Broken Maxwell EM ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter toybot
  • Start date Start date
My conclusion is that Tony's work is 'String Theory' not 'Quantum Mechanics'!
Tony is big on Feynman paths; it's quantum mechanics via bosonic strings forming the many worlds paths. Nothing wrong with working on extensions to quantum mechanics outside the context of string theory. I just realized today that the part of Tony's model that has a function most related to Ark's quantum jumps is Tony's modified version of GRW collapse.
 
John,

Tony's material has been extremely helpful to me for non-physics applications. His analysis is right on for solving problems involving the Laplacian (not trival PDEs on a Riemannian manifolds, but rather Hamiltonian flow PDEs on symplectic manifolds, eg Navier-Stokes).

I have dismissed 'quantum mechanics' as junk science since QM's state space is on a Riemannian manifold. And we all know that all gauge theories involve nonlinear PDEs (Hamiltonian flows).

I'm quite sure the Tony is not using Feynman path integrals, since they use the total derivative rather than the partial derivative for the Lagrangian. This forces the solution onto a Riemannian manifold and gives an average wavefunction (probability function) rather than the correct string wavefunction which is 100% deterministic.

Getting back to the original thread - is EM theory broken? It sure is if your working on non-trivial problems. The main problem is that modern EM theory (as taught by physics depts) is based on Gibbs' EM theory, which is limited to problems on Riemannian manifolds (or Kahler manifolds). So it does not work for Hamiltonian flows (which are on symplectic manifolds).

So what's the problem? Mathematically, any problem involving a Laplacian (as QM and EM do) must be solved on symplectic state-space. The Lie algebra is Kac-Moody and the manifold is infinite dimensional. In addition to the 'complex' field extension to rational numbers, you need to also add a quaternion field extension (as one does in galois theory). This is the exact subject of Gibbs' debate with mathematics in the 1890s.

In many cases, fortunately for physicists, the actual manifold is Kahler (intersection of symplectic and Riemannian) so you'll get the right experimental results. But anything harder, like wave optics, or gravitational interactions, or fluid mechanics (eg, Burgers'equation) and you're toast.

What I do find amazing is that physicists did get it right with with scattering/inverse scattering theory. I therefore must assume that particle physicists don't talk to theoretical physicists...

Anyway, It certainly appears to me that Tony is the only modern physicist that has reasonable training in mathematics and does not subscribe to physics 'folk' math.

And finally, regarding Ark's jumps, I'm afraid it's pure ****. It's just another example of stochastic flow crap that should be trashed.
 
Tony is using the Feynman Checkerboard:

The D4-D5-E5-E7-E8 VoDou Physics HyperDiamond Feynman Checkerboard model can be constructed from the 8-fold Periodicity of Real Clifford Algebras

Cl(8N) = Cl(8) x ..N.. x Cl(8)
where x ..N.. x denotes N-fold tensor product, by using a very large Clifford Algebra Cl(8N) as a starting point, and using 8-fold Periodicity to factor Cl(8N) into N copies of Cl(8).

To see what to do with the N copies of Cl(8), look at how Feynman's 2-dimensional Checkerboard might be constructed from N copies of Cl(2).

Given N copies of Cl(2), how can they be put in a useful order?
Look at Cl(2) = C(2), with graded structure

1 2 1
The Cl(2) vector space is 2-dimensional, so the N copies of Cl(2) should be put in a 2-dimensional array. The most natural such array would be the Complex Gaussian integers, which make a 2-dim Feynman checkerboard with all the Cl(2) at the vertices of the checkerboard connected to other Cl(2) in such a way as to make a 2-dim lattice that is consistent with complex number multiplication.

Cl(2) has 1-dim U(1) as its bivector Lie algebra, which is consistent with the electromagntism gauge group, and with complex number multiplication, and Cl(2) has full spinor space of dimension sqrt(4) = 2, and so half-spinor spaces that are 1-dimensional, one for the electron and one for the positron to move around on the checkerboard, so a Complex Gaussian lattice with a Cl(2) at each vertex defines a 2-dimensional Feynman Checkerboard with half-spinor particles moving around on it and a U(1) gauge group providing the i that Feynman used to weight changes of direction.

