symmetrically structured spacetime, SUMMARY OF MY THREADS

Hi!....
As requested... I agree... It will make it easier if it was all together.
The coveted Occam's Razor prize.
(One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.)

Symmetry
is the tool being used to understand the universe and if there was an assumption underlying it (which could be wrong) then you can see that we would/could get wrong conclusions.
Everyone can look up the different symmetries that have been identified and that are used.
I have spent time doing that examination. Here is what I am concluding...
Packing and kissing numbers make symmetry. Symmetry arized from kissing numbers and packing.
I see this as the underlying and assumed principle.
I would like to pass on the following simple information:
Table of the Laws of Physics and their Sources
Also, there is a power point page which should be helpfull in giving further explanations.
by Vic Stenger
perception

The stronger you belief, the stronger will be your objection to accepting an idea that could cause a domino effect which would bring you house of belief tumbling down.
Therefore, an "idea" that can cause a house of belief to come down must be presented and accepted by the non-believer. It must be perceived as being a "better house".
Therefore, I must make some presumptions...
On Symmetry...
The language of math is very precise, yet...

A) They/we are all working from the same measured particle quantities.
B ) There can only be one symmetry.
Therefore, the problem must be in the communication channels . I have seen the same thing on many web pages and even in the discussions on these forums.
People are saying, "I see similarities in your work and in my work."

When we look at our surroundings. We presume that we are receiving/sending communicating from an infinite number of points because we are surrounded by a sphere. (wrong?)
Someone else may answer, that we receive data from only 3 point because we are in a 3d environment. (Wrong?)
Another answer could be 6 point because there is back forward, up down, right left. (wrong?)
Another answer could be 6 sides because there is 6 sides to a cube. (Wrong?)
The math has already been done. Its at kissing numbers

The table did not quote. Here are some extracts.
dimension kissing number
1 -----------2
2 -----------6
3 -----------12
4 -----------24
10 ---------->336
12 ---------->756

The kissing numbers are equal to freedom of movements.
If you have more dimensions you will get more entropy, less potential energy and more broken symmetry.
All dimensions must be considered when considering entropy, potential energy.
You cannot fudge by hiding energy (kinetic) in unseen dimensions and pretend that the law of conservation of energy is being followed.

That is the maximum number of point that allows the flow of information from you to your environment.
There are 12 communication paths.
To understand the truth of this, you must stop time and motion.
Once the system is dynamic ... then you perceive that the information is exchanged from a sphere of infine number of points.
Since there are only 12 communication channel, which are in constant motion, it will affect how we receive/perceive a photon.
If I'm right, then that could explain why EMF is perceived to be travelling in a wave.
Of course, you will be able to make better predictions
Here is a picture of those 12 points of contact.

( to better see the 12 points you need to change it's shape/topology. It will resemble 2 sheet/circles joined together at six points)

The Standard theory has a different explanation at Masses and molasses

Here is a good list of particles
They can even find particles for dark matter which some astronomers are now saying may not even exist.
DARK MATTER

Dark Matter
From where I live, there was a beautifull big moon last night. The atmosphere was doing some "lensing" and making it look bigger.
We all heard that the sun (gravity) does some "lensing". We, also heard about galaxies doing "lensing" and focusing/bringing us light from way back of that galaxie. The "Einstein Cross" is the most famous.
Now, I don't know too much, I don't get invited to the conferences and workshops with the "doctorates".
Therefore, I have never heard any discussion, over a bottle of beer, on the possibility that our own galaxy is doing any "lensing".
Have you heard anything on "lensing" by our galaxy?
Have you seen anything published which would rule out "lensing" by our galaxy as a cause of us not seeing 95% of the sunlight?
(Otherwise, I'm going to keep believing in something possible?? or impossible and that does not make good science.)
By taking the situation to light years then it becomes obvious that the electron has more than "4 spots/bulleyes" to hit. It has millions of "spots" and it does not have enough time to hit every "spot". As a result, we cannot get enough photons to be able to see 95% of the universe. If there are only 300,000 variables that are available to the photon then it is obvious that you could be standing in a spot that is in perpetual darkness.

THAT IS WHY WE ONLY SEE 5% OF THE MASS OF THE UNIVERSE. THERE IS NO DARK MATTER. THERE IS ONLY ABSENCE OF PHOTONS THAT CAN GET TO US.
LENSING

2) Of course, there will be THOUSANDS OF galaxies that are so far away that we should not be getting any light. If you do not consider that ISL is a serious candidate then you should consider that "lensing" is the cause. A possible answer is that the spacetime of a far away galaxy is focusing part of its own light and we are in its focal path.
3) It is quite possible that our own galaxy is also acting as a len and focusing the light towards the center of our galaxy and as a result leaving our area "poor" in light.

Here is a page with some "lensing math"


ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY---SHAPE OF SPACE
I want to approach this subject from a different angle. In relationship to spacetime NOT PARTICLES. By-the-way, all proposed theories must be able to explain the ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY.
With entropy at 0.0%,
It would be required that there not be any freedom of movement. Therefore, we would be referring to a solid ball with no change of distances, no change of dimensions and no time. Everything would be symmetrical. All dimensions would be either unreachable or occupied. There would be no movement and no change. Nothing can happen.
Also,
Potential energy would be at 100.0%.
What I want to do is to see if there are logical step to get us to the opposite end of the scale where entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%. This would be where all dimensions are empty and reachable. Therefore, nothing could happen.
All symmetry would be gone. This would be a full circle.

For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry".

THEREFORE, THE FIRST BROKEN SYMMETRY WOULD BE...??? movement in the first dimension??

For more info on symmetry look at Wall Paper Groups

1) The kissing numbers are equal to freedom of movements.

2) If you have more dimensions you will get more entropy, less potential energy and more broken symmetry which results in a greater diffusions of information.

3) All dimensions must be considered when considering entropy, potential energy.
(You cannot fudge by hiding energy (kinetic) in unseen dimensions and pretend that the law of conservation of energy is being followed.)

A) Initial conditions

When entropy is at 0.0% potential energy is at 100.0%. THIS WOULD BE A SOLID. This requires that there not be any freedom of movement. All dimensions are either unreacheable or occupied.
With the reverse situation, entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%, all dimensions are empty and reachable. THIS IS A VOID.

First step One dimension has 2 degree of freedom. It's not our universe. A string is 1D BUT it could be operating in a higher dimensional environment.

Second step
Two dimension has 6 degree of freedom. Would this be enough to make our universe? A string would be able to move in this environment. Lets look closer.

A practical example would be a 2d membrane.
A string could vibrate in a flat configuration and therefore could be making a two dimensional membrane. Therefore, string and m-theories calculations could have a place to start.
A 2D sheet/membrane made up of packed vibrating strings would have to take the configuration of "packed circles." One of these circles would be what Hawkins termed "an instanton." In 2d there would be a sheet of "instantons". Packed circles have 6 kissing points. This is the degree of freedom that a would be permitted. The packing density of circles is 90.69%.

What happened to ENTROPY?
It went from zero to 9.31%.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY?
It went from 100% to 90.69%.
What happened to SYMMETRY?
A SOLID HAD/HAS 100% SYMMETRY. The total amount of possible information. Therefore, there is a lost of information in a 2D configuration. Therefore, there
was a broken symmetry. There only exist the symmetry of packed circle and the information that can be contained in that configuration.

