From Loop Groups to 2-Groups”, Algebra Seminar, Mathematics Department of the Universityof California at Irvine, May 2005.“The Mysteries of Counting: Euler Characteristic Versus Homotopy Cardinality”, public lectureat Categories in Algebra, Geometry and Mathematical Physics, a conference in honor of Ross Street’s60th birthday, Sydney, Australia, July 2005.“Higher Gauge Theory”, two talks at Categories in Algebra, Geometry and MathematicalPhysics, a conference in honor of Ross Street’s 60th birthday, Sydney and Canberra, Australia,July 2005.“Higher Gauge Theory, Homotopy Theory and n-Categories”, four lectures at a graduate sum-mer school on Topics in Homotopy Theory at the Pacific Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Calgary,Canada, August 2005.“Higher Gauge Theory: 2-Connections”, plenary talk at the Union College Mathematics Con-ference, Union College, Schenectady, New York, December 2005.“Universal Algebra and Diagrammatic Reasoning”, nine lectures at Geometry of Computation2006, Centre International de Recontres Mathematiques, Marseille, France, February 2006.“Fundamental Physics: Where We Stand Today”, Faculte des Sciences de Luminy, Marseille,France, February 2006.“Loop Quantum Gravity”, Physics Department of California State University, Long Beach,March 2006.“Higher Gauge Theory, Higher Categories”, three lectures, 24th annual Unni Namboodiri Lec-tures in Geometry and Topology, University of Chicago, April 2006.“n-Categories and Cohomology”, three talks in the Category Theory Seminar, Department ofMathematics, University of Chicago, April 2006.“Higher Gauge Theory”, three lectures, 2006 Barrett Lectures, University of Tennessee,Knoxville, April 2006.“Higher-Dimensional Algebra: a Language for Quantum Spacetime”, Perimeter Institute, Wa-terloo, Canada, May 2006.“Fundamental Physics: Where We Stand Today”, Department of Physics, University of WesternOntario, June 2006.“Tales of the Dodecahedron”, Reese Prosser Memorial Lecture, Mathematics Department, Dart-mouth College, November 2006.“Higher Gauge Theory”, joint physics/mathematics colloquium, Louisiana State University,November 2006.“Higher Gauge Theory”, Mathematics Department, Stanford University, December 2006.“The Homotopy Hypothesis”, lecture at Higher Categories and Their Applications, Fields In-stitute, Toronto, January 2007.“Quantum Quandaries: a Category-Theoretic Perspective”, lecture at Philosophical and FormalFoundations of Modern Physics, Les Treilles, France, April 2007.“Cartan Geometry and MacDowell-Mansouri Gravity: the Work of Derek Wise”, lecture at theAstroParticule et Cosmologie (APC) group at Universite Paris 7, July 2007.“Why Mathematics is Boring”, lecture at Mathematics and Narrative, Delphi, July 2007.“Higher Gauge Theory and Elliptic Cohomology”, lecture at the 2007 Abel Symposium, Oslo,August 2007.“Higher Gauge Theory and the String Group”, lecture at Poisson Geometry and Sigma Models,Erwin Schrodinger Institut, Vienna, August 2007.“2-Hilbert Spaces”, London Analysis and Probability Seminar, University College, London,September 2007.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
“Higher Gauge Theory and the String Group”, plenary talk, 22nd British Topology Meeting,Sheffield University, Sheffield, England, September 2007.“Spans in Quantum Theory”, keynote talk at Deep Beauty: Mathematical Innovation and theSearch for an Underlying Intelligibility of the Quantum World, Princeton University, October 2007.“Fundamental Physics: Where We Stand Today”, James Madison University, Harrisonburg,Virgina, November 2007.

 

[Einstein]

Re: Here is one for our local Einstein...

RMT

This post is NOT intended to be a response to you Kanigo2. At least not directly. It is more for Einstein, but the fact that I totally accept the following thoughts stated by someone else will let you know where I stand on physics and any advances in understanding gravity better.

Are you a computer generated A.I. program? No doubt planted by the ETs to suppress any possible technological advancements proposed by maverick experimentalists like myself. The reason I ask is because I called up my bank last week to talk about my account and got a computer. A very smart computer. It talked back to me. It answered all my questions just like a real person would. So I started thinking about that. What if RMT is a Lawnmower man? That would explain alot of your replies. And also your inability to carry on an intelligent discussion.