If you look at the N copies of Cl(8) the same way, you see that Cl(8) has graded structure

1 8 28 56 70 56 28 8 1
so that Cl(8) has an 8-dim vector space, so that the N copies of Cl(8) wants to be connected as an 8-dim checkerboard, so the N copies of Cl(8) should be ordered as an array of integral octonions, that is, they should live on an E8 lattice, which is the Octonionic 8-dim correspondent of the 2-dim Complex Gaussian lattice.

You can look at the natural 4-dim physical spacetime sublattice, and see that it is the 4-dim HyperDiamond lattice.

Since Cl(8) half-spinors are 8-dim, you get (where Cl(2) gives you the electron and positron) for fermions to move on the lattice the 8 first generation fermion particles

neutrino
red up quark
blue up quark
green up quark
red down quark
blue down quark
green down quark
electron
and their 8 antiparticles. The projection of an 8-dim E8 lattice onto the 4-dim HyperDiamond lattice gives the second and third generation fermions.

At each vertex, instead of the Cl(2) gauge group U(1), you get the Cl(8) gauge group Spin(8), which gives Gravity and the Standard Model from the point of view of the 4-dim HyperDiamond lattice, and which is consistent with octonion multiplication.

The weighting of changes of direction in the 4-dm HyperDiamond lattice is given by Quaternion Imaginaries of the change of direction, in this way:

There are 7 different charged first-generation fermion particles {electron, rgb up quarks, rgb down quarks}. There are 7 different E8 lattices in the full 8-dimensional SpaceTime prior to Dimensional Reduction. All of the 7 E8 lattices produce, by Dimensional Reduction, the same 4-dimensional Physical SpaceTime and 4-dimensional Internal Symmetry Space.

The HyperDiamond generalization has discrete lightcone directions. If the 4-dimensional Feynman Checkerboard is coordinatized by the quaternions Q:

the real axis 1 is identified with the time axis t;
the imaginary axes i,j,k are identified with the space axes x,y,z; and
the four future lightcone links are
(1/2)(1+i+j+k),
(1/2)(1+i-j-k),
(1/2)(1-i+j-k), and
(1/2)(1-i-j+k).
In cylindrical coordinates t,r with r^2 = x^2+y^2+z^2, the Euclidian metric is

t^2 + r^2 = t^2 + x^2+y^2+z^2
and the Wick-Rotated Minkowski metric with speed of light c is

(ct)^2 - r^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2 -y^2 -z^2.
For the future lightcone links on the 4-dimensional Minkowski lightcone, c = sqrt3.

Any future lightcone link is taken into any other future lightcone link by quaternion multiplication by +/- i, +/- j, or +/- k.

For a given vertex on a given path, continuation in the same direction can be represented by the link 1, and changing direction can be represented by the imaginary quaternion +/- i, +/- j, +/- k corresponding to the link transformation that makes the change of direction.

Therefore, at a vertex where a path changes direction, a path can be weighted by quaternion imaginaries just as it is weighted by the complex imaginary i in the 2-dimensional case.

If the path does change direction at a vertex, then the path at the point of change gets a weight of -im e, -jm e, or -km e where i,j,k is the quaternion imaginary representing the change of direction, m is the mass (only massive particles can change directions), and sqrt3 e is the timelike length of a path segment, where the 4-dimensional speed of light is taken to be sqrt3.

For a given path, let C be the total number of direction changes, c be the cth change of direction, and ec be the quaternion imaginary i,j,k representing the cth change of direction.

C can be no greater than the timelike Checkerboard distance D between the initial and final points.

The total weight for the given path is then m sqrt3 ec to the Cth power times the product (c from 0 to C) of -ec

Note that since the quaternions are not commutative, the product must be taken in the correct order.

The product is a vector in the direction +/- 1, +/- i, +/- j, or +/- k.

