Perfect symmetry Text - Physics Forums Library

jal

Aug23-08, 10:02 AM

If Einstein was living today, he would have been put into the “Ignore list” for his creative insights and saying that space and time did not exist as separate entities. Yet, he was right. There is no time that can be manipulated and there is no space that can be manipulated.
Had Einstein been aware of what we know about CPT and the experimental results of a perfect liquid, (quark gluon liquid), and perfect symmetry he would have made the same obvious statement.
You can only manipulate dimensions.
I do not feel that I am in such an illustrious company for saying the obvious.
-----------
At the String 08 conference, Prof. David GROSS (KITP), in the closing “Outlook” statement, urged the young researchers to search beyond the lamp posts.
--------
In order to get to Planck Scale it is necessary to find a way past a perfect liquid and perfect symmetry at 10^-18. It can not accomplished by manipulating space.
Space can only be manipulated by increasing or decreasing dimensions.
There are no reasons why a perfect liquid could not have existed for a longer period of time than the age of the universe.
----------
In his presentation, Carlo Rovelli suggested that someone write a paper outlining the similarities with all the approaches.
In his closing remarks, at String 08, Dave Gross, responded by expressing doubts as to whether they should include Lattice Quantum Gravity (LQG) into strings.
He still calls it Loop Quantum Gravity.
---------
In my opinion, all of the approaches, ( casual set, string, lattice/QCD, LQG), are all describing the same thing – A perfect Symmetry and trying to find a way to get out of the perfect symmetry by trying to find a mechanism for CPT violation which would give confinement.
All approaches are taking their inspirations from experimental data. These are being supplied by Condensed matter physics, EOS, and what will soon be happening at CERN.
----------
jal

jal

Aug24-08, 11:02 AM

Finding out how the universe is made is not a priority that is being taught in school.
Knowing the behavior of a perfect liquid is now a prerequisite to be able to understand how the universe is made.
Some people have already started to work with perfect liquids. They are using pressure, density and volume in different dimensions, without time.
If you are interested … Here is something to get you started.

--------
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0407101
Perfect Fluid Theory and its Extensions
Authors: R. Jackiw, V.P. Nair, S.-Y. Pi, A.P. Polychronakos
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2004)
Abstract: We review the canonical theory for perfect fluids, in Eulerian and Lagrangian formulations. The theory is related to a description of extended structures in higher dimensions. Internal symmetry and supersymmetry degrees of freedom are incorporated. Additional miscellaneous subjects that are covered include physical topics concerning quantization, as well as mathematical issues of volume preserving diffeomorphisms and representations of Chern-Simons terms (= vortex or magnetic helicity).

=======
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3434
Phase Transitions and the Perfectness of Fluids
Authors: Jiunn-Wei Chen, Mei Huang, Yen-Han Li, Eiji Nakano, Di-Lun Yang
(Submitted on 21 Sep 2007 (v1), last revised 25 Jul 2008 (this version, v3))
=======
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4824
Bulk Viscosity of a Gas of Massless Pions
Authors: Jiunn-Wei Chen, Juven Wang
(Submitted on 30 Nov 2007)
Abstract: In the hadronic phase, the dominant configuration of QCD with two flavors of massless quarks is a gas of massless pions. We calculate the bulk viscosity (zeta) using the Boltzmann equation with the kinetic theory generalized to incorporate the trace anomaly. We find that the dimensionless ratio zeta/s, s being the entropy density, is monotonic increasing below T=120 MeV, where chiral perturbation theory is applicable. This, combined with previous results, shows that zeta/s reaches its maximum near the phase transition temperature Tc, while eta/s, eta being the shear viscosity, reaches its minimum near Tc in QCD with massless quarks.
========

jal

Aug25-08, 10:56 AM

Our universe exists as it is because of confinement.
The biggest challenge of science will be to unravel the mystery of confinement.
Mass, and gravity appears to be present only if there is confinement.
Stars have mass and gravity but they also have confinement of the protons and neutrons.
It would seem that our models/understanding of what existed prior the CBR will need to be revised.
It seems that when we have a deconfined liquid, we do not have CPT violation, nor mass, nor gravity. We obtain perfect symmetry.
In other word, we need a better understanding of QCD.
“ What would happen to a star if the interior was to change to a massless quark gluon liquid?”

jal

Aug26-08, 03:08 PM

Emergent Gravity
August 25-29 2008
http://www.rle.mit.edu/emergent/program.htm
========
Sabine Hossenfelder is attending and I expect that she will be true to form and make a report on her blog.
Jan Zaanen will also be there. ( http://lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/~jan/#Top ).
• Check out his article “ Quantum Critical Electron Systems: the Unchartered Sign Worlds (2008) “

I would like to hear if and how they have incorporated the “perfect liquid” in cosmology.

jal

Aug27-08, 11:38 AM

Quote from article “ Quantum Critical Electron Systems: the Unchartered Sign Worlds (2008) “

The Fermi energy is the average zero-point motion energy, and the only way to remove it is by making the mass of the
quasi-electrons infinite! The modern way of thinking about the ultimate origin of space-time (and everything
else) has quantum emergence as a common denominator, but even string theory rests in this regard on intuitions originating in the earthly realms. There are plenty of fermions in such theories, but they are instinctively taken to be of the Fermi-liquid kind, and there is plenty of room for big surprises caused by the fermion signs at the very bottom.
======
Hummm!
We could be in for some very interesting papers!
Papers that would explore the many ways of making electrons from a perfect liquid.
Papers that tries to incorporate how expansion would allow for the confinement and the distribution of the electrons around the confined quark gluons.
Papers that would demonstrate the lowering/sharing of the mass of the electrons with the protons and neutrons to their present value. ( distribution of the Energy Budget )
Papers with a different approaches to the total energy. ( before = after )

Question?
How many ways are there which could make the mass of quasi-electrons infinite? ( Kinetic? Potential? )

========
Something to read

http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0103255
Why high Tc is exciting
Authors: J. Zaanen
(Submitted on 12 Mar 2001)
Abstract: This piece has been written for local, educational purposes. If you are like me searching for the right words to explain your fascination with high Tc superconductivity to the outside world, you might find something useful in this text.
=======
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2161
Fermionic quantum criticality and the fractal nodal surface
Authors: Frank Krüger, Jan Zaanen
(Submitted on 14 Apr 2008)

========

jal

Aug28-08, 01:56 PM

I have asked a number of questions in this thread that probably have no answers .. yet.
I have two more questions.
1. What made the high pressure in the early universe?

