On 20 Oct 2014, at 06:57, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Liz,
I am not sure that you can call the underpinning physical. But you
certainly have a good point.
According to one string theory, what seems to exist before the
creation of the universe are dimensions and flux, and symmetries and
quantum theory. At the big-bang some of the dimensions inflate as
double that number compactify or curl up. What makes the dimensions
compactify is the flux that winds thru about 500 holes in each
resulting compact particle. That flux is related to the EM waves (or
light) that exist after inflation ends and the gluon-quark plasma
dissipates.
The string landscape, the 10^500 possible unique compactifications,
is based on the flux windings thru the 500 topological holes, each
winding having 10 possible quantum states. If there were 100 quantum
states, the landscape would be 100^500 or 10^1000 unique compact
particles. BTW all the above is a standard 10 dimensional
supersymmetric string theory
So what exists in this string theory before the big bang, I must
admit, sounds rather physical. But I prefer to reserve the word
physical for the part of nature that we can observe. For example we
can observe the quark-gluon plasma at several high energy colliders
and it turns out to be a superfluid like a BEC. But observational
evidence for inflation is suspicious because of dust.
But we cannot observe the compact particles or for that matter even
consciousness. So it is not certain that either exists even though
we all experience something we call consciousness.
All my hypotheses start from that basis. In a series of 3 papers, I
first assumed that 26 dimensions exist and used the two-time physics
developed by I. Barrs to derive what a possible Metaverse or
Megaverse (used to be called the multiverse before the MWI people co-
opted that word) could look like. Then I learned that astronomical
observations indicated that the structure constant varied across the
universe, from which I hypothesized that each compact particle in
our universe was unique, so that they formed a set of natural
numbers and computation, which became my second paper and which took
me to this forum. You are reading the 3rd paper where I try to put
it all together.
I am a physicist, not a mathematician. I believe in symmetries and
conservation laws. So something from nothing makes no sense to me.
That's why I like black hole creation of baby universes. I even
suggest that the Metaverse came from a 26 dimensional black hole
resulting in a 4 dimensional spacetime and compact particles capable
of consistent and effectively complete mathematics (because it is so
huge and energetic) that is capable of computing matter (according
to CUH). But since writing that last paper a few years ago, I have
come to see that its full of loose ends- something you have picked
up on- I am impressed.
Rich
String theory smells number theory. Not so much the arithmetic of the
meta-arithmetician-computer-scientist, but the numbers of the number
theorists, which can be quite algebraic, geometric, analytical. The
bosonic string theory can be used to prove the Jacobi theorem (on the
numbers of ways natural numbers can be summed with four integers
square).
There are non computationalist reason to think that physics is a
mathematical reality, and string theory might be a candidate for
showing this. There are natural quantum universal dovetailer
candidate, like I think the spectrum of the operator making the
Riemann zero staying well on the critical line can suggest, some
quantum chaos, from which strings could be the first person sharable
version.
(Of course I agree with Liz that your approach seems to assume some
physicalism a priori, glad you are OK with this).
Bruno
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:20 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Richard
I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear
to be positing that a mathematical universe might have a physical
underpinning. If so, this rather defangs the MUH, which obtains its
importance from being logically prior to (the appearance of) a
material universe. Without that assumption there seems no point in
the MUH, since one is back needing to explain "something from
nothing" to obtain the underlying physical universe. (Similarly with
the CUH and Comp, of course.)
Or have I misunderstood?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