Third step
Three dimension
A "true" 3d object is a "solid ball." Our universe is not "solid".
Therefore, to get to a new dimension/equilibrium it is necessary to break the symmetry of 2d.
HOW?... BY OPENING A DOOR/punch a hole in the 2d membrane.
This is accomplished by having one of the instantons/"spot" spinning at right angle to the 2d membrane.
The 'Big Bang Instanton" was a portal from the 2d universe. The "spinning" of these 2d instantons at right angle to the 2d surface created our 3d spacetime. Our universe did not start from one instanton as postulated by Hawkins and others but rather of a whole lot of instantons. The result would be a cascading of "instantons/spots" into a 3d configuration - spheres. Therefore, what appear to be the beginning from one instantons is really a whole lot of instantons/spots coming from the same area out of 2d space and into 3d configuration. The size of the door only needs to be the size of a "instanton/spot". The term "Big Bang" has been misleading everyone. What we had was the opening of a door from the second dimension . This created what we refer to as inflation.

All of these instantons are still with us making the structure of spacetime. It is a very stable and symmetrical structure that has lasted for 14 BY.
Instantons which could not be incorporated into the structure of spacetime (10^80) became "the glove on the hand".
Since Hawkins and others have demonstrated that "Black Holes" have a 2d signatures then by taking the logic one step further we can postulate that particles have managed to open up a portal to the 2d universe. The 3d structure has been flatten to 2d.
Continuing the logic, there is no reason that would prevent the existence of many "big bangs and many black hole" as doorways to and from the 2nd dimension.
We are in an universe full of holes.


What happened to ENTROPY?
It went from zero to 25.95%.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY?
It went from 100% to 74.05%.
What happened to SYMMETRY?

Spheres have a packing density of 74.05%. Spheres have 12 kissing points. Therefore, the information that was contained in a 2d configuration will now be diffused through 12 contact points.
Therefore, it is possible to use a "spin quantum gravity" and twistor mathematic.

The more dimensions that are available the worst and more improbable it will become to have "our universe."
Anomalies are the result of having some "instantons/spots" failing to take a 3d sphere configurations. There were at 10^80 failures which we call particles. Theses "instantons/spots" that failed to get into the structure of spacetime are causing stress to the 3d spacetime and the spacetime is collapsing back into its 2d configuration which we call....

BLACK HOLES
Black holes are the result of the collapsing of the 3d configuration of space back to its previous 2d configuration. Since Black Holes are recycling 3d space back into the 2d space and since the universe is suppose to be expanding then the conclusion is that there is more 2d space being made into 3d space then what is being recycled to 2d space by the black holes. Not all information is lost.
There is more coming into our 3d universe then what is leaving to go to the 2d universe.
Your theories can be accommodated into the structure of spacetime. Your theories deal with particles that did not get incorporated into the structure of spacetime.
How does your theory incorporate packing and kissing numbers?

I have not invented anything new. I have only restated things more clearly from a different prospective.
"IT'S SO-O-O SIMPLE. IT CANNOT BE RIGHT."

PARTICLES
I have been avoiding discussing particles in my discussion for a very good reason...someone else has done it before me.
Chris Quigg .... he calls it a double simplex. I assume that everyone can download, in PDF, his published papers.

I cannot give you his picture but I found one that might be able to do some justice to his idea.

Here is what he has to say:
QUOTE
The mathematical underpinnings of the double simplex do bring discipline to the questions it elicits. The structure of the double simplex is based on SU(4)
SU(2) SU(2) decomposition of SO(10). A three-dimensional solid (tetrahedron) represents the fundamental 4 representation of SU(4). It is decorated at the vertices with dumbbells representing the SU(2)L and SU(2)R quantum numbers. The vertical coordinate of SU(4) can be read as B − L, the difference of baryon number and lepton number. The group SO(10) is a useful classification symmetry, because its 16-dimensional fundamental representation contains an entire generation of the known quarks and leptons. Using SO(10) as a coordinate system, if you like, carries no implication that it is the symmetry of the world, or that it is the basis of a unified theory of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions.
QUOTE
But the fact is that the electroweak symmetry is broken, so the world without a Higgs mechanism—but with strong-coupling QCD—is a world in which the SU(2)L U(1)Y becomes U(1)em. Because the W and Z have masses, the weak-isospin force, which we might have taken to be a confining force in the absence of symmetry breaking, is not confining.

Einstein came up with spacetime.
Hawkins came up with instanton and the 2d "information" for black holes.
Chris Quigg came up with "a new way to envision particles and interactions" the double simplex.
I found that nature builds a double simplex.
"A SPOT" as the unit particle of spacetime.
This cannot be coincidence.
The "spot" could be the shape that they are searching for to make the topology of spacetime in LQG and M-theories.
Maybe spacetime has a lot more to say in how the universe of particles works than what we could possibly imagine.


A SPOT





Yin_Yang
One cannot exist without the other.Yin and yang can transform into one another
Most forces in nature can be broken down into their respective yin and yang states, and the two are usually in movement rather than held in absolute stasis.
Yin Yang is a way of thinking about phenomena, and a way to describe how things function and interact with each other in the Universe.
(Note: If my images do not download it's because my web sit is overloaded. Try later to see the images.)
SPACE AND TIME ARE YIN_YANG.
The two are similar and are one.
PARTICLES FIT INTO SPACETIME LIKE A HAND INTO A GLOVE--YIN_YANG

I have been searching for any work that has been done which would demonstrate how the unitons/instantons/preons/strings/membrane/energy fields/knots/twistors/skirmions/spin wave/spots OR any other individual basic units THAT YOU HAVE COME UP WITH would be arranged/packed so that it would give us "The Inverse Square Law."
All that I found was the basic explanations, at INVERSE SQUARE LAW
The reason that the strength diminishes is because the area has increased, NOT that the force has weakened.
Just imagine, if there was not a pathway to every spot. You could be standing in a spot that would be in perpetually darkness.
An electron shoots one photon at a time, then reloads, goes back to its shooting position, fires again.... therefore, the structure of space must support hitting the four targets at 2R. You must go down, down.... to the level of an electron.... you cannot use a machine gun firing 300,000 rounds per sec. or use 300,000 electron to fire at your four targets. The other electrons have their own 4 target to hit.
Maybe you can make an educated guess .... what is the maximum size of a spot?
I am presuming that there is such a thing as a quantum of space/time. Therefore, it must have an internal structure that supports ISL.
If the individual "spots", have the right shape and are packed the right way we will get our spacetime.
( It could also be called an instanton, a uniton, a prion, a skyrmion, an astroid, a soliton, a sin wave, a spin wave, a torsion fields, a four lens, a figure-eight knot, a braid, a vibrating string/membrane, A 2d Toda lattice. These are all different approaches and they have different theories).
STRUCTURE OF SPACE
There has been mounting evidence over the last 20 years that time and space were combine, as proposed by Einstein. Continuing on that trend, Hawkins proposed that the universe started from a state of where space and time was combined. He called it an INSTANTON. Under this scenario, all of the energy of the universe is contained in spherical point size “SPOT”.

From a point, which has no dimensions an instanton/spot was created. From that spot I see that there are 3 possible scenarios.

#1. The original spot has expanded. That would mean that there is a lot and lots of void. ie. space is nothing.

#2. The original spot subdivided. That means that there is a structure.

#3. There are new spots being created all the time. That would mean that the structure of space is expanding.

Maybe you can think of other options?
Prof. Hawkins has an opinion, which should be read. It says it better than me.
instanton
Read the following page as well.
Quote, low density universe low density universe

"... The region where time becomes spacelike is technically termed the instanton region. Instantons are solutions to the equations of general relativity and matter (here, the inflaton field) which have four spacelike directions. Hawking and Turok showed that for essentially any theory which allows inflation, there is a family of instanton solutions each one of which describes the formation of an inflating open universe...."