A partial answer is in this blog
http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=170
The conservation of energy, the first law of thermodynamics and dark energy
stevebd1

2. What is this pressure acting on? What is being affected by this pressure?

I assumed, in my blog ( http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=280&goto=next ), that it would be the length of a string/dimension that would be compressed so that it would fit into three dimensions and have a node of energy which would not violate the minimum length.

Can you come up with other possibilities?

jal

Aug29-08, 11:18 AM

Maybe the following paper, which I assume is being presented at Emergent Gravity
August 25-29 2008, http://www.rle.mit.edu/emergent/program.htm , will stimulate your imagination.
=======
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0861
Quantum Graphity: a model of emergent locality
Authors: Tomasz Konopka, Fotini Markopoulou, Simone Severini
(Submitted on 6 Jan 2008 (v1), last revised 23 May 2008 (this version, v2))

“It is useful to relate quantum graphity to existing approaches to quantum gravity. It is certainly the case that several of the so-called background-independent approaches to
quantum gravity are graph-based: Loop Quantum Gravity[2], Causal Sets[17], Algebraic
Loop Quantum Gravity[18], and Quantum Causal Histories[19], among others. This is not surprising, since network-based states have a strong relational character, a feature considered desirable in a background-independent context. Quantum graphity also shares with these theories a common central question, the search for the semiclassical, or low-energy, states in the theory. However, there are also basic differences. The dynamics of quantum graphity with matter is essentially an extension of the string-net Hamiltonian of Levin and Wen and not a quantization of the Einstein equations (string-nets are tensor product categories, just like spin networks, making the introduction of Levin-Wen-type dynamics technically straightforward). Additionally, the data on the network do not correspond to SU(2) labels found on spin network states in Loop Quantum Gravity. In quantum graphity, geometry is identified at the low-energy phase from properties of the network itself.”
=======
I have interpreted the 6 sides of quantum graphity as the length of the string/dimension which can be affected by pressure. (see blog “Did the Clock Tick?”)
Since I have been able to compact 4d into 3d I use 12 nodes in my graph and not 10 nodes.
========
http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2283
Statistical Mechanics of Graphity Models
Authors: Tomasz Konopka
(Submitted on 15 May 2008 (v1), last revised 18 Aug 2008 (this version, v2))

The purpose of this paper is to study the statistical mechanics of the models in order to learn more about the nature of the low-temperature regime.
It is shown in this section, however, that supplementing the basic model with a condition for graph homogeneity does lead to very different and interesting results. This observation motivates the study of graph models with matter in Sec. V. The discussion there mirrors that in Sec. III and demonstrates that under certain quite general assumptions regarding the energy spectrum of the matter content, a model with a realistic matter component may indeed produce extended geometries at low temperature.
=========

