4th density geometry

John G

The Living Force
Wouldn't plus and minus charge be just different values on the same "charge" dimension?

(One of my issues with time as a dimension is that there are no examples of negative time...)
To get space to go negative is easy with rotations; to get time to go negative, you need to tilt the light cone with the conformal group. The standard model bosons kind of have their polarity attached like a W- and W+ weak boson or green color and magenta anticolor for a gluon. That allows the polarity to be one of the actual vectors for the bivector boson in a model.

I always figured that this was what was going on with spin too: the spin states were just +/- on a dimension that translated into ours as this thing called "spin" that has an inherent angular momentum, but nobody can physically explain...
Spin/half spin is a gauge boson vs spinor fermion thing which could be an even grade vs odd grade Geometric Algebra thing related to this:


The action of an even Clifford element γ ∈ Cℓ2,0(R) on vectors, regarded as 1-graded elements of Cℓ2,0(R), is determined by mapping a general vector u = a1σ1 + a2σ2 to the vector... In this situation, a spinor is an ordinary complex number. The action of γ on a spinor φ is given by ordinary complex multiplication.
The spinor fermion also has vectors for the components of the spin in the different directions (which would include Kaluza-Klein ones when you have them). It is an odd quantum thing related to the orientation needed for a detector with a 100% probability for detecting.
 
The standard model bosons kind of have their polarity attached..
The Standard Model I will tackle last! I am highly skeptical of it!

Before I got “cynical”, I always found the Standard Model to be very contrived and artificial - a creation of man, not nature!

Since I got cynical, it always struck me as the place the establishment would intervene if they wanted to prevent further development of super weapons and power sources...

First I will build my mathematical base and explore the 16 multi-dimensional model of space. Then I will tackle SR in this space to understand the nature of time. (As stated, I am, so far, 95% sold on Lorentz as a perspective transformation, but have yet to accept Minkowski as anything more than a visualization model - though it is beautiful!)

I want to see what “falls out” when I am proficient at “working” multi-dimensional space (both with SR and Minkowski).

Finally, I will attack the Standard Model. Here I theorize that the nucleus is a crystal lattice of “simple” ;-) protons and electrons - not even containing neutrons in my initial model. No Weak Force, no Strong Force! Just Electrostatics (and Gravity), and wave functions in a close-packed crystalline form.

(This is probably what “cold fusion” would have exposed, and why they killed it...)

The structure of subatomic particles, to me, has a striking resonance with the structure of electron shells and the periodic table, and I would explore that angle before accepting any part of the Standard Model...

Maybe I’m wrong! I don’t care about being wrong - but I need to know for myself, and have lost all trust in an establishment that couldn’t withstand even the most basic questions about their “religion”, and which has since resorted to pixie dust (dark matter/energy) to explain everything...:umm:

Spin/half spin is a gauge boson vs spinor fermion thing which could be an even grade vs odd grade Geometric Algebra thing related to this:



The spinor fermion also has vectors for the components of the spin in the different directions (which would include Kaluza-Klein ones when you have them). It is an odd quantum thing related to the orientation needed for a detector with a 100% probability for detecting.

Wow! Cool - I now get the importance of the Möbius strip! (I am tempted to ask how a Möbius construct arises from a Clifford Algebra, but I know that I am not ready to comprehend the answer!) :nuts:

Thank you, though, (and Archea too) for accommodating my ignorance and inspiring me! I’ll stop distracting you and let you get this thread back to its intended purpose!

Must... Get... My... Maths... Working... Again... (Though properly, this time!)
 

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I was literally replaying that scene in my mind while reading the linked page!

Cool! But I was reading, and I think there's something else.

It came to my mind that perhaps Einstein, when you spoke about variable physicality, that Einstein was afraid when he understood that in his work. I thought about this and I think that Einstein determined that the future must be determined from the past and present, and when he found that he had a theory where the future was open, he dismissed it and was afraid. Is this a good guess that variable physicality, mathematically, means a theory where there is a freedom of choosing the future when past and present are given?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) Is it related to the fact that we should use higher order differential equations, not second order?

