mcompengr

Would your analysis be the same from the equally accurate, but more precise (as to potential success) perspective of conscousness rather than intelligence? -Martin

Elsewhere was made/supported: "the prediction that bent-spaces' effects will be shown to change linearly with distance below the tenth mm range." I.E. "some transitional world is proposed to exist between the quantum and classical where gravity is linear with distance. Mathmatically, " the wavefunction amplitude would be shown to be repeating at some Planck precision, i.e,. not infinite but digitally near infinite. (Infinite not abeing number .) The "title" should answer the second question. Every word literal and important, the thesis of a mechanism by which Strings or Matter Fields opperate, underneith, without regard to, or affect on "mainstream theory". "The new idea" is seeing all quantum mechanic weirdness addressed by one tiny hypothetical. This machine will start and hum the first time. Where's DeGrassy when I need him? I won't do this again, I promise. The 32-page whole must be beyond guidance, but there is no referee-for-pay for foundational physics. The prime mover is just that: with serial instantiated existence nothing can ever stop moving, if only to jitter, with relative position constantly changing at the bottom. "Downhill" mass/energy state transitions present themselves, and new states persist. Motion also persists, top to bottom, and the detailed aspects of the components and environment would automatically do the rest as far a as emerging organized and complex systems go. What about entropy, and the engineer's no-free-lunch? With a real foundation acting like an entropy barrier, like some sort of a thermodynamics barrier, there is nowhere to go but up. As with the zero-point vacuum-energy so for fundamental particles: take away everything possible and they still exist, and by existing they move. The line between quantum and classical worlds would be the "surface" of the basic discrete-spaces, with everything that exists being inside them and our world being entirely outside. In and out, two directions, one distributed dimension. Now, the interface is all that matters in an object-oriented design. What happens on one side must needs be of no concern to the other. So, rather than describing another world, quantum mechanics would be the technical specification of an interface between worlds, the bottom for our universe. "Up", or "out" the only direction, with "in" gone? The universe we know would be just half of one, prime dimension. Infinitely far away could be a comprehendible opposite pole for infinitely small, universal, existence-field poles. A prime symmetry might be expected to be thus broken: half here and half who know where. Otherwise existence is scalar. The number two symmetry breaking would then be when something "moves". Until then everything that exists would be the same topologically. Okay, the very bottom would be discrete space existence, the symmetry broken at the Big Bang, still ongoing but hidden. The gauge would be location. Then comes serial instantiated motion-existence with distance the gauge, and then to interactions and acceleration. First nothing, then a constant, then a 1st derivative, and a 2nd derivative, and today's foundation would be the original prime hierarchy of symmetry breakings. Rather than a big bang, maybe it was a big pulse which pulsates yet. For entertainment purposes only, but standing by the lexicon/usage. [( The space-time foam, continuous and discrete meet? And, might only constructive interference be possible at such an interface? And, whatever happened to convection? With granularity so fine, objects in the prime "jitter" would be set up as if they were objects floating on a vibrating air table. With all things equal, any particular relative state of motion, if at all possible, ought to present itself quickly. Enthalpy-like, top to bottom, the actions going both ways, up and down, by different paths. Yet, how does the bottom "jitter" keep moving up? No way to stop, and nowhere else to go? Sublime osmosis of soliton waves, in a dimension which we can't completely see because we occupy only half of it, and because they start out moving impossibly fast and end up moving too slow to notice, with frequency and speed decreasing (?) by the inverse-square, from a center which is everywhere, and levels of organization are standing waves in what medium? )] [( If, instead, the bottom must get knowablely smaller forever, then maybe quantum mechanics can provide an h-bar, coupling constant, impedance matching, termination factor for that, and so still be the barrier-bottom of our universe, because in a real physical discrete space things like radius can not be zero. )]

