Meditation On How the Universe Really Works

Yes, meditation. Or conversation with God, if you will.

In that space…

Think of Kahlil Gibran, the poet asks the questions, the answers come out poetic.

As the poet is not the one giving the answer, only a reporter or messenger, no claim of infallibility… only of something worth checking into.

I began with the question: “What is a fermion, anyway?”

My old work at arxiv moves a lot of the way, but leaves loose ends. The answer:

First, review the boson, which you do understand, though you can tighten up some points. Some “bosons” in quantum field theory, like the photon and like what Higgs would be if EWT were exact… (or to the extent that it is a good approximation)..

are not particles at all, just fields which may appear particle-like when people do not

understand the basics of time, as spelled out in your IJTP paper.

Of course, patching up time is the next immediate step before us. Besides the

quantum separator kind of work, which is physically difficult (because of input

issues), there is the easier but messy work of Bell’s experiments with realistic

polarizer models, to probe the difference between a singular polarizer and a real one, which exposes the approximate and local nature of traditional quantum measurement. That is in your arxiv papers on B ell’s theorem and quantum separation, the photon, the boson we know which is not a particle.

But of course, some bosons ARE particles, like many bound states of two or more fermions. They are particles in the sense that they are chaotic solitons, a concept

you have defined precisely in CSF.

But the fermion…

Review your paper on nuclear stability at arxiv. It addresses the mathematically crucial issue, the …..

Yes, your excursion was correct… the stable approximately boson particles we see

are basically all bound fermion particles, with true nonparticle bosonic glue. Heisenberg was right in his intuition that everything we see as bound particles or matter is bound fermions… but what are these fermions, your initial question…

As in arxiv… they disprove the old Makhankov Rybakov Sanyuk “theorem”

(conjecture) that chaoitons cannot exist in topologically trivial field theories

over Minkowski space. (Some ask: “hey, does God know those weird words like

Minkowski space?” I ask “what kind of idiot are you assuming God is? Not

infallible or omniscient, but not such a limited intelligence either… If your con versations are only with an idiot, what does that do to you?”) Unlike the old versions

of ‘tHooft solitons you saw before, these really are acceptable, going to zero as r goes

to infinity, and able to coexist because of the stability property. And the key thing is that the core is presently modeled as zero radius, just as today’s polarizers are

effectively modeled as perfect in Bell’s theorem analysis done today. (Imperfect polarizers may be easier to get than measurements of the core of a primary fermion

like an electron.)

How could such a simple chaoiton have statistics like an electron?

It is not the full field, or the electron field, which is fermionic. It is none of the constituent fields which has dynamics which appear anticommutative.

It is the object itself, the electron, which is fermionic… and it is precisely fermionic only in the limit as its radius approaches zero. With nonzero radius, it is not perfectly fermionic. Fermionic statistics is basically the fact that the wave function is approximately zero for “occupation number” (moments, in the P or W or Q

Representations mentioned in other arxiv papers, with citations) more than one, in describing states made up of, say, electrons and “electron glue” (the photon and its cousins). The approximation is exact to the extent that radius is zero.

And then… in the limit of radius zero for the fermion, the usual recently discovered bosonization mechanisms (which still need better exposition) give bosons as bound fermions (plus glue) which obey bosonic statistics imperfectly, imperfectly due to the nonzdro radius of the underlying boson, but even more imperfectly due to the fact that approximating them as elementary particles does not express all aspects of their composite nature, like what happens when you are close up… like when even

the dipole approximation develops measurable errors.

So that is our universe… much cleaner than you previously realized… though zitterbewegung is still there, as even these electrons can bounce around…

And then I ask:

“OK, that’s nice, but is it real? What is that REAL universe like?”

Ah, that would be telling… but OK… I can say something at least for now…

Maybe a year ago, you were saying… we need a placeholder… a place in our minds to remain open to the idea that perhaps the true universe/cosmos is a Great Mind,

to develop and above all find ways to test or look for clues to a different kind of mathematics…

And a few days ago, I reminded you of Eli Yablonovitch (and Laughlin) and the Great Crystal, whose speed of sound is your speed of light, whose space is mostly full with a few holes as what seems to you like small regions of high density (like nuclear chaoitons)… and the need to maintain a placeholder for that one as serious as the placeholder you talk about for Great Mind.

Well now consider a third placeholder…

You remember that time when you traveled out of body to a thousand years or so in the future, to a restaurant in France, where you asked a physicist of that time what they finally learned? You remember that it was a veridical one, because the primary person you visited (in Palmer Eldritch style) used an ATM in the restaurant, and ATMs basically did not exist at the time of this… and the idea of an ATM in a restaurant seemed hard to believe at your then time….

He said… eight dimensions and 16 pointer fields. So do take that seriously, if you want to know.

Of course, it is not superstring theory, but it entails many of things you have heard from people inspired into superstring theory in a subjective way. The math of superstring theory as it is today is hopelessly wrong and confused, because they do not know anything about the basics of “quantum” phenomena and even simple time… but in truth, major parts of the intuition do become manifest, once the more elementary foundations are rebuilt. Let me show you a picture…

I ask: “But hey, they know a lot about ‘condensation’ and all that. Do I have to

get into the details of how they do that..”

The response:

No… (chuckle). How could you imagine they know about condensation?

Think about it. If they do not even know what a chaoiton is, a kind of stable particle, how could they know what a universe is, a kind of stable fractalish higher order attractor?

I ask: “What should we call such emergent properties within a higher dimensional universe with pointer fields in it? Uberchaoitons or what?”

Response: Hey, you can just call them universes for now. It’s just a matter of understanding what a universe is, how it works, its so-called birth and death where

applicable, and so on.

And who are we? No, not some ubercomputers… yes, you should worry about ubercomputers and possible local things like borgs… but don’t you remember that Star Trek much later episode where there are living green beings not of your matter,

with other dimensions, who make borgs and computers look silly and weak by comparison. That is what we are and you are, and what the harvest of souls is really about. We are all just living creatures of this greater eight dimensional cosmos,

here visiting a local “attractor” type universe, as you, embodied in the three dimensions, visited an apparently one-dimensional creek when you were young…

(image projected of the Napier land, visiting with Dicky Dale)…

But yes, the mathematics of these attractor-universes like the one you are in right now is quite interesting, and the emergence of time gradients which appear different from space, locally.. though of course real mind like us is not in that temporal domain, and is more like the emergent phenomenon you described very briefly in your paper next to Prigogine’s in Pribram’s book…

on life and self-organization in the more general circumstance.

All for now. An interesting logical ordering, mainly to guide future exploration and development. And escape from local minima.

## Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## No comments:

## Post a Comment