Gerard 't Hooft: lecture, Determinism
Hi, maybe of interest to some of you, Gerard 't Hooft is giving a special talk The Quantum General Relativity and Determinism November 2, 2007, 10 o'clock, HU-Berlin Erwin-Schrödinger-Zentrum. ... We propose to search for a deterministic theory underlying both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The mathematics of Quantum Mechanics appears to allow for this; there are intriguing possibilities, as explained in the lecture. I got this from the following (German) website: http://www.raumzeitmaterie.de/veranstaltungen.php?evt=selectsqn=2629 By the way, he also gives a lecture about Black Holes on Thursday. Cheers, Andy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Gerard 't Hooft: lecture, Determinism
Hi, maybe of interest to some of you, Gerard 't Hooft is giving a special talk The Quantum General Relativity and Determinism November 2, 2007, 10 o'clock, HU-Berlin Erwin-Schrödinger-Zentrum. ... We propose to search for a deterministic theory underlying both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The mathematics of Quantum Mechanics appears to allow for this; there are intriguing possibilities, as explained in the lecture. I got this from the following (German) website: http://www.raumzeitmaterie.de/veranstaltungen.php?evt=selectsqn=2629 Hopefully he will also address other claims like -emergent symmetries -existence of boundaries of the Universe -symmetries which do not apply to the boundaries -operators which can act as replacement operators -existence of a preferred flat coordinate frame All of which are music to my everythinger's ears. However ultimate symphonies for those ears would be, ultimate symmetries between ToE and universe. Viewed on the right level, there are not ToE plus universe. Only one exists, ToE *is* the universe. By the way, 't Hooft also gives a lecture about Black Holes on Thursday. Cheers, Andy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Every creation and gravitation
Every creation hypotheses, instead of every computation or every mathematical structure. I favor a variant of the everything idea, which I would like to call the every creation approach. In some sense it creates every computational moment. Computations are not required as fundamental entities. Almost all you need is a natural definition to make new creations from pairs of creations. This determines the evolution of an avalanche of creations. Creations inside the avalanche may be aware only of those creations to which they are in relative equilibrium. As with other approaches, a consequence seems to be the emergence of the laws of Physics. Let me start with the following 4 hypotheses: 1. There is an underlying time. 2. There are creations (creation objects). 3. There is a natural creation operation defined, which creates new creations from existing creations. 4. Every natural creation operation happens. Some more words on these hypotheses: (1) There is an underlying time, which is discrete. This makes it easy to talk about creation operations, as if they happened in our time. I will do this. (2a) New creations can be made (created). (2b) Creations do not get deleted. (2c) Creations can be made in multiple copies. Creations have multiplicities. Whether a creation can be made does not depend on (can not be prevented by) the preexistence of an identical creation. (3) For any two creations x and y, there is a natural creation operation [x,y] defined, which makes a creation z. Lets call x the operator, and y the operand. I do not specify the definition of the natural creation operation here. I have given one of my favorite definitions, using replacement operators, in a previous posting, where [(x1 x2),y] creates a copy of y and replaces every occurrence of x1 by x2. (4a) Every-creation hypotheses. The natural creation operation [x,y] is happening for every existing creation x and for every existing creation y. (4b) Every existing creation x has equal chance to become the operator in [x,y]. (4c) Every existing creation y has equal chance to become the operand in [x,y]. Let's also make the assumption that creations are (directly) responsible for our awareness and our perceptions of the world. What are the consequences of such a hypotheses? Creations may perceive other creations only indirectly and only if the later possibly play a role in the creations' histories. We may not perceive properties which depend on the underlying time Tau. But we may be able to perceive invariant properties, which do not change when the underlying time Tau is getting larger and larger. We can be indirectly aware of creations who's multiplicities are on average in relative equilibrium with the multiplicities of the creations which are directly responsible for our awareness. Thus the observable universe consists, possibly only, of creations who's multiplicities grow on average at the same rate. Multiplicity(creation,Tau) = phi(creation) * growth_factor(Tau) Multiplicity (observer,Tau) = phi(observer) * growth_factor(Tau) The relative multiplicity, Multiplicity (creation,Tau) /Multiplicity (observer,Tau) = = phi(creation) / phi(observer), is independent of Tau. For creations inside the avalanche, the importance of the initial conditions depends on the number of possible equilibrium states (or the number of certain equivalence classes of possible equilibrium states.) If there is only one possible equilibrium state, then the initial conditions are not relevant at all. Let's assume that Tau is large enough, so that the equilibrium is reached for the creations under consideration. The growth factor can be calculated when we make the simplifying approximation that every operation [x,y] just creates one new copy of y. In that case trivially all creations are in equilibrium, as required. If one of the operations [x,y] does not create a new copy of y, but instead another creation z, the equilibrium is broken. There is one creation y missing and one creation z too much. This is as if the creation y had been moved from y to z. The effective movement can be compensated by an effective movement back. There could be another operation [x2,z] which creates a creation y. Adding loops of effective movements does not change the equilibrium. May a set X of creations x_i form a pattern, and the operations among these creations may produce another pattern Y of creations y_i. Lets call this an effective particle P moving from X to Y. The broken equilibrium can be restored by an effective particle moving from Y to X. Let me call this the effective antiparticle P_bar moving into the opposite direction as particle P is moving. The choice of naming is intended to remind you of the Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation of E0 Solutions of equations like Dirac or Klein-Gordon Equation: Negative-energy particle solutions going backward in time *describe*, positive-energy
Projections to the boarder of the universe, an explanation for dark energy?
According to the holographic principle, there is complete equivalence between a set of physical laws on an n-dimensional space and another set of physical laws on a boundary of this space. Based on simple everything considerations, I conjecture that in our universe there is indeed a kind of holographic principle at work, however the equivalence is not complete. The two sets of physical laws are actually describing two different domains of the same universe. Both domains, the n-dimensional space and the boarder space, actually do exist. On the boarder space there may be a superposition of two kinds of physical states. One kind corresponds to the states in the n-dimensional space and one kind of states does not. Instead of the complete two-way equivalence, there is a one-way inference. Every piece of information in the n-dimensional space is almost instantly projected to the boundary or boundaries of that space (projective inference). Physical objects and even phase space objects are projected into the same direction(s). Let me call this kind of projections teleportation projections. The inverse teleportation, back into the original space, is presumably an operation of greater complexity. Therefore, it should be expected to play a minor role in the physical evolution of the universe. Inverse teleportation projection should be extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, the proof of the existence of such transformations may be quite helpful when exploring physical theories. See the articles Information in the Holographic Universe, by Jacob D. Bekenstein; Scientific American, August 2003, and The Illusion of Gravity, by Juan Maldacena; Scientific American, November 2005, for less hypothetical facts about the holographic principle. Think twice before doing a quick trip to Millitime the highly popular restaurant at the spatial end of the universe! Teleportation projection is a one-way teleportation! There is no direct way back. The measure of objects that have been projected to the boundary, will however diffuse back into the n-dimensional space, occupying and passing through areas close to the boundary. Can you see (the energy of) the shadows on the wall of the ancient universe? Do the projective inference and the conditions at the boarder provide an unexpected explanation for the dark energy as well as for the belief in accelerated expansion of the universe? Is energy conserved or does it grow at the end of the universe?? The title of this list / group reads a mailing list for discussion of the idea that all possible universes exists. I admit that I have infinite difficulties to imagine that every possible universe exists. Hope you do not mind that I nevertheless post here. Above conclusions can presumably be justified from an everything algorithm (or everything axiom) without using any true infinities. Bruno, sorry, I still have not really answered your questions. Should read more of your publications first. Should I have written, I am a superposition of persons living in spaces of various dimensions -- a superposition of the n-dimensional me and its shadows? Cheers and greetings, also to Millitime guests! andy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