A: Yes. Einstein found that not only is the future open, but also the present and the past. Talk about scary!!

This is an excerpt from the Avengers Endgame movie:

RHODEY:

StarTrek. Terminator. Bill and Ted’sExcellent-

SMARTHULK:

WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK THIS? THAT’S NOT TRUE. IF YOU TRAVEL TO THE PAST, THEN THAT PAST HAS BECOME YOUR PRESENT, AND YOUR FORMER PRESENT HAS BECOME THE PAST, WHICH NOW CAN’T BE CHANGED BY YOUR NEW FUTURE!

The concepts seem to be similar. If the past and the present are open it is logical to think that by traveling to the past that past becomes your present. It's like the thing updates or synchronizes instantly. If that's what I think, time travel doesn't involve strictly linear changes, you're basically creating a new universe.


Julian Barbour's solution to the problem of time in physics and cosmology is as simply stated as it is radical: there is no such thing as time.

"If you try to get your hands on time, it's always slipping through your fingers," says Barbour. "People are sure time is there, but they can't get hold of it. My feeling is that they can't get hold of it because it isn't there at all." Barbour speaks with a disarming English charm that belies an iron resolve and confidence in his science. His extreme perspective comes from years of looking into the heart of both classical and quantum physics.

Isaac Newton thought of time as a river flowing at the same rate everywhere. Einstein changed this picture by unifying space and time into a single 4-D entity. But even Einstein failed to challenge the concept of time as a measure of change. In Barbour's view, the question must be turned on its head. It is change that provides the illusion of time. Channeling the ghost of Parmenides, Barbour sees each individual moment as a whole, complete and existing in its own right. He calls these moments "Nows."

"As we live, we seem to move through a succession of Nows," says Barbour, "and the question is, what are they?" For Barbour each Now is an arrangement of everything in the universe. "We have the strong impression that things have definite positions relative to each other. I aim to abstract away everything we cannot see (directly or indirectly) and simply keep this idea of many different things coexisting at once. There are simply the Nows, nothing more, nothing less."

here is a class in my career that deals with mathematics, applied to objects in space.

In one of the exercises you have to build a scale model of a space with several objects inside it, in order to calculate the distances between the vertices to place them in the spatial coordinates of X, Y, Z.

Like this:

matesVectores.jpg



When I did the exercise several things occurred to me considering that 4D has a fourth spatial coordinate and not a time coordinate.

I have saved notes of what had occurred to me.

The ideas are:

1) If time is a spatial reference, then it must also be subject to being identifiable in terms of coordinates. Maybe a series of coordinates between two objects or particles where:

Two moving objects exchange information with each other, with respect to the position of each one, within the same frame of reference. Each variation in its position is described by a series of spatial coordinates that seek to differentiate both objects. If for example both objects have the same coordinate, they do not collide or are destroyed. But they can be the same thing (zero time-zero space). Is time a non-deterministic (non-local) spatial coordinate?

2) Is it possible that there is a sort of value of space compensation? That is to say that "time" is nothing other than the difference of position, vector or movement of a particle and another particle next. Can this compensation value be the way the universe has to express all its material forms and EM waves that start from the original substrate, the gravity?

Q: Today, the exchange was as follows: Ark wrote: C's once said that EM was an expression of gravitational energy. I said: they said that light is an energy expression of gravity, that EM was the same as gravity, or, more precisely, intertwined. And, this would incline me to believe that the total spectrum of EM is the 'stuff' of the 'balloon,' that is the balance to the 'non-balloon,' of gravity, being that which emerges out of non-being, and that the various separations of EM into waves such as light, radio, and other frequencies are energy expressions. In other words, EM IS the unstable gravity wave, so to speak. Was this correct?

A: Close.

Q: Is ethereal existence the 'non-balloon.'

A: Closer.
 
Cool! But I was reading, and I think there's something else.



This is an excerpt from the Avengers Endgame movie:



The concepts seem to be similar. If the past and the present are open it is logical to think that by traveling to the past that past becomes your present. It's like the thing updates or synchronizes instantly. If that's what I think, time travel doesn't involve strictly linear changes, you're basically creating a new universe.

