Another Constraint on Quantum Gravity

[Rybo]

CDT Graviton

Rybo, I'm glad you found the article interesting. You quoted a key paragraph right at the end, in the conclusions section.
Ooops, have to attend to something. be right back.
I think it does not. Only the SIMULATION in a finite computer requires that the model be finite.
have fun.

Marcus, does CDT have a geometric hypothisis, or other, for a graviton?
Strings have a closed loop and string bits of many possible ones?
Holopgraphy( Bekenstien ) has spin-networks of which one, or more, trianlge is a graviton?
LQG has several traingles and squares equaling one graviton?( Jan Ambojorn )

Thanks if you have any leads. Fun right back at you.

Rybo

 

[spicerack]

Spice, keep in mind that Jacob Bekenstien stated in his Scientific American article Feb 2002 or 03 that we humans are 2D beings only having an illusion of the 3Dness. I know it is one of the hardest things for any human to ever believe but that is what his black hole mathematics has led him to deduce.

This is also explained by Lee Smolin in his 3 roads to Quatum Gravity book in the holgraphic chapter. Holgraphy being the 3rd possibility along with String and LQG.

SO, we have
1) Holgraphy( 2D superfically appearing as 3D ). This is based in and around the event horizon being equal to the the entropy inside the black hole. See my home page for how I see the geomtrical versin of this scencario palying out.
http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/index.html

2) CDT's 3D superfically based on 4D manifolds?

3) Strings 4D( includes time ) superfically based on 11D.

Here is another graphic rendition( my interpetation ), that I espesically like, of what I see as the outer perimter/circumference of the gravitatinal Universe. Disreagard the stars in the background for more accurate represntation IMHO.
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCHILD/SCHILD.html

Rybo

nifty grafix Rybo :!)

so by projecting 2 spatial dimensions onto <enter arbitrary dimensional number here> and add 1 for time we get perceptions of 3d including movement ?

meaning we exist in a 2d brane plane of bubble like foam

forgive me for even trying to get my head around this stuff but it interests the hell out of me and i would like to think that somewhere along the line it may have implications for the average person in the home like me

 

[Spin_Network]

SpinN, Glad you like that page. I've nt gone much further in that specfic research but the #25 as a turnaround number I found in Synergtics. Here is link that chapter.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s12/p2200.html
Specifically you wil want to get to the 3 sets of graphs at 1223.12

I looked at Valletta's pattern of primes and entropic speculations. Interesting indeed and I want to study it more. Do we have better place to discuss primes than this thread?

Here is link to my yahoo geophysic web site. You can join and receive no mail or if you do it won't be much becasue it rare it recives any posts excetp from me.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Geophysiclink
I also have most of my graphic ideas listed in files there. Check it out.
I had MSN site with same but it expired. :--(

Rybo

Thats quite amazing!..I mean I had no knowledge of Fuller's work, except for the 'Buckyball' of the mid eighties, I presume its the same man.

I am going to start a new thread later, but first I will explore the pages further, thanks again.

 

[nightcleaner]

Hi Rybo and Spin Network

I too, have been interested in the cubeoctahedron. IIRC Fuller called the dense packed sphere structure the 'isomatrix.' Johannes Kepler, the famous astronomer, studied the dense pack relations of spheres also. I noticed yesterday that Mathworld now has a graphic header showing this same arrangement. It seems to me that interest in this form is spreading.

It is a highly symmetrical form. Thirteen spheres, twelve dense packed around one, makes fourteen faces, has twelve vertices, twentyfour edges. Eight of the faces are triangular simplexes, six are squares. The faces are parallel to each other on opposite sides of the figure, so that the faces define parallel sets of planes of spheres. There are four sets of parallel planes which are made of triangular simplexes, and three sets of parallel planes made up of square simplexes. The figure can be subdivided in various ways into collections of tetrahedra.

It is interesting to me how the platonic solids are generated by this isomatrix structure by the simple matter of increasing scale. Kepler thought for a while that there was a relationship between the platonic solids and the orbits of the planets, but later abandoned that idea when it was discovered that the orbits were eliptical, not circular.

My thought has been that progress might be made by thinking of the isomatrix as a structure resulting from the expansion of the individual spheres. One might begin by imagining empty space, then adding the small perturbation of a single expanding sphere. This sphere would expand indefinitely in empty space. If there were other similar spheres in the space, they would eventually come into contact.

If we assume that the spheres are Planckian, then they would be impenetrable to each other. Therefore the meeting of two expanding spheres would result in the centers of the spheres undergoing gravitic acceleration. In gravitation we like to think of the spheres as attracting each other, but in this model the attraction is seen to be dual to the expansion of the sphere.

Further expansion (or infall) and contact would result in the cubeoctahedral shape being formed preferentially to any other shape. However there would be irregular features on the surface of the expanding isomatrix. These irregularities would be energy states, since the cubeoctahedral form is the lowest state, or alternately the state of highest symmetry, and any variation from it would tend eventually to be "forced" into the cubeoctahedral form.

In this model the irregularities actually are the physical manifestation of energy, and hence, of mass. The "perfect" or most highly symmetric form of any collection of Planck spheres would be in the shape of a faceted crystal, possessing vertices and edges as in the Platonic solids. But the tendency induced by infall or by the dual process of expansion would be like a force pushing outward on the faces and inward on the vertices and therefore possessing a form of curvature along the edges, in general promoting a spherical shape to the agglomeration rather than the faceted shape.

I would be interested to know if you are thinking along similar lines.

Thanks,

Richard

 

[Rybo]

2D, 3D, etc...

nifty grafix Rybo :!)
so by projecting 2 spatial dimensions onto <enter arbitrary dimensional number here> and add 1 for time we get perceptions of 3d including movement ?
meaning we exist in a 2d brane plane of bubble like foam
forgive me for even trying to get my head around this stuff but it interests the hell out of me and i would like to think that somewhere along the line it may have implications for the average person in the home like me

Glad you like them Spice. Your are probably referring to the ones icosahedral buble-like foams on my home page.

I found those on the net somewhere. In my scenarios there would be a 3D ness type relationships hapening inside them also, th to what extent is something I am still not clear on.

Keep in mind that I am no implying any reality in only 2D. It is Jacob Bekenstien and his resultant holographic theories proposing those truly unbelieveable 2D ideas i.e. the 2D bubble-like foam scenarios taht may indeed be liken to the icosahedral bubble on my home page.

Jacob did use a icosahedron in his Sciencitic American article to explain the event horizons equanimity to the internal entropy of a black hole but I do believe his choice of the icosahedron for that demostration was insignificant.

Her again is my yahoo egroup with all my older files leading me to my current website and thoughts.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Geophysiclink

You don't have to receive any mail to just look at graphic files.

Rybo