Quasifinite Wormholes and Intrinsic Quantization in the Cloud ( SPCF )

Quasifinite Wormholes and Intrinsic Quantization in the Cloud ( SPCF )

L. Edgar Otto         911 + 12


Comment on facebook to the Science Philosophy Chat Forum  from PeSla

Early on in the science or philosophy of where such relativity theories have developed or been interpreted as points of departure in model design choice, some ask- what is outside the light cone.  That suggests to some, imaginary space geometries and vague states or illusions of causality.  In a spacious now we could imagine that inside the light cone (physically everything) can be seen as a wormhole or black hole (ends of a string or mouth?) of lines of force of limited connectivity as if a neuro-network over which information flows with physical limits and changes of speed.  But what do we mean by a stance as to what is outside in a non-necessary reality of a "Quasi-finite" aspect of universe?  Do we mystically assert all things are connected albeit in hidden or higher dimensions and symmetries?  To some more classical idea of infinity where the equations break down or get so complicated to consider?  Do we accept intrinsic randomness that the ground remains statistically some measure of what is always to be accepted as a quantum mystery- or can space be intrinsically quantized as such forces (mass, gravity, charge...etc) QM theory in a sense the measure of our ignorance?  Do we split the world into what is finite with unique ends and beginning or time imaginary and open, together one situation as Hawking suggested trying to ask about the QM state of the universe and where does information go concerning the horizons of black holes?  What is inside, so real as science becomes a focusing of saving the face of our inside ideas of theories by controversial speculations like catastrophe theory (Euclidean planes and embedded Non-Euclidean spheres) or all the varieties of compacted topologies so to define laws of the physical world?  James, what is outside the light cone?

* * *

I had originally intended the topic on my mind after many and recent talks with people having problems and given up on the confusion of what advice others give, years of acceptance one should not bring to the solution of say physical diseases the expectation of hope for cures.  But what does that leave for any place on line or in the cloud for knowing the sensibility or truth any anything.  Sabine raised this question as I come to the blogspot with it... and as I am delayed finding a good example of what some feel with good intentions I I presume to put forth some grasp of intelligible wisdom and spread and share its value as the SPCF series and link on space time  as an example above.  Enough of this cloudy sea of information and it is possible we may question our core beliefs just as easily as finding some enlightenment. But even in an unbiased non-necessary world the exceptions are not forbidden in a unified (Omnium) quasi-universe.  We can have answers (as Feynman somewhere in the cloud said)  yet not be certain of the truth of them let alone who has the trust to so interpret them if not a focused and open minded thinker.  I mean his sentiment seems to make sense but so many of course follow this sort of stance forever without question... from one stance this is a rather cracked and schizoid type of thinking.

* * * *

Oh,  911 ... as if I was capable of caring or even knowing about it at the time  (yeah, the cloud and some conspiracies real or in any case-  we should save our worry before the fact and not waste it on that afterward that cannot be helped or done ).  Is science prediction then, outside of causality of some sorts?  How can we fold up a sheet of space to connect the wormholes if the sheet itself is broken and not continuous in the space time fabric?  I mean, James, (and Lubos, that drawing betrays a thousand words of understanding or not seeing).  When does the glove take on the shape of the other hand somewhere out there turning around and on the way back on this one side of the speed of light, and where?

* *

Next day on facebook, comment to Joy Christian on Sabine's post link article by Fuchs:

Joy Christian If you seek to write a story of an incomplete theory, then all you are going to get is a fantasy without a beginning or an end that no one buys. Will Mr Fuchs recognize the *complete* story when it is written? Or will his friends attack the storyteller?
about an hour ago · Like