This is close to my view of time, which I like to describe as, "the ever-present now..."

But, I have extreme issues with the concept of multiple timelines or a many-universes model - because of E=mc^2.

(For a universe/timeline to be created out of nothing every time a "decision" is made, you would need to supply a universe-worth of energy from somewhere, at each decision point, or else it is all just a simulation in a computer...)

To me there is one (hyper-dimensional) universe, fragmented into sub-universes (ours has 3D), with each sub-universe having one timeline with an ever-present now.

What that means to me is explainable using photons:
  • Assuming Lorentz to be universal in our 3D, then a photon of light emitted at the time of the big bang (or any other time really), and subsequently detected today as part of the microwave background radiation, never experienced either our time or our 3 dimensions...
  • That single photon connects, what we think-of as one time, with another. (To it, there was just a semi-instantaneous transfer of energy involving a charged particle.)
  • If that photon would never be detected, then it would exist in our universe for all time - connecting all of time into one ever-present now...
  • From this, what we experience as time is really just an artifact - a fugue state that exists while wave packets (photons) resolve themselves across all possible paths and solutions until they find an appropriate termination point (receiver), and collapse. (E/M waves being to us in our 3D sub-universe what Quantum waves would be in the (N)D sub-universe where - maybe - charge played the role of matter...)

That the Clifford Algebra defining our universe (Herstenes' Geometric Algebra) doesn't easily scale up from our 3D structure to 5, 6 or 7 etc. dimensions, but instead goes directly to 16D - and which, based on the graph theory involved, seems to be fragmented and highly non-commutative - tells me that there may be multiple sub-universes that partially overlap/interact in non-commutative ways (like the twin paradox for example).

Mass in one sub-universe might be analogous to charge in another, and something we haven't yet seen in another.

This is the main reason I have objections to time being a dimension, and why I feel the need to understand the rules that would govern such a hyper-dimensional universe...

Anyway, I'm rambling at this point, and this is just incoherent babble - so I will stop.
 
This is close to my view of time, which I like to describe as, "the ever-present now..."

But, I have extreme issues with the concept of multiple timelines or a many-universes model - because of E=mc^2.

(For a universe/timeline to be created out of nothing every time a "decision" is made, you would need to supply a universe-worth of energy from somewhere, at each decision point, or else it is all just a simulation in a computer...)

To me there is one (hyper-dimensional) universe, fragmented into sub-universes (ours has 3D), with each sub-universe having one timeline with an ever-present now.

What that means to me is explainable using photons:
  • Assuming Lorentz to be universal in our 3D, then a photon of light emitted at the time of the big bang (or any other time really), and subsequently detected today as part of the microwave background radiation, never experienced either our time or our 3 dimensions...
  • That single photon connects, what we think-of as one time, with another. (To it, there was just a semi-instantaneous transfer of energy involving a charged particle.)
  • If that photon would never be detected, then it would exist in our universe for all time - connecting all of time into one ever-present now...
  • From this, what we experience as time is really just an artifact - a fugue state that exists while wave packets (photons) resolve themselves across all possible paths and solutions until they find an appropriate termination point (receiver), and collapse. (E/M waves being to us in our 3D sub-universe what Quantum waves would be in the (N)D sub-universe where - maybe - charge played the role of matter...)

That the Clifford Algebra defining our universe (Herstenes' Geometric Algebra) doesn't easily scale up from our 3D structure to 5, 6 or 7 etc. dimensions, but instead goes directly to 16D - and which, based on the graph theory involved, seems to be fragmented and highly non-commutative - tells me that there may be multiple sub-universes that partially overlap/interact in non-commutative ways (like the twin paradox for example).

Mass in one sub-universe might be analogous to charge in another, and something we haven't yet seen in another.

This is the main reason I have objections to time being a dimension, and why I feel the need to understand the rules that would govern such a hyper-dimensional universe...

Anyway, I'm rambling at this point, and this is just incoherent babble - so I will stop.
Here's why it's dangerous for me to ramble:

If a photon does not experience either time or our 3 dimensions, then in 4D Minkowski spacetime, then the light cone of every photon is a spacetime singularity...
 