Want to talk about gravity? I stated that gravity does not act on mass. You agreed and stated that gravity warps spacetime. So lets use a little logic. If gravity does not act on mass, then the gravitational constant would no longer be a viable or acceptable standard in the real universe. Entirely fictional, based upon a fictional relationship between massive bodies. So it is higly unlikely that the equations that describe a blackhole are actually describing something real in our universe. Mathematical fiction.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Here is one for our local Einstein...

Einstein,

Are you a computer generated A.I. program? No doubt planted by the ETs to suppress any possible technological advancements proposed by maverick experimentalists like myself. The reason I ask is because I called up my bank last week to talk about my account and got a computer. A very smart computer. It talked back to me. It answered all my questions just like a real person would. So I started thinking about that. What if RMT is a Lawnmower man? That would explain alot of your replies. And also your inability to carry on an intelligent discussion.

Yawn.

Want to talk about gravity? I stated that gravity does not act on mass. You agreed and stated that gravity warps spacetime.

I should point out this is incomplete (as usual). It is more than just me who agrees. Your namesake not only agreed, but gave a mathematical formulation... once which has been validated by many who came after him. So in your usual attempt to setup a polemic, you wish to make it all about me. That is flattering, but I give credit where it is due.

So lets use a little logic.

Here we see the same signpost that always marks our Einstein's descent into a fantasy world of incomplete and unfalsifiable statements. What you call logic is merely your faulty (and typically incomplete) form of reasoning. That does not mean it is logic, as in able to be expressed with mathematical rigor. And what you call logic (which is not) typically leads to demonstrably false statements:

If gravity does not act on mass, then the gravitational constant would no longer be a viable or acceptable standard in the real universe. Entirely fictional, based upon a fictional relationship between massive bodies.

Absolutely not. Just because gravity does not act on mass does not mean mass is not affected by the interaction it has with spacetime. In fact, this is the exact reason for the descriptive term called "the gravity well". The amount of mass determines how much warping of spacetime occurs. And the amount of spacetime warping has a direct impact on how far away one (large) body of mass will "capture" another body of mass and begin to pull it in. The beauty of relativity is you can change reference frames and the physics stays the same. Hence, your statement is false because you assume that because we shift from a mass-centric description of gravity to a space-time warping view of gravity that the physics should somehow be different. This is what gets you in trouble all the time, but you will never admit it. I don't believe you really understand the mathematical formulation of frame invariance. In fact, I know it.

So it is higly unlikely that the equations that describe a blackhole are actually describing something real in our universe. Mathematical fiction.

Not highly unlikely at all. However, I would like to see your mathematical quantification that shows to me how it is "highly unlikely"...not just your flawed reasoning. If it were "highly unlikely" then we would not have observations of the movement of baryonic matter bodies that completely validate the model of spacetime warping of a black hole in the vicinity of these baryonic bodies. IOW, there is evidence that supports the model, hence that makes it somewhat LESS than highly unlikely.

I used to give you some credit and say "nice try". But your insistence that your word-based approach and "logic" (cough) actually leads to correct conclusions just gets really, really dry after awhile. Kinda like how you must feel about my sarcasm. So all is in balance, all is relative, and we can all sleep soundly at night knowing the REAL Einstein has not been falsified (yet).

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Gravity-Probe-B-Proves-Space-Time-Warps-52026.shtml
Gravity Probe B Proves Space-Time Warps - Einstein's predictions confirmed


RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Here is one for our local Einstein...

I'm "pretty sure" that we have the index laying around here somewhere. I think that I posted it a couple of years ago.

Anyway a repost is always nice

Thanks Darby. I wonder how upset our Einstein would get if anyone started to keep track of his score on Baez's scale. :eek:. Of course, I will be the first to admit that my style will garner a few points on the scale (for instance, there are many times I will capitalize some words in my posts). But I would still wager that my crackpot score comes in significantly lower than our Einsteins.

Because in reality, crackpottery is relative like everything else. We are all crackpots in one way or other... it is just a matter of degree. Makes one wonder if there is a universal crackpot constant? :D

RMT

 

[Kanigo2]

Re: Here is one for our local Einstein...

Not that it means anything to anyone but me now I kinda understand why they refer to space-time as a membrane.

It really takes the rigidity away and makes things seems a little more fluid.

If they really do find the Higgs Boson- then they have discovered a true only mass particle that has no force or matter.