[( Look, tthese are all the bases which presented, and they all seem to be covered, if poorly. Show me a theory which does that if nothing else. This machine will start and hum, on the first try. Where's DeGrassy when I need him? ] With Serial Instantiated Existance in a Real, Physical, Discrete Space, G/G G. More on Gluons and Gravitons Everything known and loved, all that is hoped for and believed in about them would remain intact, except that instead of being particles that move they would be "stationary", cooperating, "surface" aspects of the discrete space regions, doing their thing through, by and because of the bent spaces caused by the very existence of strong-interacting matter. One space-time point to another: "How do you like it? I'm a proton now, pass it on." Subject to special relativity, every space-time point could automatically know the state of the whole universe, by virtue of how its own little interface to it was being affected by it. The universe would be object-oriented in design. Gluons: If something gets transferred, it would exist in a discrete-space region, and so it would be a particle. But, another mechanism may be more accurate something like: limited, virtually physical contact, with cohesion and repulsion, bending and flexing. Keeping in mind that even as particles, gluons would just be space(s) "doing" something. (What do gluons do?) From "color force screening" to "quark Cooper pairs", models are supportable. Gluons could operate both like soap bubbles and surface tension, too, hoping to explain the strong force's odd range and strength aspects. They and gravitons would somehow "be the surfaces" of all discrete-spaces however "occupied". They would thereby embody that aspect of space which bends, and which behaves like a field. They would still easily affect such matter as that which creates them (which occupies space), and so likewise and thus affect themselves (part of space). A "gravity-well" seeming to match the energy necessary to pull all gravitating matter apart so that the density-ratio constant (omega) would be 1, does look at gravity from a different perspective, rather than one of pulling stuff together. So too, a strong-force metaphor could be made, one of pulling stuff together as opposed to pulling apart, as normally measured. Asymptotic freedom sounds like parallel plates where the force required to pull them apart comes not from an attraction between them, but from the force needed to overcome the vacuum thus created. Bent-space could work that way. The graviton-gluon would be to gravity-strong, as photon-boson are to EM-W. But, it's a matter of perspective: gravitons moving between matter, or matter "moving" between gravitons. Relatively speaking, it might not matter which if there is a one-to-one correspondence between discrete-spaces and gravitons. An other eight-fold way Rather than three color charges there would be a three way bent space effect. tetrahedral quarks (gluons for effective) corner edge face 0 pts 0 pts 0 pts 1 pt 1 pt 1 pt 2 pts 2 pts In the context of connectivity for tetrahedral shaped quarks, gluons could be thought of in terms of points of virtual contact. For two quarks facing each other corner to corner there are two possibilities, one or zero points of contact. For quarks facing each other edge to edge there would be two, one or zero, and face to face: 3, 2, 1 or 0. Three points of contact would not be allowed, for technical reasons, as that would be like having two particles with a common surface. One or zero points of contact between two corners, edges or faces could represent pairs of color or anti-color three different ways, covering the six pairs in the current gluon model. Now coincidentally, the ratios between base, height, surface and volume of the regular tetrahedron contain the radical square roots of 2 and 3, so as do the remaining gluons' terms, so the two, 2-point contact possibilities (from edge to edge, and face to face connectivity) want to cover for the two remaining gluons. Leaving nothing left over or left out of tables of color configuration. This geometric, physical source for color might hint that the same was possible for quantum exclusion. (In for a penny.) With discrete space "loosely" tiled into regular tetrahedral shaped regions, and "contact" between them as described above, no two adjacent "occupied" regions could have the same exact connectivity because of having "occupied" neighbors in common. Exclusion a mysterious law, and a geometric reality. The filling of gaps differently in ultimate conflict somewhere. Bosons are like "unoccupied"? If bosons couldn't care less about how their and their neighbors' discrete-spaces are connected, if at all, perhaps that could be related to rest mass and the effective absence of a surface or the absence of conserved particleness (baryon, lepton number). (Oddly quantized, and what of that at t=0, not the particles, but the conserved particleness? At the end of the day, units rule.) Leptons may have physical extent, but surface? (see: More on Anti-matter / Charge) A final word on the gluon: it's all about the quark. Even the difference between gluon jets and quark jets could be as quarks give up something verses quarks give up everything. Gluon jets could be like focused shock waves, rattling the discrete space such that energy becomes matter. It's imaginable for regular tetrahedral shapes to facilitate twelve-jet events in high-energy interactions, for anthropic reasons. And, gravity too, comes from strong interacting particles. [( But, what does spin mean for the graviton and gluon, in a real discrete space? One weird, and the other the same as the photon. If they carry the same force, would they need to be the same particle, as supposed here? Bent space as one strong, residual, and residue force. )]