I chose the option that space has a quantum structure. Do you want more opinions? I could give the pages that you could read or you could make your own searches.
If there is a structure, then it must be able to produce the inverse square law.
Therefore,.... I am looking at the question... not avoiding it by say that's the way it is.
WHAT COULD BE THE SIZE OF A SPOT?
A review of tests, of ISL (Inverse square Law) by E.G. Adelberger,
QUOTE
,"...ISL, (Inverse Square Law), has been verified down to a distance ë = 200 µm....".

Therefore, the maximum size of a spot could have been determined.
From by J.G. Williamson: "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
QUOTE
"...It is well known that in high-energy physics scattering experiments the interaction between two electrons remains point-like down to length scales of the order of 10^-18m. The size of our object is much larger than this, being of the order of 10^-12m...."

Therefore, the size of a spot of space could be between 200 µm and 10^-12m. Of course, Planck size is still possible but unlikely from what I have learned so far.
The approach that I used to make my spot was to imagine that a sin wave represented the smallest possible action in the smallest possible space, which would be the circle, and in the smallest possible time with the lowest Entropy. The result is a soliton/standing wave in a 2d circle or in a 3d sphere. As the "wave" progresses, it would have 4 possible positions in the circle/sphere at any one time. Since time does not stop then we cannot see a frozen picture of a spot, which is the packed 4 intersecting circles. As a result, we have the Uncertainty Principle.
Can you see it in the picture?
Therefore, in 3d, the blue area are capable of spinning/rotating and filling a sphere of influence. Yes, in 3d, it would be sphere packing and the grey, void, area would have the shape of HYPERBOLIC Stellated Tetrahedron/stella octangula/Self-Dual Polyhedron /Tetrahedron 2-Compound. .
That is the only, (that I found), 3d shape that can communicate in the x,y,z and produce 1/R^2.
This resulted from combining space and time into one "spot".

I am proposing a possible explanation, for WHY UNCERTAINTY AND WHY FOAMING VACCUM and showing you how it would look. Just examine the 4X4 grid. That would be the 16 possibilities of what spacetime would look like if you went below the graininess of a "spot" OR if the definition of a spot was changed. (use your imagination..Put the whole thing into motion and in 3d.)
(You could drive a truck through all that void)
WHY PACKING?
If you think of a case of eggs, there's an egg tray filled with eggs then another egg tray filled with more eggs then... you get the picture. Nobody is concentrating on the fact that the egg trays are the cause of the orderly packing of the eggs. In this example, the egg tray is the topology of space. The egg trays/space are made of something which we cannot see or of something that we have ignored or refused to admit as being there or of having any influence on our physical/atomic world. Circles, 2d, have a packing density of 0.9069 and spheres, 3d, have a packing density of 0.7405. Therefore, there is an increase of "voids/space" when going from 2d to 3d. (16.64%) Ellipsoid Packing, which could be the 2d version of space, is 0.703355.
There are 330 million neutrinos , one billion photons, and 0.5 protons per cubic meters of space. All nicely organized within a structured topology of space. If space did not have a structure then .... (use your imagination). The universe would not look the way it does.
Look at this page for PACKING
You can also use you pennies and your marbles. First, If you look at the square packing, you will see 5 rows. The hexagonal packing of the 5 rows is not as high as the square packing. If spacetime can have a mixture of these two packing then there will result some uncertainty in measuring position and velocity unless you know how spacetime is arranged before you make your measurements.
Your six extra dimensions might be required to achieve a math. description. You could certainly assume that a "spot" is a vibrating closed loop made from a string or a brane. (Other theories could assume different things.)
Okay..., so you cannot get the ISL from packing a solid circle or sphere. All that is possible to obtained is some uncertainty. Therefore, there has to be another way...
What would happen if the circles were not solid?
What if the same location could be shared by other circles?
What if the circles were made of "vibrating strings"/a standing wave/soliton/pilot wave/preons?
Suddenly..., it is possible to realized the ISL with circle packing. Each circle is composed of four different circle having the maximum packing.
It is obvious that the instanton/spot is now composed of the 4 adjacent instantons/spots.
A photon traveling in the void could/would be at 4 possible location at the same time. NOW... THAT IS UNCERTAINTY...
Are you aware of any "theory" that explains the cause of uncertainty?
Because a "spot" has the freedom of moving within a space of 2pi and a time of 2pi there could result uncertainties as to position and velocities.
Because, a unit of time, space and movement are frozen in the definition of "smallest", (spot), all movement are considered nil/zero, not happening if they occur within 2 pi.
DON'T GET LOST...STAY WITH ME....
TIME OCCURS FOR A PACKAGE OF INFORMATION WHEN IT GOES FARTHER THAN 2PI.
A DISTANCE OCCURS FOR FOR A PACKAGE OF INFORMATION WHEN IT GOES FARTHER THAN 2PI.
(The information can be particles or EFM).

When a package of information enters the "void" of the "spot" it is in limbo. It is in between, (when/where it came from), and (when/where it will go), because the "spot" is not rigid, (like pennies). The "spot" is made of a packed energy soliton/standing wave. Since there is "flexing" of the "spot", the information could have traveled 2pi or only pi.
That is why, it is possible for the information package to get to all of the "spots" at R^2.

Therefore, as a Matrix.. Who can Tell me?... How many dimensions does this matrix represent? Now ... if we added the third dimension... How many dimensions would this then represent? Are we going to need your extra 6 dimensions in order to determine "a dynamic space configuration"?
As long as a "len" does not travel farther than 2pi or take longer than 2pi, then it is a valid possibility because it would not destroy the concept of "unit time and unit space."
Spin is only .... a lens going around another axis (x,y,or z). The fourth stop would be back to its starting position. Spin has the advantage of opening/creating the 3rd dimension. The spin of the "lens" does create packed spheres that have the "voids" inside.
I played with other ideas, such as folding but I could not get enough space symmetry that would be the same as our universe.
I would like to have you focus on a particular "item" on the ABOVE diagram. When going from 2d, and spinning the "lens", this creates a 3d sphere full of similar 3d spheres (on the right). The large sphere is not totally filled with spheres. (The small interior spheres at the outside must be completed.) Therefore, there is an automatically "inflation" of the spacetime of the instanton. I guess that this means that there is an other/alternate mechanism for "inflation".

The (ISL) will be one of the possible path, that has to be addressed, that could help resolve the problems. Don't forget,- space, and 3d got made from an "instanton." Those working on "M" like to use 10 dimensions.
Nobody has verified that the inverse square law works at all distances.
Therefore, once you introduce the concept of having "space" made from something, you got to then try to figure out how it influences our universe.
Go and read this article. "A Theory of the Whole Universe" by LEE SMOLIN, a theoretical physicist.
A Quote from; Overlooked SymmetriesOf Spacetime

QUOTE
If such a spacetime can be found, then complexity and mysteriousness may turn into simplicity and obviousness, while particles, interactions and the (external) geometry would form an intimately related 3-sided coin like photons, electromagnetism and Lorentz spacetime. Consequently, symmetries of all particles would coincide with that of the “external” spacetime and hence answers all the 3 ultimate questions in the same way photon does. Actually, it seems that an (external) spacetime defined by strong/weak interactions is the “only” answer to the 3 ultimate questions, because the only thing that exists “throughout the universe simultaneously” seems to be the external spacetime itself, and it appears there is no way “a priori building blocks” is able to answer its own properties without referring to one more level of sub-constituents.
You can read the rest of the thread to get a more technical presentation than the one that I did.



Important note for all!....
Do you want to be a "math. kid?" read this by Gerard 't Hooft
QUOTE
It should be possible, these days, to collect all knowledge you need from the internet. Problem then is, there is so much junk on the internet. Is it possible to weed out those very rare pages that may really be of use? I know exactly what should be taught to the beginning student.



and this by Warren Siegel, High energy physics from easy to hard

QUOTE
This story is about the impressions many people have about physics, and how they differ from the real thing. (See also Are you a quack?) In particular, it is also about high energy physics, the most fundamental part of physics, and the misconceptions of it held even by many students of physics.


yep!!! ... We could all be wrong.
Jal

Hi jal,

I'm from the yin/yang school of thought, personally, but I recently came across this site...