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
(For a universe/timeline to be created out of nothing every time a "decision" is made, you would need to supply a universe-worth of energy from somewhere, at each decision point, or else it is all just a simulation in a computer...)

Gravity???????

Q: (L) I thought that gravity was an indicator of the consumption of electricity; that gravity was a byproduct of a continuous flow of electrical energy...

A: Gravity is no byproduct! It is the central ingredient of all existence!

Q: (L) So, gravity is the unifying principle... the thing that keeps things together, like the way all the fat pulls together in a bowl of soup.

A: Gravity is all there is.

Q: (L) Is light the emanation of gravity?

A: No.

Q: (L) What is light?

A: Gravity.

Q: (L) Is gravity the same as the strong and weak nuclear forces?

A: Gravity is "God."

Q: (L) But, I thought God was light?

A: If gravity is everything, what isn't it? Light is energy expression generated by gravity.

Q: (L) Is gravity the "light that cannot be seen," as the Sufis call it: the Source.

A: Please name something that is not gravity.

Q: (L) Well, if gravity is everything, there is nothing that is not gravity. Fine. What is absolute nothingness?

A: A mere thought.

But there's something about gravity. According to the Cs, gravity can collect or disperse.

Q: (L) There are no unstable gravity waves?

A: Wrong...

Q: (L) There is no emanation point?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, they are a property or attribute of the existence of matter, and the binder of matter to ethereal ideation?

A: Sort of, but they are a property of anti-matter, too!

Q: (L) So, through unstable gravity waves, you can access other densities?

A: Everything.

Q: (L) Can you generate them mechanically?

A: Generation is really collecting and dispersing.

Q: (L) Okay, what kind of a device would collect and disperse gravity waves? Is this what spirals do?

A: On the way to.

Now I'm thinking about this: Let's say the state of dispersion is in binary state 1 and the collection state 0. Gravity switches between these states. (YES - NO / BLACK - WHITE / STO - STS) In that sense gravity is a universal switch or transistor. There you have a relationship between gravity, information and thought.

Spirals = SOLENOID.
 

John G

The Living Force
If a photon does not experience either time or our 3 dimensions, then in 4D Minkowski spacetime, then the light cone of every photon is a spacetime singularity...
Now I'm thinking about this: Let's say the state of dispersion is in binary state 1 and the collection state 0. Gravity switches between these states. (YES - NO / BLACK - WHITE / STO - STS) In that sense gravity is a universal switch or transistor. There you have a relationship between gravity, information and thought.
Yes for the photon in its reference frame to have multiple quantum transactions would require a many-worlds interpretation-like version of gravity acting as a switching network at every Planck scale interval along the photon's worldline. Clifford algebra could give everything an information theory basis.
 

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Q: (L) So gravity is the bridge between information and matter?

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) What is the purpose of life?

A: Learning by organizing information bits. Expanded being.

would require a many-worlds interpretation-like version of gravity acting as a switching network at every Planck scale interval along the photon's worldline. Clifford algebra could give everything an information theory basis.

The pieces are starting to fit... at least that's what I think from my point of view.

If we take the description given by Julian Barbour:

There is no past moment that flows into a future moment. Instead all the different possible configurations of the universe, every possible location of every atom throughout all of creation, exist simultaneously.

The information field contemplates every position of an atom in the universe, which given the magnitude, well it's infinite... and geometry -if I'm not mistaken- is the basic descriptor for a particular arrangement (can be imagined as pages of a novel ripped from the book's spine and tossed randomly onto the floor. Each page is a separate entity existing without time, existing outside of time.)

A series of geometric descriptors should be able to make a picture (universe): "is that the totality of all possible Nows has a very special structure. You can think of it as a landscape or country. Each point in this country is a Now and I call the country Platonia, because it is timeless and created by perfect mathematical rules."[...] All that exists is a landscape of configurations, the landscape of Nows.