It is a particle with a lot of close freinds.(almost appears random at the moment)

Yet- if you take that same particle tear away forces and matter from around it and only allow it to have one type of force as a "freind"
They achieve supersymetry.

Imagine super electromagnetic force or a super gravity. Thats tight.

I had no idea , until trying to actually look through this that it was feasible.

They even have a representation of it here:

Cancellation of the Higgs boson quadratic mass renormalization between fermionic top quark loop and scalar stop squark tadpole Feynman diagrams in a supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model.

I understand it is all theoretical and i have to accept string theory but that gives me hope.
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

And understanding that now , I understand where string theory came from in the first place from the super gravity speculation, all they had to do was say this and it would be a lot easier for everyone to "get it"

 

[RainmanTime]

Gravity Wave vs. Gravity Particle (Higgs Boson)?

Kanigo2:

Catching up to you this morning...

I mean seriously -consider the concept of a gravity wave, it starts to alter the very basis of alot of what we know about an empty vacuum. It actually implies that there is a basic formulated force/mass that underlies "empty space". I keep visualizing a blanket you spread out on a bed.

Yes, it is exciting to think we might learn something new about physics by trying to detect gravity in a wave form. And thanks to Darby for pointing out the not-so-obvious challenges of doing this. Signal to Noise (S/N) ratio is another important factor in any real system, which I won't get into here.

What I'd like to point out is how some people are looking for gravity in a wave form, they also speak of the "particle that carries mass", the Higgs Boson. And by "carries mass" that is another word for saying "the thing responsible for mass warping spacetime, which is what we call gravity."

So notice where we are at? It is the same old wave/particle duality for light, right? Do we think the answer to the gravity enigma will NOT be self-similar to the answer for light? Self-similarity (but not self-exactness) is one of the mainstays of our universe that I hope everyone would agree to. Unless there are any takers who want to argue that wish to argue the universe does NOT show self-similar patterns across all levels of spatial considerations (as we know them)?

So to be blunt: Would we or should we be surprised if the answer from experiments comes back as "gravity can act as both a wave and a particle"...just like light? Does such an answer get anyone any further to defining the EXACT mechanism of gravity waves or gravity particles? No. And that is because of the inherent uncertainty in measurements...back to the uncertainty principle.

So to me... I am a bit bored by "it is a particle or a wave" search. I think I know the answer (it is both), and I prefer to ponder on the mechanism that causes it to appear to be a wave sometimes, and appear to be a particle other times. To me, this enigma speaks to the inherent duality of all things in our universe. How "things" and "reality" all seems to spring from some interaction between two poles (+) and (-). And with the gravity/wave observations of light (and I predict gravity), we see it once again.

To put it another way: As a guy who spent his college life and career understanding physical reality well enough to build flying physical systems and design things to control them... I think I am happy enough with my (approximate) knowledge of physics of Massive bodies and how they move through SpaceTime. I "get" the physical enough to make it work for what I need to do in life....

So now, I wish to move BEYOND the physical, to the next level...which we call FUNCTIONAL. It is a very real "dimension" of any system, one which I do all my personal designs in (control laws). One could call this dimension "meta-physical" as well as the more strict and technical term Functional. The Functional domain is what operates ON the Physical domain to effect changes in the physical world. Your mind is that functional piece of you that is the "prime mover" in any decision you arrive at to change your world through physical actions. You THINK, you DECIDE how to act, and then you ACT. So understanding and being able to model the Functional domain of any resulting Physical system is just as important (if not moreso) as understanding the "particle/wave duality" of light or gravity. Those are just effects in the physical domain. The CAUSES of those effects (light and gravity) have their origin in the Functional domain.... that Meta-Physical domain.

And just because we are talking META-physical does not mean we give up on a mathematically rigorous way to describe Functional reality.

And now let me really try to blow your mind... There is a META-Meta-Physical level of system operation as well. A level beyond the Functional. It is called the Operational domain of a system. It is Meta-Functional and Meta^2-Physical. It is kind of like the Functional domain is the first derivative of Physical, and the Operational domain is the first derivative of Functional.