jal

Aug30-08, 10:21 AM

Perhaps Sabine Hossenfelder and Lorenzo Sindoni had a conversation and she will report in her blog.
Can Time and Gravity Emerge from a perfect liquid and perfect symmetry?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4239
On the emergence of time and gravity
Authors: Florian Girelli, Stefano Liberati, Lorenzo Sindoni
(Submitted on 26 Jun 2008)
In recent years, a new approach to these old problems has been gaining momentum and many authors have been advancing the idea that gravity could all in all be an intrinsically classic/large scale phenomenon similar to a condensed matter state made of many atoms [7]. In this sense gravity would not be a fundamental interaction but rather a large scale/numbers effect, something emergent from a quite different dynamics of some elementary quantum objects. In this sense, many examples can be brought up, starting from the causal set proposal [8], passing to group field theory [9] or the recent quantum graphity models [10] and other approaches (see e.g. [11]).
=======
~~~ Since I’m learning … I reserve the right to change my mind ~~~

jal

Aug30-08, 05:24 PM

Check out Sabine Hossenfelder's blog and discussion.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22973357&postID=1693020140223960362

atyy

Aug31-08, 03:38 AM

Thanks for the links! The Jackiw review was helpful, and the rest of the stuff terribly interesting. A couple more links, which Sabine Hossenfelder referred to:

Levin and Wen, which the Quantum Graphity paper refers to:
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0302460

Gu and Wen's linearized gravity:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606100

jal

Sep1-08, 12:40 PM

Does everyone have the same definition of “Perfect Symmetry"?
I used the accepted definitions of dimensions, and minimum length (Planck Scale) as retrictions.
How do YOU define “Perfect Symmetry”?

jal

Sep5-08, 06:14 PM

If you thought that you would have a boring weekend … forget it …
Check out the following presentations which was previously noted in the “Announcements”
http://www.ccsem.infn.it/issp2008/
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SUBNUCLEAR PHYSICS 2008
ERICE-SICILY: 29 AUGUST - 7 SEPTEMBER 2008
=======
Ya! I wish I could have attended.
=========

jal

Sep5-08, 09:48 PM

Don’t forget to check out the paper by, L. McLERRAN, BNL, Upton, NY, US [1 september]
---------
jal

jal

Sep6-08, 10:58 AM

August and September has had two great conferences that are on the “Cutting Edge”.
The experts of this forum do not need my “simple” explanations.
They can search for and read the papers.
Here is my “simple” explanation for the non-experts.
---------

I want you to picture a stool that is lying on its side in a puddle of dirty water. You see 3 legs of the stood above the water. Each leg of the stool represents a dimension. The water represents the quark sea, vacuum energy. You know that the quark sea exist because you have seen the creation of virtual particles and you know that there must be something under the sea because you need certain “particles” such as W for some observations to make any sense.
You know that a lot of calculations make a lot more sense if there is a 4th dimension.
However, we cannot see this fourth dimension but it can fit into our 3 dimensions. (see my blog).
What CERN will be doing is equivalent to raising the level of the water (deconfining) and we will be able to see that there is a 4th leg to the stool.
Therefore, the simplest conclusion is that there is a 4th leg to the stool and that it stays under the water and that the water is not very deep..
========
Energy Budget distribution
1. Looking at how the energy budget of the universe used to be calculated.
2. Trying to see if those same assumptions would still work with the discovery of dark energy and dark matter.

However, as we speak, the condensed matter community is sending out another challenge.
Can those assumption still be valid if you started out from a de-confined perfect liquid of quark gluon with no mass, no gravity, no electrons no photons, no EMF.
I guess that we would first have to figure out how these attributes became emergent.
=====

jal

Sep8-08, 10:07 AM

The INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SUBNUCLEAR PHYSICS 2008 discussed the following questions.
I would assume that these are “cutting edge” problems that need to be solved.
======

THE FIRST GROUP: MIXINGS
• Is there a deeper explanation for the flavour mixing mechanisms?
• Why do these mechanisms produce results that differ substantially in the quark and the lepton sectors?
• Why does this mechanism not exist in any other fundamental interaction?

THE SECOND GROUP: ELEMENTARY AND COMPOSITE STATES
• What is the role of instantons in the spectrum of hadrons in QCD? Where are the scalar hadronic states in QCD? Are there scalar states in the leptonic system?
• Why are there only fundamental particles with the minimum quark or lepton quantum numbers? Do elementary particles with higher, composite quantum numbers exist?
• Is there a fundamental reason why elementary fermions exist (quarks and leptons) but not elementary scalars in the same mass range?
• Do we really need sterile neutrinos? If yes, why? If not, why?

THE THIRD GROUP: SYMMETRY BREAKINGS
• Why are the global discrete symmetries (C, P, CP, T) explicitly and not spontaneously broken, as it seems today?
• To what extent can we be confident that the Supersymmetry breaking threshold is not at the Planck Scale?
(If this were the case it would be impossible to find at LHC any evidence for Supersymmetry).
• Are we really sure that the electro-weak symmetry breaking occurs at the Fermi scale due to a local maximum of the potential for some scalar field in the Lagrangian, also known as the “Higgs mechanism”?
(If this were not the case, it would not be possible to find at LHC any evidence for Higgs particles).
========

jal

Sep9-08, 10:41 PM

I can pack 4 dimensions into 3 dimensions. John Baez can pack 8.
Since I cannot, it must mean that I’ve got to learn a new concept or get rid of a concept.
I used the accepted definitions of dimensions, and minimum length (Planck Scale) as restrictions.
Can someone help?
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/09/8.html#more
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/numbers/8.pdf
MY FAVORITE NUMBERS: 8
John Baez
September 17, 2008
The Rankin Lectures Supported by the Glasgow Mathematical Journal Trust

jal

Sep11-08, 10:26 AM

Here is what Garrett has done with 8 dimensions. (E8)
You can “click” on the 5 different menus in the top left hand corner and see different presentations.
If you pass your “pointer” over the symbols, you will see what they represent, at the bottom of the page.
http://deferentialgeometry.org/epe/
If E8 is required after confinement and after emergence then how do you represent the perfect symmetry of a perfect liquid?

If I take John Baez’s explanation ….
(A longer detailed presentation is at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/octonions/node24.html
Zn and An lattices exist in any dimension,
but the densities drop:
n Zn density An density
1 100% 100%
2 79% 91%
3 52% 74%
4 31% 55%
However, in 4d there’s a surprise!
The spaces between spheres in the Z4 lattice are big enough to slip another copy of this lattice in the gaps, thus doubling the density!
We call this new lattice the D4 lattice: it’s the densest possible in 4d.
AND
However, in 8 dimensions there’s another surprise!
There’s enough space between spheres in the D8 lattice to slip another copy in the gaps!
We get a lattice called the E8 lattice.
It’s the densest possible in 8 dimensions.
Then, by reversing the logic and increasing the pressure and density, as will happen at the LHC, and as is presumed to have existed prior the CBR in the early universe, then we can say that a perfect liquid is too dense to be able to contain the 2 copies of the 8 dimensions or the 2 copies of the 4 dimensions. The LHC should be able to figure out which dimensions survived to get the perfect symmetry of a perfect liquid.
Let’s see… 2 copies of 8 strings/dimensions, …2 copies of 4 dimensions/strings
One copy of 4 strings/dimensions makes a very stable configuration around 3 quarks … a proton …. One copy of 4 strings/dimensions makes a bad configuration around 3 quarks …. A neutron.
What happened to the 2 copies of the 8 dimensions/strings?
Check out Garrett’s paper. Maybe the LHC will tell us.

Geee! That sound like “emergence”.
OOPS!!! I should not have made that claim. It requires the proof from a “math kid” and the LHC.
========

atyy

Sep11-08, 10:43 AM

a “math kid”
What is that?

jal

Sep12-08, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by jal
a “math kid”
What is that?

If this is the only confusing point, I must be doing a good job of explaining.

It could be you.
========
I have seen a number of papers that tries to give a possible explanation so that gravity and mass could be incorporated into a consistent emergent approach.
Check out the following.
Tell me if it fails to pass because it would conflict with experimental evidence.
--------
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4308
A Machian Solution of the Hierarchy Problem
Authors: Merab Gogberashvili
(Submitted on 29 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 13 Mar 2008 (this version, v3))

The new interpretation of Mach's principle of mass of a particle being a measure of the interactions of this particle with all other gravitating particles inside its causal spheres is introduced. It is shown that within some alternative model of gravitation that incorporates this principle, the Machian influence of the universe can reduce Planck's scale to the electro-weak scale and the large number that is needed to explain the hierarchy between the scales is the amount of gravitating particles inside the universe horizon. Our model can lead to new observable effects at cosmological distances and close to the sources of a strong gravitational field.
--------
~~~ Since I’m learning … I reserve the right to change my mind ~~~