Let N(C) be the number of paths with C changes in direction. The propagator amplitude for the particle to go from the initial vertex to the final vertex is the sum over all paths of the weights, that is the path integral sum over all weighted paths:

the sum from 0 to D of N(C)
times

the Cth power of m sqrt3 ec

times

the product (c from 0 to C) of -ec

The propagator phase is the angle between the amplitude vector in quaternionic 4-space and the quaternionic real axis. The plane in quaternionic 4-space defined by the amplitude vector and the quaternionic real axis can be regarded as the complex plane of the propagator phase.

ManyWorlds of the Feynman Checkerboard can be represented by Surreal Numbers.
Tony likes stochastic flow stuff:

Lee Smolin, in his paper Stochastic Mechanics and Hidden Variables, printed in the book Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (Penrose and Isham, eds., Oxford 1986) describes Nelson's derivation of quantum mechanics as a Brownian motion process, discussing the wave function

PSI = sqrt(rho) exp( i S / hbar )
in which "... Schrodinger's equation ... decomposes into a conservation equation with the current velocity defined as [note that v = (1/2)(b + b*), where b and b* are motions for forward and backward time steps, is distinct from the osmotic velocity u = (1/2)(b - b*)]

v = (1/m) divS
and the dynamical equation [which] ... has the form of a Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the motion of a particle in a potential V plus an additional term

Vquantum = (hbar^2 / 2m) div^2 (sqrt(rho) / rho )
... In stochastic mechanics, the term Vquantum is derived ... from the general theory of Brownian motion ... by specifying that the Brownian motion processes satisfy three additional conditions ...

(1) The current velocity is irrotational. Thus, there exists a function S(x,t) such that m v = div S.
(2) In spite of the fact that the particle is subject to random alterations in its motion there exists a conserved energy, defined ... as E = INT d^3x rho((x,t) [ (1/2) m v^2 + (1/2) m u^2 + V(x).
(3) The diffusion constant VC is inversely proportional to the inertial mass of the particle, with the constant of proportionality being a universal constant hbar: VC = hbar / m.
... an ensemble of Brownian processes which are so delicately correlated that an exactly conserved energy of the form (2) may be defined in terms of their probability distribution [and which obey the other condidtions] will behave as if each member of the ensemble is coupled to the probability distribution of the whole ensemble ...".

The diffusion processes of Nelson may be related to the diffusion calculations
of fundmental physical constants, such as force strengths, in the theory under development by Michael Gibbs which in turn is related to the D4-D5-E6 physics model.

In some respects, Dirac anticipated some of the fundamental ideas of Nelson's Stochastic Quantum Theory. In 1951-1954, Dirac advocated the reality and utility of the aether, as shown in this quote from pages 202-203 of Dirac: A Scientific Biography, by Helge Kragh (Cambridge 1990): "... "Let us imagine the aether to be in a state for which all values of the velocity of any bit of aether, less than the velocity of light, are equally probable. ... In this way the existence of an aether can be brought into complete harmony with the principle of relativity." Dirac identified the ether velocity with the stream velocity of his classical electron theory ... it was the velocity with which small charges would flow if they were introduced. ... in the spring of 1953, Dirac proposed that absolute time be reconsidered. ... The ether, absolute simultaneity, and absolute time "... can be incorporated into a Lorentz invariant theory with the help of quantum mechanics ..." ... he was unable to work out a satisfactory quantum theory with absolute time and had to rest content with the conclusion that "one can try to build up a more elaborate theory with absolute time involving electron spins ...". Recall that Nelson's non-local stochastic quantum mechanics (which I think can be formulated consistently with Bohm theory) involves (see the paper by Smolin in the book Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (Penrose and Isham, eds), at page 156) a diffusion constant that "... is inversely proportional to the inertial mass of the particle, with the constant of proportionality being a universal constant hbar: v = hbar / m ...". Compare this with Dirac's 1951 suggestion that the electromagnetism U(1) gauge-fixing condition should be A A = k^2 where (see page 199 in Kragh's book I am omitting some sub and superscript mus and nus): "... In order to get agreement with the Lorentz equation, the constant k was indentified with m/e The four-velocity v of a stream of electrons ws found to be related to A by v = (1/k) A ..." which gives for Dirac's theory v = e / m.