And guess what principal metric is associated with the Operational domain when it comes to systems theory? Yep.... (TIME)... or what we have come to agree to is the <font color="blue"> approximation measure that we call Time.[/COLOR]

Now here is something interesting as you move from the lowest domain (physical) reality up to the highest of the THREE domains (Operational):

<font color="red">PHYSICAL REALITY = MATRIX of MASSIVE SPACE-TIME.[/COLOR]
<font color="blue">FUNCTIONAL REALITY = VECTOR of SPACE-TIME (Space per unit Time...Velocity)
as warped by a VECTOR of MASS-TIME (Mass per unit Time...Matter...more commonly called mass flow rate)[/COLOR]
<font color="black">OPERATIONAL REALITY = 1-Dimensional TIME LINE as perceived by the Operating Entity.
(The One who controls the overall System). We would relate this to the worldline concept of the Penrose diagram.[/COLOR]

Making any sense to you?
RMT

 

[Kanigo2]

Re: Gravity Wave vs. Gravity Particle (Higgs Boson)?

What I am happy about is that you are like 5 steps in front of me and already establishing an operating parameter for another "nomalized" space-time. In effect another stable dimension.

And keeping it about as fluid as possible.

You are establishing protocols for measurement between any two systems.

I feel like I am just along for the ride.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Gravity Wave vs. Gravity Particle (Higgs Boson)?

You are establishing protocols for measurement between any two systems.

That is <font color="blue">EXACTLY[/COLOR] correct, Kanigo2. Very perceptive of you. In fact, I am not only establishing them. They are already established. The domains that I refer to (Operational-Functional-Physical) are commonly used as the basis for complex aerospace (and any other type of) system design. I am simply seeking to expose you to these ideas...to further your own investigations and adventures in space-time!

Let me make another analogy... I know you are familiar with vectors and vector spaces. We handle the modeling of physical reality with respect to space by 3 orthogonal directions (either X-Y-Z for a rectilinear coordinate system or R-Theta-Phi for a spherical coordinate system). In very much the same way I can decompose any real vector into its orthogonal X-Y-Z componets, I can do SIMILAR (self-similar) thing in describing the totality of any real system by describing that system in three orthogonal system domains:

<font color="black">Operational - HOW ONE USES THE SYSTEM.[/COLOR] The domain that integrates FUNCTIONAL with PHYSICAL to accomplish some GOAL (intention).
<font color="blue">Functional - WHAT THE SYSTEM DOES.[/COLOR] The domain that accepts functional inputs, performs a transform, and produces functional outputs (to other functions). Verb-based design.
<font color="red">Physical - WHAT THE SYSTEM IS AND WHERE IT LIVES.[/COLOR] The domain of physical structures and physical connections. The system physical objects immersed in its environment.

This is a higher-level, systemic, orthogonal set of domains. You should note that when you "decompose" the entire physical domain, you do so in terms of Mass, Space, and Time. (Massive SpaceTime!). So the 3-D orthogonal dimension of Space is EMBEDDED WITHIN the higher level Physical domain of the system.

RMT

 

[Kanigo2]

Re: Gravity Wave vs. Gravity Particle (Higgs Boson)?

Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates

Is this where you got the name Rainmantime?

and are implementing A family of static nested spheres.

Isotrpoic Coordinates

I like the fact you are not taking the static measurements. Kinda defeats the purpose.

But brings up the concept of Causality, which is violated in quantum mechanics.
Always another question for -"Can I Go too"=Me

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Gravity Wave vs. Gravity Particle (Higgs Boson)?

Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates

Is this where you got the name Rainmantime?

Excellent. The Rain frame.

Well, yes, but this is only one small part of how I came to my nick.

and are implementing A family of static nested spheres.

Isotrpoic Coordinates

Synchronicity Alert! I was just last night reviewing descriptions of isotropic coordinates, for the express purpose of bringing them up to you in our conversation. I was going to refer to the fact that space, as we measure it, is isotropic. But it seems you were already there, as is now obvious! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But brings up the concept of Causality, which is violated in quantum mechanics.
Always another question for -"Can I Go too"=Me

Bohm Pilot Wave theory. Consciousness directs quantum decisions at many levels of the system (spheres within spheres).

RMT

 

[Kanigo2]

Re: Gravity Wave vs. Gravity Particle (Higgs Boson)?

Bohm Pilot Wave theory

I like it, he gives an answer to a question not even asked yet. hehehehe

Thus defeating Schrödinger equation and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Heisenberg uncertainty all in one fell stroke of the pen.

The paradox can't exist because we see the outcome.

In short, there is a difference between "not knowing something" and "something is not there".

The key issue is whether we do measurements.

Muhahaha slick bastard.