Fra

Sep15-08, 05:23 AM

How do YOU define “Perfect Symmetry”?

I find that there is something fishy about the notion of symmetry that reminds me of notions such as entropy, and it's that the notion of symmetry itself seems defined as a relation between two different views.

On one hand one is tempted to think that symmetries can be thought of as a redundancy in our mathematical description. And that statements of symmetry are more statements about the relation between the "mathematical descriptions" and "reality". If our mathematical description contains a degrees of freedom whose state are to be seen just as a relabeling of our description then one wonders "where the physics is". To maintain degrees of freedom in our view, that serve no purpose can't be justified.

But OTOH this can not be quite so simple, since it seems that sometime "the physics" is exactly due to fixing the degrees of freedoms in the description. This seems a bit paradoxal to me.

For example in GR, we have invariance with respect to the observers generated by a particular set of transformations. We say that the laws of physics are invariant with respect to the choice of observer - or that each observer must see the same laws of physics. Here we have reduced the observer, the supposed basis for interactions, to specification of the state of a gauge.

There seems to be a subtle inconsistency here, between the CHOICE OF VIEW, or we are describing the world from two different views. The entropy story is analogous, you have to pick a choice of microstructure.

Now it one could think of "perfect symmetry" as that defined by the largest set of possible observers, and requiring that they must all agree on some laws. The question is, is there anything left to agree upon? :)

For example, how does the MASS of an observer impact what he can see? And what happens to his view of things, when we scale down his mass? One would hope that the laws of physics would still hold? or maybe not? Does this even tell us something about the NATURE of physical law?

A symmetry that is universal and never broken, is obviously trivial and not even worth mentioning. Also a "symmetry" that is never seem, is not worth mentioning either, it's similarly a trivial case.

It seems to me that the breaking and emergence of various symmetries (broadly speaking) is where the physics is, or the tension that appears where we have partial symmetries.

/Fredrik

Fra

Sep15-08, 05:39 AM

Now it one could think of "perfect symmetry" as that defined by the largest set of possible observers, and requiring that they must all agree on some laws. The question is, is there anything left to agree upon? :)

I personally think the answer is no. And that's one possible conceptual view of "unification".

There is no distinguishable observers that can distinguish anything to disagree upon so speak. Then breaking this symmetry, would go hand in hand with formation of elementary "observers". How about say Smolin's fuzzy "string bits"? :) Then the bits start relating to each other? Could a hierarchy of expected relating "structures" be guessed from such picture?

/Fredrik

jal

Sep15-08, 11:14 AM

Hi Fra!
I have been following your thread and others and in my different way I'm also trying to arrive at answers.
Trying to pin down what are emergent quantities/qualities and what WAS existing prior emergent is not easy because we are living in an environment where particles exist and they have interactions that does not exist at high energy.
The interior of a quark gluon liquid does not contain particles like photons and electrons.
Once the LHC has pinned down some of the quantities of a Perfect liquid, then it will be easier to make new models.
At present, the tools that seem to be indicated are: pressure, density and dimensions.
Check out the following discussions which should illustrate the complexity of the task as it presently exist.
The Experiments at CERN should give us more data points which should help us make more accurate models.
It would not surprise me that someone has already made the “right” model and that it has been ignored because of ????
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1872942#post1872942
Is matter made of energy?
ZapperZ
The problem here is that while something can be "converted" into something else, it doesn't mean that one is made up of the other. When one says that "matter is made up of energy", one is only doing one form of accounting - energy accounting - via the infamous Einstein equation. While this is true, this is NOT the only accounting one has to take into consideration. Momentum (linear and angular) must also be part of the accounting. Charge must also be part of the accounting.
So the "conversion" between matter and energy is not that easy. It isn't simply accounting for the energy conversion into mass. It has to abide by a lot more rules than that. With all that in mind, it isn't that easy to simply claim that matter is made up of energy ONLY.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=243612
Is Matter Made Up of Photons?

jal

grosquet

Sep15-08, 10:13 PM

• Do we really need sterile neutrinos? If yes, why? If not, why?
========

The September 2008 Scientific American has an article titled "A New Neutrino Hunt" concerning a proposed $15 million project to find sterile neutrinos traveling from other "branes".

jal

Sep15-08, 10:19 PM

Just a clarification:
The INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SUBNUCLEAR PHYSICS 2008 discussed the following questions.
• Do we really need sterile neutrinos? If yes, why? If not, why?
--------
Thanks for the updated info.
jal

Fra

Sep16-08, 01:52 AM

Hello Jal!

At present, the tools that seem to be indicated are: pressure, density and dimensions.
Check out the following discussions which should illustrate the complexity of the task as it presently exist.
The Experiments at CERN should give us more data points which should help us make more accurate models.
It would not surprise me that someone has already made the “right” model and that it has been ignored because of ????
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1872942#post1872942
Is matter made of energy?