And now what I think is important: 3rd Density is -maybe- made up of a series of descriptors that are more or less fixed (local) and 4th Density a series of descriptors plus the addition of a constantly changing (always moving/non-local) descriptor. (Whatever you think of 4th Density manifests itself and becomes your reality) TL;DR: The 4th density is always folding around us, and the way to see that folding ("temporal" loop) is or "Running faster" (hyper-kinetic sensation/natural way) or understand how the geometric descriptor works (technologically) And maybe it's both.

Another silly video:

 

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
A series of geometric descriptors should be able to make a picture (universe)

And just when I started looking, if I could find something about a geometric descriptor, I found the quantum graphity:

A model of spacetime where points are represented by nodes on a graph, connected by links that can be on or off, indicating whether the two points are directly connected as if next to each other in spacetime.

Video:
 

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Guys, I think you might be interested in this:


There’s even a quantum physics version of query complexity in which the banker can ask a “superposition” of several questions at the same time. Figuring out how this measure relates to other complexity measures has helped researchers understand the limitations of quantum algorithms.


Cornering the Solution

Huang heard about the sensitivity conjecture in late 2012, over lunch with the mathematician Michael Saks at the Institute for Advanced Study, where Huang was a postdoctoral fellow.[...] Huang knew, as did the broader research community, that the sensitivity conjecture could be settled if mathematicians could prove an easily stated conjecture about collections of points on cubes of different dimensions.

There’s a natural way to go from a string of n 0s and 1s to a point on an n-dimensional cube: Simply use the n bits as the coordinates of the point.

For instance, the four two-bit strings—00, 01, 10 and 11—correspond to the four corners of a square in the two-dimensional plane: (0,0), (0,1), (1,0) and (1,1). Likewise, the eight three-bit strings correspond to the eight corners of a three-dimensional cube, and so on in higher dimensions. A Boolean function, in turn, can be thought of as a rule for coloring these corners with two different colors (say, red for 0 and blue for 1).

In 1992, Craig Gotsman, now of the New Jersey Institute of Technology, and Nati Linial of Hebrew University figured out that proving the sensitivity conjecture can be reduced to answering a simple question about cubes of different dimensions: If you choose any collection of more than half the corners of a cube and color them red, is there always some red point that is connected to many other red points? (Here, by “connected,” we mean that the two points share one of the outer edges of the cube, as opposed to being across a diagonal.)

If your collection contains exactly half the corners of the cube, it’s possible that none of them will be connected. For example, among the eight corners of the three-dimensional cube, the four points (0,0,0), (1,1,0), (1,0,1) and (0,1,1) all sit across diagonals from one another. But as soon as more than half the points in a cube of any dimension are colored red, some connections between red points must pop up. The question is: How are these connections distributed? Will there be at least one highly connected point?

In 2013, Huang started thinking that the best route to understanding this question might be through the standard method of representing a network with a matrix that tracks which points are connected and then examining a set of numbers called the matrix’s eigenvalues. For five years he kept revisiting this idea, without success. “But at least thinking about it [helped] me quickly fall asleep many nights,” he commented on Aaronson’s blog post.

Then in 2018, it occurred to Huang to use a 200-year-old piece of mathematics called the Cauchy interlace theorem, which relates a matrix’s eigenvalues to those of a submatrix, making it potentially the perfect tool to study the relationship between a cube and a subset of its corners. Huang decided to request a grant from the National Science Foundation to explore this idea further.

Then last month, as he sat in a Madrid hotel writing his grant proposal, he suddenly realized that he could push this approach all the way to fruition simply by switching the signs of some of the numbers in his matrix. In this way, he was able to prove that in any collection of more than half the points in an n-dimensional cube, there will be some point that is connected to at least the square-root-of-n of the other points—and the sensitivity conjecture instantly followed from this result.



Science_Quanta_Boolean_Sensitivity_FINAL560-1068x1720.jpg


 

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I think it is possible to use the solution of conjecture for both geometric algebra and quantum graphity:

A model of spacetime where points are represented by nodes on a graph, connected by links that can be on or off*, indicating whether the two points are directly connected as if next to each other in spacetime**.


*(bits. 0 or 1)
**(a network with a matrix that tracks which points are connected and then examining a set of numbers called the matrix’s eigenvalues)
 
Top Bottom