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

...which is making me think deeper on the science.

It seems to be very simple, even to the point of unifying 'old Eastern thinking' with 'modern Western science'. And, apart form everything else, the guy that runs the site seems incredibly genuine!

Best wishes

S.

Hi!
I have 3 problems with waves.
1. Our instruments cannot produce and/or detect one wave/photon from an electron.
2. If we install our sensors in a spherical pattern around an electron that released one photon then one of those sensor would receive that photon. The "wave" would collapse in that receiver/sensor. That means/requires that the energy that was/is spread out in a spherical pattern around the electron must travel to the sensor at faster than the speed of light. (Think about it. Your sensor is at r. The energy of the wave is spread out in a sphere as per the Inverse Square Law. The energy on the other side of the electron now has to travel 2r to get to the sensor).
You cannot invoke the speed of light as a constant and then ignore it when it does not fit in with your theory.
Therefore, you must invent a new mechanism to explain how the energy gets to the sensor
Therefore, what is that new mechanism that allows faster than the speed of light?
3. Information (the wave) must be "connected" to the sensor. There must exist an uninterupted path between the two points. A signal must be sent to the "wave" at 2r that says,"come here" and then it must "go there". All of this communication, you would say, must happen at faster than the speed of light.
Why not use a simpler explanation? (ISL structured spacetime and a particle)
jal

Hi Jal,

From what I can make of it, Space is the ONE 'THING' that exists Infinitely, and that our Universe is finite (exists as a wave MOTION) of infinite Space. This DOES postulate the idea of multiple (finite) Universes, within (infinite) Space, and I, personally, don't have a problem accepting that there could be some way to connect these.

I have to point out that this is not MY theory, but i'm beginning to understand it from a metaphysical point of view.
(I'm much more 'philosopher' than 'scientist', but recognise that WE are all HUMAN, and necessarily need to agree on any 'Ultimate truths', which are, of course, beyond 'Human' in their origin.)

For many other reasons, the Wave Structure of Matter appeals to me. Science is one aspect of the little that Humans have conceived of as 'Life', and i believe it would be naive to reject any other perspectives. However, there must surely be a certain 'wisdom' to unifying what we currently give many 'names', and limiting our potential for conflict, simply because we 'disagree'!

Truth is Truth, whoever 'finds' it!

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-eq...n-of-cosmos.htm

Even if people cannot totally agree with each other, surely it makes sense to test our own 'theories' against others (peers)? This is all I did, in a metaphorical sense, and found that many aspects 'fitted', even though they were 'called/termed/postulated as' something different!

S.

Hi!
Knot of this world...
I have no problem with what you have said
I have no problem with particles being made of standing waves/solitons/instantons
I have no problem with having any kind of waves, even all those that I cannot detect, which, by the way, are in a majority
I want to be able to understand how they are "put together" and how they "interact"
I'm not trying to "sell an idea" and I won't buy "a leaky bucket"
Have a good day...
jal

Hi!
It looks like that there are even more possible explanations for DARK MATTER . It's starting to look like my presentation may have more validity then expected.
See:
Dark Energy Stars

All the reading that I have done concerning m-theories does not address the possible topology of those curled up dimensions. The closest description was: "A flat mesh of torus with spheres (our 3d/us) at each junction."
Can someone do a little bit of calculation to see what the shape of that mesh would be if it acted like a rubber sheet when "matter" was put on it?
(DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH WHAT YOU THINK, DO THE CALCULATION, OPEN YOUR OWN THREAD...I'LL READ IT.)
I would suspect that there would be low spots. I would suspect that the math. might reveal that "mass" is due to the concave shape of those curled up dimensions.
It might even be the very reason that spacetime is curved around lots of "gravity".
It might even explain what causes gravity.
ALL I GOT ARE QUESTIONS. NO ANSWERS.
(I DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, IN THIS THREAD, IF IT IS NOT SUPPORTED WITH MATH.)
JAL

HOW GRAVITY AFFECTS THE SHAPE OF SPACETIME/SPOT

What would be the shape of spacetime in gravity? We have been told that spacetime is bent by gravity. We have been told that photons are red shifted by gravity. We have been told that lenght increases as you get closer to a black hole. Therefore, what would be the shape of spacetime that would cause these observations? (THE QUESTION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED.)

See the shape of spacetime in progressively increasing gravity. (space, earth, sun, big sun, and black hole. Or, if you like, no particle to progressing to more particles.) Therefore, there should be some observations in quantum physics.

It becomes obvious that there should be red shift perpendicular to the horizon and that there should be blue shift horizontal to the horizon. The blue shift cannot be detected. However, the bending is detected.

There should be variations in the experimental observations of the Inverse Square Law. The RADIUS IS DIFFERENT (X,Y,Z), THE SURFACES AREA IS DIFFERENT (X,Y,Z). SPACE IS NOT A SPHERE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITY. Therefore, space MUST have an internal structure. THE EVENT HORIZON OF A BLACK HOLE IS 2 DIMENSIONAL.
The reason that we do not detect a difference when measuring forces that depend on the Inverse Square Law, is because of the internal structure of the packed "spots". In 3d there are still 12 "kissing numbers".

However, when space is close to the event horizon of a black hole the 3d dimension is squashed and the event horizon is 2 dimensional and the kissing numbers are reduced to 6.


The bending of light by a gravitational body was predicted by Einstein (1912) a few years before the publication of General Relativity in 1916. For a point mass the defection can be calculated and is one of the classical tests of general relativity.
See
Deflecting of light by a gravitational field
Here is how the packing of spots would look like in gravity.


Is GR and SR being violated or being explained?

It appears that the Heim's Theory has a "Big Bang" version similar to mine.
Introduction to Heim's Mass Formula

I mean which only consists of a dynamics of geometrical area quanta.

It appears that the Heim's Theory is a COMPLEMENTARY version of my presentation. ( I have the mollases he has worked out the math for the bread.)
He used the hexagonal lattice (6 sides) which is the densest packing of circles in the plane.
see CirclePacking
The largest number of unit circles which can touch a given unit circle is six. For spheres, the maximum number is 12.

See the following
protosimplex/summary

Here is my visual interpretation (to be modified as I improve my knowledge)

You can chose more than one way to view the topology. However, the packing is the same. In 2d there are 6 comunication paths. In 3d there are 12 communication paths.

Here is how I visualize the dynamic flux elements.