These links reminds about some of the reflections in Marcus thread discussing wilczek's possible ideas. No doubt it's not as easy to say that "mass is confined energy" and then end of story. My opinon on that is that is reduces the problem into the problem of energy, and the problem of "confinement thereof", and I think that the problem of confinement for sure raises the question of confinement "relative to what".

Other than that we all know that particles have other properties than just mass, but as I see it mass and energy are universal, meaning that I fail to see how you could have any of the other properties, but no energy! There is no screening of gravity.

The way I think of energy, it is part of a fundamental qualifier of structure and property - a sort of "confidence" measure, a sort of inertia. I think that the other properties, like charge, colour etc are possibly a result of "internal structure". That's how I think of it conceptually at least. I think the main problem with trying to picture "internal structure" is because we insist on making mechanical 3D pictures. I think of it more as "internal logic" and I am not bothered one bit by lack of 3D models, because I think dimensionality is emergent and relative.

I am optimistic, but to tell what I think, I think there is connection between mass, charge, colour, flavour, spin etc. Except we are still looking for it. I think the connection will be emergent as a evolutionary steady state where the evolution of the observer complexes explains this. The mixing of properties could be due to the observers internal information processing.

My way of thinking is to start from the simplest starting point. And scale up the complexity of hte observer, and try to figure out what the steady state observers are, and what properties they have. The only think I start with is the concept of distinguishability. No space, not time. Which is the elementa of confidence, which grows into complexes. Then as the number of distinguishable states increases, "having them all lined up" is not favourable. Instead the distinguishablestates should start to spontaneously form patterns. And these patterns respond to the neighbouring patterns which similarly self-organise. Now some kind of phenomenology appearts.

This may seem like the string thinking, but with several I think important differences. I do not picture background spaces - these spaces will be emergent only in the internal patterns formed by strucutres - so noone needs to tell us what dimensionality is, nature should find out on it's own.

Also string theory has a massive baggage of QFT and old semiclassical theoretical stuff that I find rejecting. All of these measures they use, actions (lagrangians) etc, are things that I picture should be reconstructed. I picture the action principle to emerge out of a generalisation of stat mech, and MaxEnt principles.

Jal, what's your personal vision? What do you think is going to happen and how are the problems to be solved?

/Fredrik

Fra

Sep16-08, 03:43 AM

The way I think of energy, it is part of a fundamental qualifier of structure and property - a sort of "confidence" measure, a sort of inertia. I think that the other properties, like charge, colour etc are possibly a result of "internal structure".

I noticed this did sound a bit strange. I didn't mean to say that the other properties are "internal properties of energy", I just meant to say that I think energy are the overall constraint on ALL other properties, and while the energy scale sets a bound - there is still alot of freedom left, and here the rest of the phenomenology comes in. I think that energy more constrains the complexity of the picture, explaning why it's universal.

I am a little bit leaning towards views of gravity as a statistical phenomena, but a subjective(relative) statistics. This gives a plausible interpretation of mass and energy as quantifier for the amount of information supporting a measure. This then gives inertia a suggestive meaning when the measures-complexes (the substructures iof the measure-complex can possibly be identified with standard phenomenology) are in conflict, their relative influence and relative resistance to change are determined by their relative confidence.

If time evolves differently to each observers, then this gives rise to tensions, and I think this is the basis for the other interactions. So I think the issues of time must go hand in hand with the quest for unification.

I think of it a bit like a game (of life), I need to adjust my internal state to survive in the environment, if I win I gain confidence/mass or at least maintain status quo, if I loose,I loose mass/confidence. Some are confident enough to more or less dominate their environement, and thus they can't loose (black holes) - they always "win" since they don't need to "respond" to input, they consume it. In this sense, I am not so sure energy is entirely conserved in the fundamental sense.

So that to me, makes energy a fundamental concept, without which none of the other things (charge, colour) makes any sense. Still the exact relation is mysterious. So I think it's not only to understand mass, but also to understand energy.

/Fredrik

Fra

Sep16-08, 03:48 AM

> In this sense, I am not so sure energy is entirely conserved in the fundamental sense

Meaning that I don't think that an intrinsic measure can guarantee this. A fictive external measure can probably recover conservation, but in a purely intrinsic model, the model itself must LIVE in one of these structures that is itself subject to change. This also I think connects to the notion and NATURE of physical law. Even a "statement of physical law" must be subject to the laws itself. This is fundamentally strange and the reason why I think the clarity is emergent only.

/Fredrik

jal

Sep16-08, 09:54 PM

Fra
Jal, what's your personal vision? What do you think is going to happen and how are the problems to be solved?
My thinking has been evolving and is in my blog.
You are taking your concepts way beyond experimental evidence.
We are on the verge of obtaining more evidence from CERN which would allow the rejections of some speculation and the building of models which could give a better understanding of the universe.
There have been thousands of speculative models and speculative ideas that have been proposed. Only a handful will be able to accommodate the new data.
As I said before, “At present, the tools that seem to be indicated are: pressure, density and dimensions.”
What I think needs exploration are the existing conditions before CPT violation and confinement. Finding a model that represents those conditions will not be easy.
The conditions of a perfect liquid have not been incorporated into model building.
If you want to know more about how dimensions can be a tool to give you insight into a Perfect Liquid then continue reading …..
John Baez started with 12 and now continues with 24 at
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/09/24.html#more
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/numbers/24.pdf
“From slide #13 + …
But Euler’s crazy calculation gives a different answer!
1/2(1 + 2 + 3 + • • • ) = −1/24
Indeed, this seems to be the correct ground state energy for a string that can wiggle in one direction.
A string that can wiggle in n directions has n times as much ground state energy. A string in 26-dimensional spacetime can wiggle in all 24 directions perpendicular to its 2-dimensional surface. So, its ground state energy is −1
But what’s so great about this?”
--------
The first questions that comes mind are ….
Are the different possible vibrating directions suppressed by pressure and density?
Are the vibrational directions limited to 4d?
---------
The latest explanation is “5” at
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/09/5.html#more
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/numbers/5.pdf
“The number 5 is quirky and intriguing, thanks in large part to its relation with the golden ratio, the ‘most irrational’ of irrational numbers.
The Greek fascination with the golden ratio is probably tied to the dodecahedron. Much later, the symmetry group of the dodecahedron was found to give rise to a 4-dimensional regular polytope, the 120-cell, which in turn gives rise to the and the root system of the exceptional Lie group E 8 . So, a wealth of exceptional objects arise from the quirky nature of 5-fold symmetry.
”
--------
Any readers who are interested in pursuing “evolving dimensions” and evaluating if this could be a tool to understand the universe should read my blog, (check out “Did the Clock Tick”) but most importantly read the citations provided by John Baez.
=======