So, why didn't you tell us sooner? No, really thanks!! Ok, any thoughts on external randomness? I thought generally of that, and what if the randomness came from human input? A super-mind, all yours and at your finger tips?? So, randomness from gates? No two gates trip at the same speed and might vary somewhat. So combinational logic might. Sequential is out, I suppose. Or is it the other way around? This is fun! -Martin

I forget exactly how close, but there are some functions that can not be implemented using only NOR gates. -Martin

Life as a mixture of hardware and software is a fine model, but heat-sinks, power supplies, I/O and special relativity notwithstanding, any (binary) digital computing system, any computation can be implemented with just hardware, 100%, and that with just the meek and lowly nand gate (and-not). [(Speculation: the reverse may be almost true, but for implementation purposes some kind of "hardware" would seem to be needed.)] In any case bit-slicing, microcoding, FPGA, or just any memory used to implement a function, etc., these things have done away with any line between hardware and software. Good luck with "free will". If nothing else, boolean logic is deterministic.

I was thinking two bits would be required to represent charge in the (composite partical) universe, but that would mean an unused state. If the universe was balanced ternary, rather than binary, then one tri-state bit would do. Simulation is huge with theroretical physics, and a model is only so good as it is close to the thing being modeled, so maybe "ternary" hardware would be better. Yin and Yang are not enough.

[( Any theory topologically similar to this silly crap (Serial instantiated existance in a real, physical discrete space), would allow for everything and complement most others without conflict (almost). )] "Multiverses"; could be multiplexed with ours by space and/or time. Or, the vacuum energy could be like our carrier wave among many. Or, maybe there's a universal backplane/ground somehow, that our infinitely-small "goes" to, a place that connects to and supports other universes. Likewise infinitely far away. Our little universe would be part of God's cat's cradle. (imagery) One thing is for sure, if data ever shows that an other Universe exists, then communication has happened, and if those in the other Universe could modulate their "existance data", then who knows what.

There are a number of threats to humanity out there, scientology being one. (I was there when that book first made the rounds.) I didn't know to what you referred, so...and I still really don't, but, um...so...um. Good luck for real.

Let them read what I write. You have a set of values. Violating them is not good for your health. Al Capone would be alive today if he had taken Pascal's wager. He'd be 137, but at least he'd be alive. Today, Pascal's wager says: "To thine own self be true." (Good teaching tool.)

Good luck with funding. It remains a good teaching tool though. (pun:)

I'm sorry, I thought I had did that already. Answer: IF true, narrow the search area, focus. (A corallary to the Pascal wager.) Read it again. But, if you're right, I request "reasonable accomodation" under the A.D.A. I don't have time to even read my crap. (pun:)

Ultimately, there can be no conflict between science and religion because we have only one reality. It seems like a false choice to pick one over the other, and it would be so to foist such a choice on others. Folks on either "side" who have zero doubt about the validity of the other, Shirley have a fundament gap in their understanding of both sides.