Carlos Rodriguez in section 8 of physics/9808010 describes a generalization of the Markov property that permits derivation of the Schrodinger equation for Clifford Algebra valued conditional measures, such as might be used to construct the D4-D5-E6 physics model.

With respect to the Schrodinger equation, Rodriguez cites quant-ph/9804012 by Ariel Caticha, whose abstract says: "Quantum theory is formulated as the only consistent way to manipulate probability amplitudes. The crucial ingredient is a consistency constraint: if there are two different ways to compute an amplitude the two answers must agree. This constraint is expressed in the form of functional equations the solution of which leads to the usual sum and product rules for amplitudes. A consequence is that the Schrodinger equation must be linear: non-linear variants of quantum mechanics are inconsistent. The physical interpretation of the theory is given in terms of a single natural rule. This rule, which does not itself involve probabilities, is used to obtain a proof of Born's statistical postulate. Thus, consistency leads to indeterminism." Caticha also says that "... the fact that Born's postulate is actually a theorem was independently discovered long ago by Gleason, by Finkelstein, by Hartle and by Graham.

The zero-sum rule, like Valentini's equlibrium, produces the Born rule. Perhaps Valentini's non-equilibrium violations of the Born rule in the early inflationary universe may be related to non-zero-sum processes such as particle creation.
 
Tony is using the Feynman Checkerboard:

Tony's exactly right... But he's only showing how the checkerboard (experimental results) can be explained by the exceptional Lie group string model.

That's an excellent paper by Tony (Nobel Prize???)

I'm sure Tony can do the correct path integral; clearly Feynman couldn't.

Tony likes stochastic flow stuff:

Now that's junk math/physics. I guess we all can learn. Hidden vars are only 'associated' with Hamiltonian flows. Stochastic flows can't have anything hidden because the orbits are on a Riemannian manifold.
 
Tony's exactly right... But he's only showing how the checkerboard (experimental results) can be explained by the exceptional Lie group string model.
Yes and I think Tony is able to do the same thing with Riemannian manifolds:

The physics of the Shilov boundaries of the Bounded Complex Domains gives us, through the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physics model, Gravity and the Standard Model.

The basic useful features of compact Shilov boundaries of Bounded Complex Domains can be extended to distinguished boundaries that are non-compactly causal symmetric spaces, according to math.RT/0111033, Complex crowns of Riemannian symmetric spaces and non-compactly causal symmetric spaces, by Simon Gindikin and Bernhard Kroetz, who say:

"... we define a distinguished boundary for the complex crowns ... of non-compact Riemannian symmetric spaces G/K. The basic result is that affine symmetric spaces of G can appear as a component of this boundary if and only if they are non-compactly causal symmetric spaces. ...
... The distinguished boundary is a geometrically complicated object. Usually it is a disconnected set. Nevertheless, we show that it is minimal from some analytical points of view and that it features properties expected from a Shilov boundary. ...

... it was conjectured that non-compactly causal symmetric spaces appear in the "Shilov boundary" of the complex crowns ... We establish this conjecture (in a more exact form); namely we prove:

Theorem B. If one of the components G=Hj ... in the "Shilov boundary" of the complex crown ... is a symmetric space, then it is a non-compactly causal symmetric space. Moreover, every non-compactly causal symmetric space occurs as a component of the distinguished boundary of some complex crown ...
Let us say a few words about the motivation of this conjecture. On Riemannian symmetric spaces we have an elliptic analysis and on non-compactly causal symmetric spaces we have a hyperbolic analysis. It is known in mathematical physics that in many important cases elliptic and hyperbolic theories can be "connected" through complex domains (Laplacians and wave equations, Euclidean and Minkowski field theories etc). Theorem B implies a connection of Riemannian and non-compactly causal symmetric spaces through the complex crowns ... It shows that the phenomenon described above has a non-trivial generalization to symmetric spaces. ...".