This is the voids in the center of the spot.
Hi!
I will try to give my simple explanation of the 12 dimensions found in the protosimplex/summary.
protosimplex/summary

He used the hexagonal lattice (6 sides) which is the densest packing of circles in the plane.
Expanding that to 3d you then have cubes or sphere packing which has 12 connections. ( do a search on circle packing and sphere packing). You can think of those connections as being the 12 dimensions existing in 3d.
I reject cubes for the reason that solitons are not cubic. That leave only sphere that will pack in a 3d hexagonal lattice.
Each point of contact in 3d, (there are 12), can be thought of as doing a dual role.
Connecting to a lower dimension. Yes, .... I mean lower. Do not think of higher, hidden or curled up. You'll lose your way.... just like everyone else.
We are all familiar with 2d. You won't get lost.
The dual role that is played by each of those contact point is to link to the 2d and to give homogeneity to 3d. There cannot be less than one contact at any one time.
There cannot be more than 6 contact at any one time. Why 6? Because 2d has only 6 contact points.
The contact point do not need to be the same ones all the time. They can rotate among the 12 contact point in 3d.
There does not need to be 6 contact points at all times.
The contact points from 3d do not need to connect to the same contact points in 2d. Movement/rotation is permitted.
I cannot show you an image of this 3d statement. However, you can see it in the 2d image in the previous post where I divided the time and space into a 4X4 grid. In 2d you can see the the metron/spot/circle has 4 lens. The 4 lens make up the soliton. The solitons are dynamic.
In 3d, the best image that I can do, for now, is the following:
(If you make a better one.... can I borrow it?) (Not yours Zephir. They are only good for preschoolers)
Jal

Comments on these presentations are appreciated in the discussion threads.
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
and
Yin_yang of spacetime and matter

jal

Hi!
In another thread I gave the following explanation which I thought should be repeated here.
We have more than one theory because there is more than one understanding/interpretation of "reality".
As you rightfully pointed out,

You used the word "concept" which implies that I have a mental image which I have acquired in my lifetime. Both of us must have the acquired the same mental image if we want to communicate/talk about the "mental image".
Time
Time is something that is experienced by "objects" that are moving at less than speed of light. Time is the displacement or the observance of displacement of an object beyond a specified distance. (Even in this definition the battle rages )
If "space" is bent then you are saying that there is a displacement from some reference point or beyond a specified distance over/during a period of time ( the time in this case would be during the period that you are observing. One second or ....??.)
Einstein attempted to make thing easier by giving us the concept of spacetime.
You and a lot of people are still puzzled. Now, we have other questions.... and the battle rages on
Zephir (Mr. Twisty way of thinking) says that he has it figured out and that he's right. Zephir uses examples that are good for a preschooler. Mr. Twisty, uses a precise language called math.
Good Elf ( Mr. Stringy's way of thinking) says that eventually the stringy thingies will be the easiest way of explaining everythings.
They tried.... (however, neither can explain their way to each other and make the other change their mind)
In my opinion, we are all going to have to wait until Mrs. SUSY, MR. STRINGY, MR. TWISTY AND NOW MR. B.H. get together with their math and come up with an explanation that simple SPOT can understand.


I had a PM from someone too shy to post here.
“How do the 12 “kissing” points of 3d connect to the 6 “kissing” points of 2d?”
Here goes a very simple explanation.
1) Follow the energy flow. Potential energy at 100% to the succeeding levels. There is more energy locked up in 2d then in 3d.
2) Follow the complexity. Entropy which is no movement in no dimension to more movements in more dimensions.
3) Make the smallest package possible. A circle.( a spacetime quanta)
4) Fill that package with as much energy as possible.
5) Put all those packages together. First, like packing pennies. (2d) Second, like filling a container with balls. (3d)
6) See... the touching points are the only ways that energy can go from one place to another place . Pennies, 2d, has 6 ”kissing numbers”. Balls, 3d, have 12 “kissing numbers.
7) Our universe is filled with these quantas of energy. We cannot notice the majority of them.
This has been studied for the last 50 years and there are still no answer.
Therefore, imagine that you have a ball on the table. Look under it. It is touching the table at only one point.
Roll the ball on the table. Still one point. Now image that the ball has 12 little dimples on it and that the table is a grid of dimples. In this situation if you roll the ball the dimples on the ball and the tables must line up. If they don’t line up then everything is going to go BUMP PETY BUMP BUMP PETY BUMP. ( GEE!!... SHAKING EVERYTHING UP AND MAKING WAVES).
How the 12 dimples in 3d line up/cycle with the 6 dimples of 2d is where the math is needed to describe OUR universe.
If there are no dimples on the ball then the ball would fall through (fall off the edge of the table). The ball would be in free fall. The ball would be empty. That was the easiest to figure out ( 50 years ago). It’s called a deSitter universe.
If you want more than one kissing point, at the same time, with the table and the ball then things get hard.
Solution
Slide a piece of paper between the ball and the table. The piece of paper will represent the 2d. Yes,… you got it…. Fold the paper so that two dimples will line up. Three dimples….
Notice that 3d ball has not changed. The change is occurring in the paper which is the 2d level.
The next possibility
Could the shape of the ball be changed to get more than one dimple touching?
Einstein said, yes. In that case the ball would be like a blob of jelly where there is an accumulation of matter . An accumulation of matter is an accumulation of energy. When you accumulate as much energy in the same place it could be equal or more than the energy locked up in the 2d. So,… We would see that the energy could go back to the 2d surface. (horizon). These are improperly called “Black Holes”. The opposite is also happening. Energy is coming back from the 2d and into our 3d universe. We first notice the energy coming into our universe and we mistakenly called it “The Big Bang”. We mistakenly described the coming of that energy as “Expansion” and “inflation”. Now, if there is more energy coming into our universe than what is leaving then it is growing bigger. Supernovae explosions, gamma ray bursts, positron emission etc. could also be adding more energy from the 2d and into our 3d universe. However, the math would be able to tell.
Is this REALLY the way it is? My answer is … The math can figure out all of the possibilities but we must select the one that represents OUR universe.
It’s hard to do because everything is moving so fast it is very hard to actually see or to measure what is happening.
That is why there are so many ideas. They are trying to describe what is “reality”.
The best ideas come from, “Mrs. SUSY, MR. SLINKY, MR SLIM AND NOW FROM METRON SPOTS ”.
It would be nice if THEY could understand each other. THEY don’t have to believe, just understand.
I think this PRESENTATION should be understandable for the ordinary people, even for a 12 year old.
I guess that we will have to wait to see how Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory handles energy tranfer from one dimension to the next.

This is:
Simple Jal

Hi!
Here is my latest posting.
Hi!
Yes.... I'm pleased to get positive feed back.
My simple presentations are not without a little bit of science. Here is a some for the interested. From PACKING (They got all kinds of other interesting visuals and explanations. If you want to learn, take your time, look around their site.)
CAN YOU SEE THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN MY APPROACH, (SPOTS) , AND THE METRON APPROACH?
I DON'T REFER TO THE "KISSING NUMBERS" AS DIMENSIONS. It's just a 2d membrane with 6 kissing numbers not 6 dimensions. Of course, I do not refer to 3d as 12d just because it has 12 kissing numbers.
Jal


On the plane (2-dimensional space) 2-spheres
(circles) can be most efficiently packed in
the hexagonal arrangement shown above.
This naturally leads to a tiling of the
plane by hexagons whose sides are tangent
to the 2-spheres.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 3-space (where we live) we can stack 3-spheres (oranges) most efficiently using hexagonal closest packing.
This consists of layers of spheres packed in a hexagonal arrangement, each layer fitting as snuggly as
possible into the layers below and above (a kind of "laminating" process).
In the 2-dimensional case we created tangent hexagons from the packing (tiling) of 2-spheres (circles) on the
plane. In 3-space we can in a similar way generate tangent shapes to our 3-spheres. In the animation
above a portion of one such 3-sphere packing is shown with the tangent shapes indicated (use the
buttons to rotate the thing). This shape is called a regular rhombic dodecahedron, and as the hexagon
packs the plane with no gaps, this shape - the 3-d version of the hexagon - packs 3-space leaving no gaps.
(By the way, the shape at left is also a weight diagram for the adjoint representation of the Lie group SU(4)
(no explanation provided here for this statement - SU(3) weight diagrams can be made in 2-space from hexagons).)

These two examples of packings give rise to lattices of points in 2- and 3-dimensional spaces (the centers
of the 2- and 3-spheres). These specific lattices are called laminated. The laminated lattice in
n-dimensional space is constructed from that in (n-1)-dimensional space by a layering operation similar to that we just outlined.

Here is my promised presentation. It’s a long post.