Marcus brought the following work by : Patrick Peter, Nelson Pinto-Neto to our attention. It is an example of what can be produced by consideringa perfect fluid
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.2022
Cosmology without inflation
Authors: Patrick Peter, Nelson Pinto-Neto
(Submitted on 11 Sep 2008)

What could be more simple for cosmology than to use Einstein action sourced by a constant equation of state perfect fluid in 4 dimensions? Amazingly enough, such an overwhelmingly simple framework manages to reproduce all of the cosmic data, as we want to emphasize here.
=====
I will try to find some other papers that addresses ways of going from perfect symmetry to the standard model.
======

Fra

Sep17-08, 01:48 AM

I'll try to check out the references you mention and your blog and see if it makes the picture clear. A first skimming of your mathematical toy ideas on the clock tick and probing for reality dimensions, and then you mention pressure, dimension and density I get a remote idea and it could be similar to how I picture organisation amount distinguishable states, and how the "packing of events" dynamically traces out dimensions, by giving then "mass" like nerve connections grows when stimulated.

But to go from the mathematical model to a physical model, one need some intuition, I will scan your references and see if I understand your view.

/Fredrik

Fra

Sep17-08, 06:36 AM

Jal, I think that while I might associate to your focus points, I think we have different mental strategies and abstractions. I have chosen a perhaps absurdly abstract starting point - but it works for me - because I personally find it speculative to ignore things I subjectively perceive fishy. The "evidence" I have to respond to of course includes anything going on in my head (selfinteractions). But that's my risk and my gain, which seems fair enough.

You focus on as you say the "tools"

pressure, density and dimension

From the measure-point of view I have, I appreciate this interesting choice!

Even though I think of say "pressure" only as a label for the general types of "intensive measures", that in my book end up in the same "abstraction bin" as does, temperature, density etc. I am trying to understand first the general relation between "types of measures". I think I generally try to think of these intensive measures are a sort of
"temperature" relating to a communication channel. In that

Dimension and degrees of freedom are what I consider part of the structure defining measures, and decompositions thereof (internal vs external dimensions) further cause
systems of related measures.

Extensive measures like energy, or degrees of freedom have I think interesting general relations to the other "measures", and I am looking to attach this to an observerview. Alot of models talk in detail about structures where the connection to an observers is left unspecified. I guess I see it so that there are two sets of degrees of freedom, those that define the observers, and those that define it's environment. But if there is any sense to this, the observer can only predict his image of the world that lives on a constrained degrees of freedom. This alone suggest that intrinsic measures of various types get constrained. You can simply not squeeze the measures themselves onto a bounded "screen".

I think this limit is a key. But then, what happens to this picture if the screen grows? then phenomena that was previously indistinguishable, become possible.

Here I see a possibility of playing with dimensions as well, and I see them in a dynamical context. I do not see the clean connection to your marble pictures, althohg I suspect you have a different way of approaching the stuff that I do. My personal source of inspiration is not beauty of mathematics, it's a more twisted gaming sort of perspective.

/Fredrik

jal

Sep17-08, 11:00 AM

Fra
I think that while I might associate to your focus points, I think we have different mental strategies and abstractions.
I agree ...
Being able to "see" another persons "focus points"/approach is one of the barriors to communicating.
I believe that I have had moderate success in "seeing/understanding" all of the approaches being used to try to understand the universe.