Such complex crowns are further described in math.RT/0110173, also by Simon Gindikin and Bernhard Kroetz.

It is clear to me that such distinguished boundaries that are non-compactly causal symmetric spaces can be very useful in constructing spacetime manifolds and symmetric space structures with realistic signatures in the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physics model.

The Shilov boundaries are used in the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physics model as compact manifolds that represent spacetime, internal symmetry space, and fermion representation space.

The volumes of the manifolds are useful in calculations of particle masses and force strength constants.

Here are some of the Bounded Domains that are used in the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physics model:

The compact manifold that represents 8-dim spacetime is RP1 x S7, the Shilov boundary of the bounded complex homogeneous domain that corresponds to Spin(10) / (Spin(8)xU(1)).
The compact manifold that represents 4-dim spacetime is RP1 x S3, the Shilov boundary of the bounded complex homogeneous domain that corresponds to Spin(6) / (Spin(4)xU(1)).
The compact manifold that represents 4-dim internal symmetry space is CP2, the Shilov boundary of the bounded complex homogeneous domain that corresponds to SU(3) / (SU(2)xU(1)).
The compact manifold that represents the 8-dim fermion representation space is RP1 x S7, the Shilov boundary of the bounded complex homogeneous domain that corresponds to Spin(10) / (Spin(8)xU(1)).
The MacroSpace of Many-Worlds that corresponds, at a first approximation, to E7 / E6xU(1). .
A second approximation to the MacroSpace of Many-Worlds corresponds to E8 / E7xSU(2).
The manifolds RP1 x S3 and RP1 x S7 are homeomorphic to S1 x S3 and S1 x S7, which are untwisted trivial sphere bundles over S1. The corresponding twisted sphere bundles are the generalized Klein bottles Klein(1,3) Bottle and Klein(1,7) Bottle.

Note that RP1 can be described as an orbifold.

Type IV(n) domain to Type BDI rank=2 space Spin(n+2) / Spin(n)xU(1)

The Type IV(n) domain, related to Graded Lie Algebras I6 and I15, is used in the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physics model. It is the Lie sphere that consists of all n-dimensional complex vectors z such that | z z' |^2 + 1 - 2 z z' > 0 and | z z' | < 1 (where z' denotes the tranpose of z), and
its Shilov boundary consists of vectors of the form

exp( i theta ) x
( where 0 < theta < pi and x is a real n-dim vector such that x x' = 1 ). That is, the Shilov boundary of Spin(n+2) / Spin(n)xU(1) is RP1 x S(n-1) (where S(n-1) is the (n-1)-sphere in n-dim space). It has real dimension n.

Type IV(4) domains have been used to understand physics by Coquereaux and Jadczyk. An example of their line of thinking is given by the following quote from the paper by R. Coquereaux entitled Lie Balls and Relativistic Quantum Fields, Nuc. Phys. B. 18B (1990) 48-52:

"... In the present paper, we are mainly interested in the four dimensional (complex) Lie ball that we shall denote by D. This smooth manifold can be written as SOo(4,2) / SO(4)xSO(2) or as SU(2,2) / S(U(2)xU(2)). ... D is a bounded non compact symmetric domain of type I and IV. ... The metric of D is euclidean and blows up near the boundary (as in the usual geometry of Lobachevski) but ... induces a conformal Lorentz structure on the boundary. The domain D is a Lie ball ... the Shilov boundary (compactified Minkowski Space-Time) can be defined as the Lie sphere ... The domain D also admits an unbounded realization: the future tube. ... This last unbounded realization of the Lie ball admits a simple physical interpretation. ... the imaginary part y of z = x + iy can be interpreted as the inverse of a momentum ... Points of the domain D describe therefore both the position (in space and time) and the momentum (with p^2 > 0) associated with a physical event. The domain itself becomes therefore a curved relativistic phase-space. Interpretation of Im(z) as an inverse momentum is an obvious four-dimensional generalization of what is done in usual wavelet analyisis (where the variable v in z = t + i/v is interpreted as a frequency). ...".
Two other papers with similar approach are:

CONFORMAL THEORIES, CURVED PHASE SPACES, RELATIVISTIC WAVELETS AND THE GEOMETRY OF COMPLEX DOMAINS, by R. COQUEREAUX and A. JADCZYK Received 28 December 1989, Revised 24 April 1990 Reviews in Mathematical Physics, Volume 2, No 1 (1990) 1-44
and

BORN'S RECIPROCITY IN THE CONFORMAL DOMAIN, by ARKADIUSZ JADCZYK, in Z. Oziewicz et al. (eds.) Spinors, Twistors, Clifford Algebras and Quantum Deformations, 129-140. (Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993)

The relevant Complex Structure can be seen in such physical concepts as Momentum Space, Position-Momentum Complementarity, Hyperspace, Black Holes, Wavelets, and Conformal SpaceTime.
Note that Jadczyk/A. Jadczyk/Arkadiusz Jadczyk is our very own Ark.
 
Tony is able to do the same thing with Riemannian manifolds:

No he's not able to. Shilov boundaries are associated with symplectic manifolds, and symplectic manifolds are very much different than Riemannian manifolds (note: for trivial problems, a symplectic manifold may become Kahler).

I still claim Ark's contibutions are poor at best.
 
Newton said:
Tony is able to do the same thing with Riemannian manifolds:

No he's not able to. Shilov boundaries are associated with symplectic manifolds, and symplectic manifolds are very much different than Riemannian manifolds (note: for trivial problems, a symplectic manifold may become Kahler).
Don't you know that there are manifolds that are at the same time Riemannian AND symplectic, that is: they carry both structures? See for instance pages 3-4 in reference [coja89] at http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/jadpub.htm
as well as p. 135-136 in [jad92] therein.

Newton said:
I still claim Ark's contibutions are poor at best.
On this particular point I agree completely with you, and I am ready to argue with anyone who would think otherwise (and there are some such people) ;)
 
Ark said:
Newton said:
I still claim Ark's contibutions are poor at best.
On this particular point I agree completely with you, and I am ready to argue with anyone who would think otherwise (and there are some such people) ;)
In the grand scheme of things, your arguement would lose to your contributions. Reading Tony's site for years has made me feel like I'm reading the last chapter of a very important book while being here for half a year has made me feel like I'm living in that last chapter. It's not easy to save the world and win a Nobel Prize in the same lifetime even if the 4th Way doesn't explicitly forbid it. :)
 
at http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/jadpub.htm
as well as p. 135-136 in [jad92] therein.
Well sure... Kahler manifolds are both Riemannian AND symplectic. But this usually means that a projection of a sympletic manifold can be Riemannian. Full dimension Riemannian AND symplectic manifolds cannot have the same structure. Riemannian manifolds have torsion, and symplectic are torsion free. Or equivalently, Abelian vs non-Abelian group operations.

Your contributions... I'm sure most 'stochatic flow' believers love your papers.
 
Newton said:
Your contributions... I'm sure most 'stochatic flow' believers love your papers.
Well, I'll admit I don't know much about math, but I know snide remarks when I see them. I'm sure many other people do, too.
 
Well sure... Kahler manifolds are both Riemannian AND symplectic. But this usually means that a projection of a sympletic manifold can be Riemannian. Full dimension Riemannian AND symplectic manifolds cannot have the same structure. Riemannian manifolds have torsion, and symplectic are torsion free. Or equivalently, Abelian vs non-Abelian group operations.
OK but why can't the stochastic flow be for a projection/gravity effected symplectic manifold Shilov boundary:

The action of Gravity on the 4-dim Physical SpaceTime RP1 x S3 to produce Gravitational Curvature and Gravitational Torsion corresponds to the action of the Higgs Mechanism on the Affine Torsion ElectroWeak U(2) Gauge Bosons to give them mass.