I will post a link from Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
And from ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY to this thread.
Also, I will repeat this post in my thread.
This will be called:
JAL’S INTERPRETATION AND PROCEDURES (Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure to be used for HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata ).
This does not need to be the only interpretation or procedure. I’m sure that there will be others.
If there are suggested improvements, I will make the edits.
If the interpretations and approach are rejected I will delete this posting.
Some links and references will be imbedded in the text.

JAL’S INTERPRETATION OF PROTOSIMPLEX
As some of you expected, I will use circle packing to illustrate the 2 dimension of R6.
When we have obtained a 2 dimensional structure, I will post/edit my interpretation and procedure for our 3 dimensions or R12, which will be sphere packing.
The Metron, is the combined smallest possible unit that can be used.
It is a 2 dimensional surface. This unit is also projected into our 3 dimension.
The way that the Metron is structured/assembled at the 2 dimensional level to make R6 will affect what happens at our dimensional level.

In order to reach down to the level of the metron it is necessary to quantize space time.
1. First level of quantizing spacetime.
I use the densest compaction known to obtain a smooth uniform structure of a 2 dimensional sheet. The results are that we get the 6 directions/dimensions/kissing numbers/R6. That then becomes a unit of 2d spacetime which can communicate with other units.
What we want to do is put a lot of these units together and see what happens.
If we look at a unit of 2 dimensional spacetime and lay a grid over it (see first illustration, modified from Zephir) then all we would get when trying to build a Cellular Automata would be rows of dark/off cells.
This is agreement with observation. Spacetime appears smooth and uniform everywhere at this level.
We would not get anywhere by building a Cellular Automata.
However, If we were building a peer review paper, I would do a “run” for the record.


2. Second level of quantization
Here is where appears the Metron and R4
It should also tell you something about what we can do later, concerning the size of an quanta of space versus the size of a quanta of time. Compare what I said about a unit above with what you see now.
This second illustration is based on a soliton. Just remember that a soliton of energy is not a rigid structure.
The following illustration is wrong because the Metron would not be occupying all four positions at the same time. It is cyclying from #1 #2 #3 #4.
As long as it does not cycle farther than 2 pi then the structure is stable.
It is at this level that we can make a Cellular Automata. It is at this level that we can see how information can flow from one place to the other place in 2d. (This is the motherboard.)

What are the rules that must be incorporated into the program so that we get meaningful results?
1. There should be only one metron in each circle (R4).
2. With one metron in each circle (R4) it is possible to evaluate how they will combine and create a stable structure that will produce a sheet/membrane of R6.
Will someone please tie down Ed Witten until we actually make his membrane.
I can just picture him dying to get to his pen to describe how a string can vibrate to make a Metron and to make the resulting membrane. We haven’t even look at (R12) 3 dimensions yet. That’s when we will have the LQG and Knot people scrambling for their pencils. I’m not worried. There will be plenty of bread and molasses for everyone.

This section is reserved to enter the edited rules needed to make the Cellular Automata.


I would expect that the R6 2 dimensional structure would stabilize with the following illustration imbedded in it. This might help in setting up the rules.


Does the above illustration make you want to take out your pencil to calculate the relationship between a quanta of space, a quanta of time and a Metron? Wouldn’t you like to know what it could look like as a R6 sheet?
edit: 2pi visuals
I'd like to add another visual to try to help.
If we look at the metron making a 4R and that it is stable within a linear distance of 2pi then we would have the following.
I have taken a 2d section/slice from 3 R6 sheets.

IN A DYNAMIC SITUATION, If contributions to the inner metro is limited to a linear distance of 2pi then only the metrons from the adjacent hex. packing could contribute to filling the inner R4 metro max. density. One metro from the center, one metron from the middle ring, and one metron from the Top and Bottom. Those are the only communicating pathways to the center metron.
Which ones? Heim used a "world selector" mechanism.
Maybe, those are the 12 dimensions that is being talked about?

If the readers are not trying to read the protosimplex then all you'll see are poor simple drawings.

PROCEDURES
1. We need at least 3 people willing to make a “production run”. You got to let us know who you are. A PM or posting will do the trick.
2. These 3 people should be able to describe the rules that they will use and be able to explain to us dummies how they relate to what the metron is doing.
3. I would recommend that the “production run” start at the simplest and work their way up to more complexity.
4. The simplest would be to limit the movement of the metron to a distance of pi. This is equivalent to saying “round and round they go”.
5. The next step would be to make a “run” where the Metron goes no more than 2pi. Why 2 pi? This allows the Metron to travel linearly and still be within a R4 structure.
6. Travelling farther than 2pi is where we get broken symmetry and “particles?”
7. After everyone is satisfied with a 2d sheet then we can start on 3d.
8. After we are satisfied with the 3d structure we can try to input the variables from Heim's Particle Structure that affect the production of particles such as the constants. I expect that Mrs. SUSY will be keeping an eye on us.

This is only one possible approaches that could be used.
At the end of the day, there should result some publishable results. Maybe I’ll get mentioned in the acknowledgements for inspirational contribution.
Okay, …. let’s get the show on the road!
simple jal
edited 8 April2006
inserted story
I have always said that I do not have a theory. I have looked at many theories and found problems with all of them.
Let me tell you a story….
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SECRETS OF THE WISE MEN
Way back…. Way back …. Before recorded history….
A warrior asked his friend, “Why are things the way they are?”
Not wanting to admit that he did not have the answer and wanting to be known as a “wise man”, he answered, “Go sit by the river and look at the water, look at the waves, look at the foam. The answer to your question will be revealed to you.”
Sure enough, the young warrior came back and excitedly said, “You are so wise. I had a vision. The answer has been revealed to me.
I, now, know why things are the way they are.”
Off he went. Everybody was happy.
As a result, of this trick, the wise men have been passing this “trick” to other wise men. It has survived from one generation to next generation of wise men.
In ancient time, these wise men learned how to read and write and wrote down these tricks so that other wise men would be able to use them. As a result, some of these wise men got the reputation of being the wisest of the wise men. They did not have to take precautions to safeguard their holy books of secret tricks. Their secrets were safe because only wise men could read and write.
A few hundred years ago, some of the young wise men rebelled and started a new group. This group was in competition with the old group. They did things differently. As a result, this young group of rebellious wise men became known as scientists.
They wrote their secrets in a strange language which took many years to understand.
If you could learn and understand the secret language of mathematics then you would be known as a “wise man”. Only a few, those who were rich or those who were selected by the wise men to be trained, had a change of learning these secrets.
Until today.
The young warriors have learned how to read and write. They have gotten a hold of the secret books and learned the secret language of mathematics. All of the wise men are very disturbed because everybody can become a wise man.
The wise men are being asked questions that they can’t answer and the young warriors do not want to accept the answer of “go sit by the river”.
The warriors now know that the wise men do not have all of the answers.
The young warriors are getting together and talking about their “visions”.
Soon, the young warriors will realize that their visions do not have all the answers and that some “visions” do not have any of the right answers.
You can be certain, that for once, in the history of mankind, that the wise men ( especially Mrs. Susy, Mr. Slim and Mr. Twisty), are paying attention to what the young warriors are saying.
They do not want the resources that they are receiving to be share with a third group of “wise men”. They do not want to be replaced.
They are watching and listening to your activities. They want to survive.
They would use agents to sow the seeds of dissention among you. They would delay your search for the truth. They would try to prevent the flow/exchange of information.
Who knows what will happen. EVERYONE who seeks the truth can get together (on the web) to look for answers.
You are no longer an isolated ignorant superstitious warrior…. You are seekers .
End of story
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edit 9 April:inserted references