[( Look, all of this crap really only presupposes one little thing, which is not to say that it's not crap, but it does at least seem to be a self-consistant little pile of crap: serial instantiated existance in a real, physical discrete space. For entertainment purposes only. )] H. More on anti-matter "...on a straight count the photons have it..." (barrow, p.157) But were they all created by proton/anti-proton annihilation? Generally, say they were all created by proton-electron interactions from and since the last scattering surface. That would only be about one photon every ten years for each proton-electron pair. How is it that there are so few photons in the universe? Anti-matter There are some odd things of note about anti-matter, besides the fact that photons don't seem to have real partners. That by itself might indicate the universe has a built-in bias against anti-matter. Photons from muonic or anti-atoms don't seem too different from others. ("Anti" of course is relative.) Mainly, a particle annihilates only when it meets its paired nemesis anti-particle and no other. Were they truly "anti" of each other's "matter", then something dramatic might be expected if, say, a neutron ran gently into an anti-proton, but not so. Also, when a particle does encounter its "anti" they don't really annihilate, they disintegrate into their constituent "stuff", and they both seem composed of the same stuff, i.e. there is no evidence of anti-mass/energy as such. Even charge is the same, just with polarity reversed. Finally, concepts of pre matter and pre anti-matter must seem to be equally incompatible with each other, and so be unable to initially come about together in equal quantities. One conclusion could be that most particles manifest a surface, and it is the surfaces of the matter/anti-matter pairs which are "anti" of each other, and so destructively reinforce perfectly. If particles have a surface, rather than just lending themselves to such a model, that fact would be significant when contemplating their nature/essence. Likewise for some particles having no surface, and so perhaps being more "social" than others. The contemplation of the consequences of this would be nested hypothetical, but then charged particles could provide a mechanism for charge itself, and particle society (Ford, p.2) could be seen to be divided along the lines of effective surface. Surface like attributes would be better. [( You're still reading. Where's the beef? Fat trimmed to the bone. Angles not covered: missed. )] More on Charge The proton and electron surfaces would be like pass don't-pass filters, each letting some of their stuff out that the other contains, every time they instantiate. This stuff would move out instantiating in every discrete-space and so losing amplitude by the inverse-square rule, and being the ultimate in sociability: "particles" of field. When it encounters another particle surface, the effect would depend on whether that surface would let it pass through or not. Or rather, when a particle encounters discrete space with electro-magnetic fields therein, the effect would depend on whether the field matches its surface or not. Comparing "surfaces" of "particles" of field with "surfaces" of charged particles; when a charged particle instantiates within a field it must change the surface of that discrete space from something to something else. Or rather, that discrete-space's surface must change. The change would be as from positive or negative filtrate surface to positive or negative filter surface. It might just be a little different for a charged particle to instantiate where the field is as its own filtrate or not, lesser or greater depending on polarity and flux. Neutrons wouldn't care about E/M fields because whatever they run into it can't be said to not be part of their surface's makeup/configuration. It's not that E/M force would have no effect on them, but rather that regardless of polarity or flux density there, one E/M-field permeated space is just as easy to instantiate into as any other. Charged particles might not exactly experience a force as such, they would just find instantiation easier one discrete-space over another, depending on the local E/M environment. Like with the moon and bent space: no force, just the path of least cost. Iron atoms must find instantiation easier where flux is greater, regardless of polarity.

Initial Conditions; Inflation by head-start with 10-to-the-80 (+/-) incompressible neutrons, having no "unoccupied" discrete spaces between them in a volume the size of the horizon of a black hole were it to have that mass, whose equilibrium then gets disrupted (bang). Such a mother-of-all black holes would have the lowest possible "Hawking temperature". (Keeping in mind that heat is not a form of energy, but energy transfer.) By itself the knowledge that all the "stuff" in the early universe was in an extremely small space doesn't really say anything about its early microscopic kinetic energy. Its temperature could have been near zero followed by a massive warmth producing (further) inflationary period which was then followed by the expansion and cooling which brought us to where we are today.

I. More on Gravity If gravity is bent space rather than being a force (as everybody seems to agree), then it ought not to be thought of as a force (except in newtonian realms). With gravity as a force an ever increasing mass would seem to logically reach a point of singularity as a result. But as the bending of space, which is caused by that very matter, it is not at all clear how such should be the result. In a physical discrete space the basic unit would be the limiting factor, preventing things from going divergent. A space could only "be" within the limits of its design. It would have, perhaps knowable, maximum whatevers regarding what it could "do". Here is where geometry would weigh in, were a real discrete space to be fully embraced. If it exists, it exists. It couldn't make its own self go away. A quantum source of existence could not produce such a state that could have itself cease to exist. States come and go. Physics stays. Stars would collapse because their component particles never stop moving and the space in which they move is bent that way. But, there ought to be limits, and so matter would reach a point of "incompressibility". In a real, physical discrete space "compression" would result in reducing the number of unoccupied spaces between the occupied ones, and the limit would conceivably be a black hole which would contain no unoccupied spaces. A black hole would be a region of space wherein every single discrete-space was manifesting a rest mass.