I'm still looking for papers that uses pressure, density and dimension that try to make the link from a perfect fluid to the standard model.
======
~~~ Since I’m learning … I reserve the right to change my mind ~~~
======
jal

Fra

Sep17-08, 11:12 AM

I agree ...
Being able to "see" another persons "focus points"/approach is one of the barriors to communicating.
I believe that I have had moderate success in "seeing/understanding" all of the approaches being used to try to understand the universe.

I'm still looking for papers that uses pressure, density and dimension that try to make the link from a perfect fluid to the standard model.

Good luck!

Perhaps in despite of different abstractions and approaches there might be a convergence somewhere (or something is wrong somewhere). I think it will be possible to see "through the words" eventually, but it's a bit too early for me. The difficulty is to try to convey a way of attacking the problem, or a way of reasoning to towards a possible solution. Once the solution is on the table it will "speak for itself", and it's there for anyone to test, and pick on. Until then perhaps we have to accept the slight fuzz.

/Fredrik

jal

Sep20-08, 02:17 PM

This is one paper that you should read if you have never heard of a perfect fluid.

http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0702045
From Quark Gluon Plasma to a Perfect Fluid of Quarks and Beyond
Authors: M. Csanad, T. Csorgo, B. Lorstad, M. Nagy, A. Ster
(Submitted on 13 Feb 2007 (v1), last revised 18 Feb 2007 (this version, v2))
Abstract: With high energy heavy ion collisions one tries to create a new forms of matter that is similar to the one present at the birth of our Universe. Recent development on flow pattern, initial energy-density and freeze-out temperature shows that most likely this new form of matter is in a deconfined state, has colored degrees of freedom and is more fluid-like than gas-like. In present paper we calculate estimations on the physical properties of this new-old matter.
=========
“It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does
not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or
what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”
R. P. Feynman, about discovering new laws [38]

Fra

Sep21-08, 07:43 AM

Thanks for the link Jal. I know what a perfect fluid is as such, but it's not an abstraction that I find clear enough to start with to based a new understanding on. I think what you suggest is interesting but I don't have any worthwhile comments that is in line what you suggest.

I can associate to the "properties" that defines a perfect liquid, but rather than accept the classical relationsships defining the perfect liquid, I wish to understand the observers intrinsic meaning of these properties, and hopefully this will suggest the properties of this "liquid" and how they evolve.

For example, what is the deeper connection between these properties? density, dimension and pressure?

You are probably more knowledgable than me so I could get you wrong but it seems you partly start with the "classical" concepts of a perfect liquid, and then argue by means of some mathematical symmetry ideas. This is very interesting! but I personally do not connect to the guidance used in the reasoning.

/Fredrik

jal

Sep22-08, 11:18 AM

fra
I wish to understand the observers intrinsic meaning of these properties, and hopefully this will suggest the properties of this "liquid" and how they evolve.
I am sure that you are well advanced in your learning curve.

Before I reach the level of extrapolation, that you are pondering, it is necessary for me to understand how the “original observers/experimentalists” set up their experiments and how they arrive at their conclusions.

In order to get that knowledge, experiments are done, (PHOBOS [29] (a-b), PHENIX [5] (c) and STAR [30] ETC.), models are built tested and rejected if they cannot fit the data. (Buda-Lund hydro model, lattice QCD, ETC.)

As you can see from the above paper, the experimentalist tried to fit the data to a particle model but it would not fit.
Whether we like it or dislike it, they came up with a liquid model and the data fits into a “perfect liquid model”.
Since it is throwing out the long accepted model of “particles, all the way down” it is being scrutinized a different conferences. See the references that I have already mentioned in this thread.
========

For more info check out http://qm2008.bnl.gov/
Quark Matter 2008
20th International Conference on Nucleus Nucleus Collisions web pages
February 4-10, 2008: Jaipur India.
=========
Look at the last presentation 10th February 2008 10:15 - 11:00 E.V. Shuryak : QGP - New Frontiers ppt file
======
And
17:50 - 18:10 Various aspects of exact accelerating hydrodynamic solutions - T. Csorgo ppt file
or the paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1562
New exact solutions of relativistic hydrodynamics
Authors: T. Csorgo, M. I. Nagy, M. Csanad
(Submitted on 11 May 2008)
Abstract: A new class of simple and exact solutions of relativistic hydrodynamics is presented, and the consequences are explored in data analysis. The effects of longitudinal work and acceleration are taken into account in an advanced estimate of the initial energy density and the life-time of the reaction.
=======
Other work by M. Csanad
http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Csanad_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
========
Here is a paper on the “equipment” that is necessary to make observations.
It’s only +800 pages.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1869
Physics at BES-III
This physics book provides detailed discussions on important topics in $\tau$-charm physics that will be explored during the next few years at BES-III .
p.104,124
String fragmentation in the Lund model
The picture of the string may be summarized as: the color force field between the q¯q pair is confined to a narrow tube with potential density κ; quarks q and ¯q located at the ends of string; a gluon g is treated as a transverse excitation of string.
========
Finally, did you know about this blog?
http://qgp.phy.duke.edu/
Virtual Journal on QCD Matter

Fra

Sep25-08, 01:48 AM

Before I reach the level of extrapolation, that you are pondering, it is necessary for me to understand how the “original observers/experimentalists” set up their experiments and how they arrive at their conclusions.

In order to get that knowledge, experiments are done, (PHOBOS [29] (a-b), PHENIX [5] (c) and STAR [30] ETC.), models are built tested and rejected if they cannot fit the data. (Buda-Lund hydro model, lattice QCD, ETC.)

As you can see from the above paper, the experimentalist tried to fit the data to a particle model but it would not fit.
Whether we like it or dislike it, they came up with a liquid model and the data fits into a “perfect liquid model”.
Since it is throwing out the long accepted model of “particles, all the way down” it is being scrutinized a different conferences. See the references that I have already mentioned in this thread.

I think I see a bit of your perspective now. We are approaching this in different ways. I would think that you perceive my approach as somewhat more speculative, right? I understand why!

But of course, I don't see it what way. The concept of "degree of speculation" is itself subjective IMHO.

About "fitting a x-model to real data", wether x is a particle, string or liquid. What I try to do in my abstraction is acknowledge that the process of "fitting" is a real process, to be treated on the same footing as physical interactions. This is the abstraction I use.