Using a packing approach has been thought of by Steve Waterman.
See his presentations at universalconcepts
I'm sure that you will find his approach more comprehensive than my presentation.
In order to be able to apply sphere packing to reality then there must be some constant inserted. See a presentation/discussion at How Many Physical Constants are Truly Fundamental?
I cannot bring you up to speed concerning sphere packing as a good approach. You need to do your own search and learning. (You are seekers) .
However, here are some search results to help.
Applying Coding Theory to Sphere Packing
Getting Serious About Series
sphere packing and highr dimensions
SPHERE PACKING STUDIES
Sphere Packing with Rhombic Dodecahedra

edit 12 april: entered the following
Hi!
Stephen Wolfram, on page 476, says, "... any node with more than three connections can in effect always be broken into a collection of nodes with exactly three connections..."
By changing the topology of the first level of quantization I get the following illustration.
As a reminder, this is where space and time are equal and are (spheres (12d)).
Is it posssible to use that to construct a Cellular Automata?
There are some 4 connecting nodes which need to be addressed.
Since the second level of quantization produces the first level, do we need to try to do Cellular Automata of second level of quantization (where the metron reside)?


edit 13 April: entered the following
Hi PNeilson
Glad that you got the bread and butter issues done successfully.
I have one more visual.....duh...
This one will show that strings, metron, LQG, are not that far apart.
It might also suggest the importance of attempting to use CA.
I also think that Wolfram has been trying, (but not saying), to blend those four lines of code together.
The first thing that you will notice, is that there are now two sheets/membranes.
The next thing that will be noticeable is that there are 3 sheet that are interacting.
(The third is shown with only one R4.)
The next thing is that there is that sphere. It is us.
All of this was derived from the fact that 3d has 12 paths of information. Ya.... that stupid thing called hex packing.

ps pssss... don't tell Y... (he's a good seeker) that we have an approach of why there is mass.
Some people might not understand how the "Y" got there so here is what I did.
First, The idea. Metrons at the second quantum level make the first quantum level which are the packed 12 spheres. The spheres make a void between the spheres.
Here is a picture of that void.

I then invested a lot of money into R&D...
I bought one of those kits with magnets with steel ball with short plastic tubes and I made the double simplex. Then I changed the shape without changing the connections.
Since everything can move without breaking apart....you get the picture that I gave and the "Y"'s are reversed.
jal
Comments on these presentations are appreciated in the discussion threads.
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
and
Yin_yang of spacetime and matter
note: Do not rely on the web to give you access or preserve the information that you like. Make a hard copy. ( I have binders full of info that has dissapeared)

I guess I'll answer my own question from what I'm getting from other statements in other threads.
yquantum's thread

Lorentz_group

In order to arrive at a 3d structured spacetime from a 2d structured dimension it takes more than one soliton spinning at right angle to the 2d dimension. It is necessary to have a minimum of 12 solitons. It is necessary to find the way all of the solitons are structured/put together.
I have been saying that a 3d structure can only be arrived at by "PACKING".
UNTIL YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU CAN GET A 3D STRUCTURE FOR SPACETIME....you will never get the right answers.
In science fiction....
You can talk about higher dimensions and how energy can get from A to B.... You can imagine faster than light travel through those imaginary dimensions.... you can avoid dealing with a structure of our own 3d spacetime.....you can avoid specifying a structure for those higher dimensions....
In reality....
You got to face the facts..... it takes a minimum of 12 solitons to create a 3d structure for spacetime.
OOHHH!!!.... you disagree? How many solitons do you want to use?
Well! what do you know....
Wolfram and Kurzweil Roundtable Discussion

hehehe like my spot hehehe

hehehe Maybe 12 is a lucky number

MY SANDBOX
It is not fun to play in your sandbox. Your sandbox is too small. It’s for babies. Your sandbox has only 4 sides (3d+T). In your sandbox you got to pretend that it has 12 sides. It’s for babies who like to be amazed by the sparks from rubbing two stones together.
Only babies want to dig holes that are black and say that there is nothing to see.
Your sandbox is for babies who like to stand around waiting for toys to come bubbling out of the bottom of the sandbox.
Only babies like to be amazed by “spooky action at a distance”, “entanglement”, “renormalization”, “Uncertainty relationship”, “virtual particles”, and all kinds of magic and unexplained things.
75 years ago, the kids, that are now old, found a nice box of particles toys which they left for you to play with but you don’t know how to play with them and put them together properly. You only play with them the same way that the older kids did. Over and over and over and over again.
It’s too bad that Einstein didn’t know about my sandbox--- he would have had a great time.
My sandbox is 3 times bigger than yours. In my sandbox there are 12 sides and we can pretend that there are 36 sides.
My sandbox is for older kids. In my sandbox you are not allowed to dig holes and wait for pretend new toys to come bubbling out of the bottom.
My sandbox is filled with piles of sand and when you stand on them you can see over the edge of the 12 sides and see that there is another sandbox that has 6 sides. Also, off in the distance you can see the edge of the great big mountain that made all the sand.
In my sandbox we can see where the light came from, what it’s doing, and where it’s going.
In my sandbox you can see the harmonic resonant processes.
In my sandbox you don’t need to have somebody tell you to shut up and calculate.
When the older kids come to play in my sandbox they are going to find new ways to have fun. No more digging of stupid holes. No more playing with pretend/virtual toys. They are not allowed in this sandbox because there are lots of real toys to find and to play with.
There’s only one kid, Heim, who is playing in my sandbox. He found a box of particles just like the one in you small sandbox. His box of particles is more fun to play with.
Slinky and Twisty have left your sandbox and I expect --- pretty soon --- they will find my sandbox --- then everyone is going to have a lot of fun.
I see that Susy is getting tired of playing in a small sandbox. You should come over and play with Heim. You are going to have a lot of fun. Your toy –Higgs and his toy – Metron.

Hi yquantum! book??
All of you have been my proof readers. my critiques my board of examiners
Here is the last paragraph
Why are there so few people playing in my sandbox
First reason
Evolution has made humans to be able to see 3d+T for reasons of survival. Therefore, your body is repeatedly telling your brain that the “sandbox” has only 4 sides.
Second reason
Whenever you see the math that says 12 sides (packing) your body overrides that information, your mind glazes over and you reject it and accept 4 sides.
Third reason
Your body is lying to you. You prefer to believe your body. Yet the math does not lie.
You refuse to accept the math.
Fourth reason
Slim and slinky have done the math and even they have not made their body shut up and they have not found the 12 sided sandbox.
Fifth reason
I know that Heim is playing in my sandbox because he used 12 sides X 3 = 36 imaginary sides and rejected 12 as not being good.
Lo! and Behold!…. He found the box of particles.
Sixth reason
The people don’t realize how much fun it’s going to be playing in the real sandbox.
Therefore, don’t challenge what I have said, I’m just the messenger.
Challenge your body or change the math.
The only people who will be able to play in the 12 sided sandbox are the people who will be able to tell their bodies to shut up so that the can use their brains
jal
Good night yquantum...pleasant dreams
ps
I keep my hat beside my bedside in case I need to eat it for breakfast

Hi fivedoughnut!!....
I'm sure that I said that there were similarities with what I was saying. I don't know.... all that I did was to show that there has to be a connecting structure for what ever is our there. I took the easy way out and picked the structure that had all the math done (packing) and that was being ignored for some reason.