I see why you return to the concept of "consciousness"

Keeps your concepts "light on your feet" as it were.
And expresses to me exactly why you refer to meta-data.

__________________________________________________________

I have read these things to my wife and she says that you sound like Hemingway and are going through one of those 7 year life changes trying to remember the things you have learned.

she said quote this:

“I suppose if a man has something once, always something of it remains.”

Leave it to a woman....

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Gravity Wave vs. Gravity Particle (Higgs Boson)?

I like it, he gives an answer to a question not even asked yet. hehehehe

You asked a question of causality, and Bohn Pilot Wave theory was your answer. Moreover, while you may have not explicitly asked your question yet <font color="blue">(explicate order)[/COLOR], you were already hinting at this question <font color="blue">(implicate order)[/COLOR] back when you were discussing chaos and hidden variables. Did you know that Bohm got his idea for "implicate order" from an experiment that shows the period-doubling route to chaos?

http://uncletaz.com/library/scimath/pilotwave.html

<font color="red"> "Bohm himself began formulating what he called the implicate order several decades ago. His ideas were inspired in part by a simple experiment he saw on television, in which a drop of ink was squeezed onto a cylinder of glycerine. When the cylinder rotated, the ink diffused through the glycerine in an apparently irreversible fashion; its order seemed to have disintegrated. But when the direction of rotation was reversed, the ink gathered into a drop again. Bohm made this simple experiment into a metaphor for au of reality. Underlying the apparently chaotic realm of physical appearances-the explicate order-there is always a deeper, implicate order that is often hidden." [/COLOR]

Thus defeating Schrödinger equation and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Heisenberg uncertainty all in one fell stroke of the pen.

Do you have a problem with non-locality? Bell's Theorem does not say hidden variable theories cannot explain QM... only that no LOCAL hidden variable theory could do so. So you have a problem with "spooky action at a distance"?

The paradox can't exist because we see the outcome.

The paradox does exist because we see two outcomes and cannot explain which one is "right". Both remain viable until we reach a new explanation of order. We are (quite literally) the man with two watches who does not know what time it is! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

In short, there is a difference between "not knowing something" and "something is not there".

The key issue is whether we do measurements.

This is the key. Are you saying we do NOT make measurements? If not, how do you explain the collapse of the wave function?

Muhahaha slick bastard.

I see why you return to the concept of "consciousness"

Keeps your concepts "light on your feet" as it were.

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif You seem to have decided to reveal your own skeptic. Are you the type who insists there should be a theory of everything that is devoid of an explanation that includes consciousness? You dismiss your greatest systemic capability so nonchalantly? Why?

And expresses to me exactly why you refer to meta-data.

You need meta-data to have an implicate order. You will never explain the reality of this system that we (our consciousnesses) are trapped within without meta-data. Got it yet?

I have read these things to my wife and she says that you sound like Hemingway and are going through one of those 7 year life changes trying to remember the things you have learned.

she said quote this:

“I suppose if a man has something once, always something of it remains.”

Leave it to a woman....

I could make lots of comments about the female of our species. Let's just do that with a simple question:

How many different pairs of shoes does your wife have?

'Nuff said! :D
RMT

 

[Kanigo2]

Re: Gravity Wave vs. Gravity Particle (Higgs Boson)?

Don't mind the wife she made me type it and right now I think 5 sets of shoes(she practical).

Most of that segment was actually cut and paste from the wiki--and after reading the page you posted I found that GEM of an experiment(I didn't understand it when you quoted it and had highlighted it myself) of the ink in the glycerine.

I will try to find a youtube on it, but not just yet.

Inherent in Bohm theory he had started to make a more definitive structure based on thermal properties.
Is that what this gentleman is doing?

Blacklight Power

Seems like there are a lot of parallels.

----------------------------------------------------------

On the whole when I am working , Yes i do have a problem with hidden variables/ non-locality because it confuses me and leaves me feeling that I need help-Skeptic, absolutely.

I am still open to ideas, that is of course why I am asking.
I have read enough of your threads to state -I am surprised you aren't tired of re-explaining these things over and over again.
Then again, If everything was already understood it wouldn't be interesting. It would just be work.

Bohm quote:

Scientists who are frustrated at the thought that ultimate truths are unat tainable should consider the altemative. "They are going to be very frustrated if they get the final answer and then have nothing to do except be technicians," Bohm said.

Heheh.

I think I have found a mentor in this man Bohm.
If I cheer for him does that make me a heretic?