The coupling of Gravitational Torsion to Dirac Spinor Fermion Particles and Antiparticles acts as a Yukawa Coupling to give them mass. At tree level, the Yukawa Coupling gives no mass to the Weyl Fermion Neutrinos and Antineutrinos, which are related by triality to the RP1 of Time and not to the Space S7 of SpaceTime, which are associated with the massless photons of S1 = U(1) Electromagnetism and the massive Weak Bosons of the S3 = SU(2) Weak Force and the Higgs Mechanism, respectively.
For Tony, gravity here is the spin(6) conformal gravitons not just the spin(5) deSitter gravitons. Stochastic flow for Tony is directly related to his mass and force strength calculations.

Your contributions... I'm sure most 'stochatic flow' believers love your papers.
If you, Ark and Tony were interested in being loved by as many as possible, you'd all be using your very good math abilities to do what Witten told you to do. Ryan is right, no need to get too brutal though a little friendly sparring can be entertaining.
 
Ryan said:
Newton said:
Your contributions... I'm sure most 'stochatic flow' believers love your papers.
Well, I'll admit I don't know much about math, but I know snide remarks when I see them. I'm sure many other people do, too.
I sure hope so... This 'stochastic flow' junk physics has gone way too far. All first principles in physics are deterministic! When you can't do the math, using probability as an approximation mechanism is okay, but don't say probability (as in wave functions) is fundamental to the theory as in QM.
 
John G said:
OK but why can't the stochastic flow be for a projection/gravity effected symplectic manifold Shilov boundary:


For Tony, gravity here is the spin(6) conformal gravitons not just the spin(5) deSitter gravitons. Stochastic flow for Tony is directly related to his mass and force strength calculations.


If you, Ark and Tony were interested in being loved by as many as possible, you'd all be using your very good math abilities to do what Witten told you to do. Ryan is right, no need to get too brutal though a little friendly sparring can be entertaining.
John,

I'm afraid stochastic flows have no place in physics, all flows are Hamiltonian.

Tony is correct that spin(6) is associated with gravity, but actually spin(4) x spin(4), Boson interactions lead to spin(6) with a left over scalar (constant acceleration). The scalar is probably near-field gravity, and spin(6) is a fermion related (maybe a Quark) since it has so much energy. Notice that spin(4) is symplectic (has knots), but spin(6) has an octonioin manifold (no knots) and is a soliton. The interaction of spin(6) x spin(6) is well known for solitons to be a phase shift (which is exactly the same as gravity). Interesting isn't it?

I'm afraid I do get a bit brutal when I see poor math (like poor spelling bothers others).
 
Newton said:
at http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/jadpub.htm
as well as p. 135-136 in [jad92] therein.
Well sure... Kahler manifolds are both Riemannian AND symplectic. But this usually means that a projection of a sympletic manifold can be Riemannian. Full dimension Riemannian AND symplectic manifolds cannot have the same structure. Riemannian manifolds have torsion, and symplectic are torsion free. Or equivalently, Abelian vs non-Abelian group operations.

Your contributions... I'm sure most 'stochatic flow' believers love your papers.
Don't you know that there are manifolds that are both Riemannian and symplectic that are not Kahler? I am getting little bit brutal when I see poor logic :)
 
Newton said:
Riemannian manifolds have torsion, and symplectic are torsion free.
Don't you know that there are Riemannian manifolds without torsion? Unless your definition is a "personal one". I am not even sure that know what is a Riemannian manifold and what is torsion.

Let me try to teach you something. Riemannian manifold is a manifold equipped with a Riemannian metric. Such a manifold has a natural connection (called Levi-Civita connection), and this connection has no torsion.

On the other hand you can put on any manifold a connection with torsion. Torsion has nothing whatsoever to do whether manifold is Riemannian
or not. Torsion is not property of the metric. It is a property of a connection. Connection and metric can be given as totally independent.

Now, after all that, do you understand why your statement
Newton said:
Riemannian manifolds have torsion
is simply either wrong or just nonsensical?
 
Back
Top Bottom