L. Edgar Otto Other than the vagueness of statistical ideas such a proposed story will stand as sound as anything so far. If it works in the axioms of principles it will be a complete theory of both the two physics as we know them that stand from there own perspectives- a matter of trying by reinterpretation and updating a sequel. That said such revision may still be incomplete where open ended in scale like nature may be herself. The article while seeming solid in its closed logic contains the deduced points of paradoxes and apparent contradictions in a way wider as physics than current views or our sense of the possible abstract unifications (Omnium, reality, series of theories of everything, the old Unified field... and other compelling mysteries be they a compelling creation myth or questions in our thoughts or not so as to satisfy the complexity we are).
10 minutes ago · Like

L. Edgar Otto Besides, Joy Christian, science is in a sense partly an evolving and dynamic incomplete story, and from my view, and the sense of unity of many formal or informal philosophers with alternative physics views, such a story already exists of which it is clear (not a matter of social debate) such that we recognize the issues and where it is complete. Moreover, issues such as the nature of structure and count beginning with duality and entanglement and say the number of bits is something the article's author recognizes... But is it quantum mechanics, something of the more relativistic variety... or a new physics that does not replace the others so much as clear in our heads our more primitive terms with evolving disambiguation. Still, do we read the abstract of a paper first (previous links to this question in the conversation) or after the body of effort go back to it for a summary?

* * *

Thursday Sept. 12

The various places I encounter of that video by Brian Green - well, it leaves me with the impression the popularization of science talks to children so in effect dumbs us down--- since when is money something that comes only in bits of coins and not something subjective even continuous?  When was it OK for an establish scientist to write such popularization's on a public level (OK, guess as a belief or need it is what sells and who controls the distribution even if it only gives enough superficial knowledge to satisfy those who swear by the effort to restate or even misinterpret a slogan- our culture is a victim of this secondhand smoke screen.  Anyway it was Fred Hoyle, and Asimov, Wells, Gamow and the like that made science fiction something the established physicists could do with respect...  And sci fi has taught more science to the masses than these children's light reading books as if facts.  But I must say,  Lubos, your last post was quite a cosmic speculation of almost Biblical Cosmology in quality and it is too little and too late,,, you like to bet but in the strict string like terms and model of so called eras of the universe (perhaps God had several Eves in his prototypes or perhaps those odd preachers are right  about ancient times when the aliens seeded us monkeys with better DNA.)  That God is dead and even Darwin cannot save him...exponential dark matter expansion like the old ultraviolet death and quelling of things to entropy... not sensed and pure Nonsense! Not a bad spook story to explain lightening or keep the tribe, wives, and children in line.

* * * *
This interesting article linked from Bruce Duensing...  This should ring bells as it did with Bruce...early on I too, with some extraordinary experiences (hey professors at Duke studied it, I did not know better) anyway this makes a lot of sense and hard to criticize having concluded similar things early on myself, but regarding it as science...you see, the memory is after all something of our structured vacua- much like todays cosmic speculations as theoretical physics beyond quantum ideas... and yes the teleology and measure ideas.
I found on google+ a link from Baez on number theory... and did some interesting things from those more standard formulas, I do not think my comment got posted which suggested many things among them the need for working base four... this is still a work in progress and is about random numbers and so on...
* * *
Sept. 13th

fb comment to James on spcf

James, color is qualitatively on a higher abstraction of thought and physicality that some vague philosophic term such as qualia.  This is true in how it relates to what we mean by pure information. In any case such terms in the language where they are philosophy terms seem to change as to what the fixed forms contain as meaning.  The founder of the forum called my idea on this "whacked".  I am not sure scientists make good philosophers nor philosophers without a depth of vision and abstraction good scientists.  Clearly the fundamental terms now debated with science at the driving frontier (how even the other animals actually see or we orient dimensions- that was the whacky idea- is now very abstract yet the mainstream as we explore new areas and experimental evidence and observation of fundamental cosmology models and particle physics.

fb question to Sabine by msg.

Sabine, I encountered a property of numbers (integers) that has me ask myself a question which I thought you could better answer. It is either very trivial or leans toward the LQG stance.  I understand the quantum in this but just how does the loop idea enter the model? What is the Looping mean?

* * * *