This means that I think some of the standard procedures is speculative, since they ignore not the risk that not only is x wrong (ie. particle, string, brane, liquid?) but that the entire notion of "fitting data to a model" may be a simplified view of what really does on, if the "fitting", "the data" and "the model" are actually players in the physical interactions.

I try to abstract the picture of "fitting" to the extent that the models that do fit - in a steady state sense - should be emergent from a different starting point.

Finally, did you know about this blog?
http://qgp.phy.duke.edu/
Virtual Journal on QCD Matter

No, I'm not very well versed in the blog world. But I'll try to check it.

I thin knext week I will get some travel-time to kill and I'll try to bring some papers to read. I might print som of the papers you've quoted.

/Fredrik

jal

Oct6-08, 11:27 AM

There are approaches being studied on how the universe could have been in perfect symmetry and went to a state of broken symmetry. (emergent)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4218v1
Nonquantum Gravity
Authors: Stephen Boughn
(Submitted on 24 Sep 2008)
If gravity is, indeed, a nonquantum phenomenon, then it is suggested that evidence will most likely appear at mesoscopic scales.
=======

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0613
On the condensed matter scheme for emergent gravity and interferometry
Authors: G. Jannes
(Submitted on 3 Oct 2008)
An increasingly popular approach to quantum gravity rests on the idea that gravity (and maybe electromagnetism and the other gauge fields) might be an 'emergent phenomenon', in the sense of representing a collective behaviour resulting from a very different microscopic physics.
=======
Also,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4728
Emergent Spacetime and The Origin of Gravity
Authors: Hyun Seok Yang
(Submitted on 29 Sep 2008)
We show that the geometrization of the electromagnetic force in NC spacetime is the origin of gravity, dubbed as the emergent gravity. We discuss how the emergent gravity reveals a noble, radically different picture about the origin of spacetime. In particular, the emergent gravity naturally explains the dynamical origin of flat spacetime, which is absent in Einstein gravity. This spacetime picture turns out to be crucial for a tenable solution of the cosmological constant problem.
========
In case you have not noticed, you can put interacting 4-simplices into a cube and this also makes the dual polyhedron/stella octangula.
It makes lattice QCD, string, LQG, etc. into a nice "compack package"
(http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tetrahedron.html )
-------
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0609107
Emergence of gravity from interacting simplices
Authors: Sung-Sik Lee
(Submitted on 25 Sep 2006 (v1), last revised 19 Aug 2008 (this version, v5))
Abstract: We consider a statistical model of interacting 4-simplices fluctuating in an N-dimensional target space. We argue that a gravitational theory may arise as a low energy effective theory in a strongly interacting phase where the simplices form clusters with an emergent space and time with the Euclidean signature. In the large N limit, two possible phases are discussed, that is, `gravitational Coulomb phase' and `gravitational Higgs phase'.

--------
jal

jal

Oct9-08, 10:54 AM

There are papers that uses pressure, density and dimension that try to make the link from a perfect fluid to the standard model.
Knowing the behavior of a perfect liquid is now a prerequisite to be able to understand how the universe is made.
Some people have already started to work with perfect liquids. They are using pressure, density and volume in different dimensions, without time.

You might be interested in reading and debating the work by Grigori Volovik.

You can find his web page at
http://ltl.tkk.fi/wiki/Grigori_Volovik
=======
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0724
Emergent physics: Fermi point scenario
Authors: G.E. Volovik
(Submitted on 4 Jan 2008 (v1), last revised 31 Jan 2008 (this version, v5))
16 pages, 8 figures, submitted to proceedings of Royal Society scientific discussion meeting "Cosmology meets condensed matter" held on 28 January 2008 in London,

Abstract: The Fermi-point scenario of emergent gravity has the following consequences: gravity emerges together with fermionic and bosonic matter; emergent fermionic matter consists of massless Weyl fermions; emergent bosonic matter consists of gauge fields; Lorentz symmetry persists well above the Planck energy; space-time is naturally 4-dimensional; Universe is naturally flat; cosmological constant is naturally small or zero; underlying physics is based on discrete symmetries; `quantum gravity' cannot be obtained by quantization of Einstein equations; there is no contradiction between quantum mechanics and gravity; etc.
=======

jal

Oct11-08, 12:56 PM

The experiments in Low Temperature Physics are sending out strong signals that our understanding of the universe will need to be changed.
Here are some conferences where you can improve your learning curve.
http://www.lt25.nl/program.asp
25th International conference on Low Temperature Physics (LT25)
06 Aug 2008 - 13 Aug 2008
==========
http://ucan.physics.utoronto.ca/Conferences
Ultracold Atom News
========
http://ltl.tkk.fi/wiki/ULTI2008
LOW TEMPERATURES 2008
=====
I'm in the process of finding some understandable mathematical explanations of perfect symmetry that would complement my blog entries.
======
jal

jal

Oct15-08, 11:29 AM

The FQXi FORUM: Essay Contest has some great essays.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/10

There are no experts on the subject of time. Everyone is equal and bring their specialty and expertise for consideration and evaluation.

Are any of the essays bringing any new approaches that will give us a greater understanding on how the universe is made?
Do any of the essays propose any tools that could be used to understand time?
In order to get a better understanding it is necessary to look for experiments that could give us some answers.

When considering time you got to consider CPT symmetry. When considering CPT symmetry you got to consider space. When you consider space you got to consider symmetry. When you consider symmetry you got to consider geometry. When you consider geometry you got to consider dimensions. When you consider dimensions you got to consider minimum length.

Presently we have the ability to make a perfect liquid. A quark gluon plasma is created by experiments either at high temperatures or low temperatures and high pressure.
The perfect liquid is made by the application of pressure to create a dense “liquid” not a dense ball of particles.

Is a perfect liquid in perfect symmetry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry
CPT symmetry is a fundamental symmetry of physical laws under transformations that involve the inversions of charge, parity and time simultaneously.

What can we use to probe this perfect liquid?
Temperature? Pressure? A massive particle? A massless particle? Dimensions?
--------
If experiments cannot be structured to allow the probing of a perfect liquid then all speculations are permitted.
Perfect symmetry was destroyed/lost when the quarks and gluons became confined into protons and neutrons. This resulted in the emergence of time and the emergence of particles having mass and gravity.
Is the symmetry due to the geometric structure of dimensions?

For a creative approach, see my blog entries which uses a symmetrical cubic lattice with 4 minimum length dimensions, then go and read and evaluate the essays on time.
======