After 75 years of playing the same record..... (It's too good to throw away) it is time for a new tune.
You can play my record, (it has promising tunes on it) or get your own.

simple jal
ps (you cannot write a book, make a hard copy, that everyone on the web has read!)
Hi!
I'm trying to put some pieces together.... I decided to stop and give you a bedtime story

Blinking Maze
You suddenly become aware that you are at the center of a maze that has 12 paths leading out (sphere packing). WOW!
You slowly look back and see 6 paths and you wonder, “ Which path did I come from? Or was it all six?” Since you are old, you have a memory problem and cannot figure out how you got here. Suddenly you realize that you are drifting. As you turn around you realize that you are drifting towards the other 6 pathways. BLINK!
Those 6 pathways have taken on a different shape. They look like the 6 pathways of sheet. (circle packing) WOW! And you are about to enter into it.
BLINK!
You find yourself inside the 6 pathways. Your memory has not improved one darn bit, you can’t figure out if you came in by one of the 3 door or all of them. Oh, well, that’s life when you get old. So you look forward towards the direction that you are drifting and see 3 pathways.
BLINK!
What is going on? You realized that the configuration has change from being flat to being one that you recognize; x,y,z. AHAH! This is my recognizable 3 dimension universe. So you conclude that what you identify as time is the drifting that you have just experienced.
You ask yourself is this a dream or reality?
BLINK! BLINK!
You are back into the maze with 12 paths.
You now take the time to do some closer inspection of your surroundings.
It becomes apparent that the paths do not remain in a fixed location, they are moving. They are cycling through a regular pattern.
Being the intelligent person that you claim to be, you quickly deduce that the cycling process is similar to having 12 sphere moving from hex packing to cubic packing and back again and that the paths are the passages between the spheres.
You also realized that because the walls of this maze are shifting that it will be impossible for anyone to pin point your exact location. On top of that, you realized that an observer could also concluded that you are actually able to “tunnel”. An Observer cannot tell that the walls of the maze are doing the moving.
WOW!
Within a few moment more of observation you suddenly realize that the walls of the maze seem to appear and disappear. The center of your maze appears to get larger because some times that you can only see one wall and other times you see 3 walls. You never get to see 4 walls. WOW! Talk about having uncertainty. Being the intelligent person that you are you conclude that the wall of the maze are actually the lens shaped solitons going though its cycle of it 4 positions and that the positions are being exchanged within the 12 spheres.
No wonder people go crazy when they get into the blinking maze. Reality keeps changing when they blink.

Pleasant dreams
jal
Hi yquantum!
If you keep reading my bedtime story before going to bed, after a while the blinking maze will make the nightmares go away. (Especially the one about the cat suffocation in a box because the owner cannot decide to let it out.)
jal

The WEB is great for getting information!
LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE FOUND!!!
Theories that had been published and ignored. Those are the theories that lost the political battle with the Standard Theory. Their science was accepted by their peers.
The math to make a working theory of a quantum spacetime has been around a long time.
As a matter of fact, it would be very naïve of me to think that the work had not started PRIOR 1982. I’m not egoistic enough to think that the PACKING approach was the missing key ingredient to finally getting a working theory of a quantum spacetime! (There won’t be anybody to beat down my door to offer me Degrees)

1)My presentation Is my “SPOT” approach that examines the implications of having a structured spacetime. My approach does not require that the metron/spot be a “hidden” and unreachable at the Plank Scale. Rather, the “SPOT” size must be bigger than EMF. Also, there is no requirement to have “point like particles” which would be “unreachable”.
2) There is Heim’s approach with protosimplex metron formula that actually gets the particles. protosimplex(1982)
3) Then there is the the metron model by K. Hasselmann Journal-ref: Phys.Essays 9 (1996) 311-325 in which The principal properties of the Standard Model are reproduced assuming a four-or five-dimensional harmonic-space background metric. The Standard Model gauge symmetries are explained as a special case of the diffeomorphic gauge symmetries of the Einstein equations.

4) Then there is Geometric Calculus which is a mathematical language for expressing and elaborating geometric concepts. Spacetime algebra is an application of this language to model physical space and time. The most comprehensive treatment of the mathematical theory is given in the book Clifford Algebra to Geometric Calculus [1984].

As an alternate theory, it appears that 20 years ago, LQG and Strings were not even in the race, and I would now say that they are still out of the race.Those old “math kids”are being replaced by a new generation of “math kids”. They will be able to take those theories, dust them off, and add all kinds of bell and whistles. They may not even need to go to more peer review.
The old way of doing things are gone. The old generation that produced those theories did not have the WEB.
The Hydrino Theory is a good example of what will be happening in the future. Discussion groups, Published Books, Interactive 3D figures, Patents, and Financing for a company are just some of the new indications of things to come.
There are a lot of people who pursued careers that did not involve trying to figure out the universe. Now, with the new tools, they will be exposed to visual representations of those lines of numbers. No more scary stories to make nightmares.
It would not surprise me to see some kind of Metron/Spot as an interactive 3D java being used in every classrooms of the world to learn about the universe.
The results of the experiments being done by the colliders will not change. What will change will be the story that will accompany those results. The “New Physics” does not have to equal SUSY as some would have us believe. After 2007, the “New Physics” will need to incorporate other explanations.
jal
edit: inserted 19 May 2006
Hi!
I found something interesting concerning circle packing.
MinimalCircle
Especially (new expressions for me.) The dual of an S-isothermic surface is S-isothermic.
There are great pictures.
edit: Here is the math approach to my circle packing (citation?) Asymptotic behavior of discrete holomorphic
Stochastic Loewner Evolution SLE
Webpage

As I have been continuously saying, "Someone has done this before me."
I expect that the "new physic" will include SPOTS". It's nice to have figured out the structure of a membrane.

Something new to learn. holodynamics courses
I guess the next step is to find the link with Thurston's_geometrization_conjecture
and see if 3D packing has already been done.
Experimental Differential Geometry-Uniformization and Quantum field theory

Steve Braham has some interesting stuff but I don't think that his approach will yield the structure of space time in 3 dimension. He would need to start from 2d packing. (See links in previous post. You'll also get better images.)


Hi!
You might want to read some of John Baez"s stuff and see how he approaches quantum spacetime. You should find some similarity with what I have been saying.
Of course he does not do any "packing".
quantum_spacetime.
You should also follow the link by Urs Schreiber. There you will find the explanations of "spinning strings" that make surfaces.
Hum-m-m
They are getting close.
insert: check this out Electricity, magnetism and Hypercube by Derek Wise
jal
If you went to the links then you noticed the image of the two branes. Would any one care to do the meeting of braids for the SPOT?

Now you can see why I'm saying that they are getting close to finding the answer.
jal
(for some reason theses images are degraded in quality?
---------------------------------------------------------------

JAL

Hi gadfly!
A quote from their conclusion:
MOND habitats within the solar system

I would even go farther by saying that "Earth is in a poor light receiving position".
Light is being focused, but we are not in the focal path.
Hum-mmm.... I thought that I said that before in my thread.

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

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

References:
(1) Wave_function
(2) Wave_packet
(3) Normalisable_wavefunction
(4) Boson
Fermion
(5) Casimir_effect#Vacuum_energy
(6) Nucleon#Models_of_the_nucleon
(7) qm_gallery
(8) Superposition and interferometers
(9) Ring lasers and Ring interferometers
(10) 2d images
(11) gravity
(12) zero-point-energy
(13) quantum harmonic oscillator
(14) gas-in-a-harmonic-trap
(15)planck-s-law-of-black-body-radiation
(16)WiensDisplacementLaw
(17) Learning by simulations
(18) A RECENT ALTERNATIVE VACUUM APPROACH TO GRAVITY
(19) Symmetrically Structured Spacetime
(20) The photon box
----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------
Discussion now opened.

I cannot learn if I’m talking. So, if you don’t want me to publish the ranting and ravings of my ideas, …. Then …I’d like to hear from you. There are a lot of great tutorials on the web…. Use your favorite links for in depth discussion and reference.

Total gravity potential should be preserved. In this sense, MOND theory is strange. I think the light or emission bends gravity. Inside of the galaxy disk, the gravity is two dimensional.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html