"An Engineered Theory of Motion" If this is "it", the it that this is would cover the very bottom. It could be implemented with a matter-field theory and/or a string/M-theory, then the Standard Model could sit on top of that, and on up howsoever. Not much if anything seems depreciated, and many strange puzzles seem solved by one simple proposal. Here, through reverse-engineering, "a single coherent framework" (Barrow, p.17) hopes to explain "the different fundamental forces...with effective descriptions of each of the different interactions between particles of matter and light." Yet, first a "bedrock of reality" (p.12), would need to come with all that, a mechanism for existence, which might not be "buried deep in the math" (p.128), but rather laying on the surface of the geometry. If so it could be "'a single world formula' [Planck]" (p.114), nonetheless. Clearly, there is a standard to be met. It's just a framework, a perspective on the data and analysis of those pros listed, if not explicitly attributed. The "concept of force" is subsumed (p.105), here into one description for all interactions, a "one pattern" view (p.219) of the universe, if existence itself can be a real quantum action, too. Quantum Space "One ring to rule them all. One ring to find them. One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them." -J.R.R.Tolkien Geometry and discrete space could take their rightful places in the scheme of things as follows. Discrete space would offer a prime symmetry uniting matter, field and radiation, particle and wave, space and time, all through a unification of motion and existence itself, a single mechanism for both. By discrete spaces here we're talking real, physical omnipresence. There can be nothing in between them because there would be no such place as "between". In this scenario, there is nowhere else to be except inside one or another of these discrete space regions. Nothing extant, nothing fundamental or first composite would exist except inside one, and while it exists (you name it) it would exist there in its entirety; real, virtual or wanna-be. Particles, though, would not "leap" from one space to another (Greene, p.351), but rather they would serially instantiate inside a space, and then in another, and in another. This would be motion, with granularity off the scale, and could be how anything might get transferred: the stuff of virtual particles, bare naked four-momentum or whatever. Truly, " 'space tells matter how to move' [Einstein]". (Rees, p.65) Each and every space-time point in the universe would be a template particle capable of becoming anything. The field develops, the string vibrates, and the particle exists. The field collapses, the string relaxes, and the particle is "gone". And then the next space would do it, and then the next, and the next. Here would be the equality of all things physical. This could easily be a QCD particle seabed and quanta of theta-vacuum. (Watson, p.385) The implications would seem huge, and perhaps not a little unpalatable. Such things as electro-magnetic fields and the vacuum energy must also be discrete even if not quantum in nature (i.e. being able to have any amplitude). For photons it would happen at the maximum rate possible, hence the cosmic speed limit. Without some form of real quantum world there might be no cosmic speed limit. Quantum mechanic cognitive dissidence dissipates. Quantum Mechanics; The "next" space could be naturally anywhere, guided by the particle's wave function. The particle would be a particle, but it would exist like a wave by being a moving amplitude in a discrete medium, a true wave-particle duality. Everything just might appear to interact like particles and move like waves. Even the very unity of the mechanics, the statics and dynamics, is laid bare. In a way, it's all statics. Uncertainty; Position and momentum could never be measured at the same time because they ain't happenin' at the same time (baby!). Like musical chairs, either the players have a seat or they are dancing but never both. If every interaction is a "measurement" (Ford, p.261) the measurement problem evaporates. (see: More on Wave Function Collapse) Position and momentum would be Fourier conjugates for real. Quantum Relativity (going out on a limb here); The faster you would go, the more often you would be "gone". Your clocks can't tick while they're "gone", and so they would run slow relative to a stationary observer but not to you because you would be "gone" more often too. So, the fast traveling twin's clocks could be running less often than the stay-at-home's clocks, internal ones too, but at the same rate while running. (see: More on Time) The Speed of Light; When a light source moving howsoever emits a photon it could never impart any of its state of motion to that of the photon. Before emission time the photon does not exist, and after emission time there would be no interaction possible that could cause such a thing. A photon would be born moving at the speed of light away from the discrete-space of its first instantiation, its emitting electron left in the dust, and its emission a fundamental action of existence. Emission would be a digital event. Quantum jumping and tunneling ; No problem, whatever wave functions allow. Superposition and neutrino oscillation ; Incremental switching back and forth. Bibliography 　 "Before the Beginning", Martin Rees, Addison-Wesley, 1997. "New Theories of Everything", John D. Barrow, Oxford University Press, 2007. "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter", Richard P. Feynman, Princeton University Press, 1985. "The Fabric of the Cosmos", Brian Greene, A.A.Knopf, 2004. "The Quantum Quark", Andrew Watson, Cambridge University Press, 2004. "A Geometric Theory of Everything", A.Garrett Lisi and James Orwen Weatherall, Scientific American, December 2010. "101 Quantum Questions", Kenneth W. Ford, Harvard University Press, 2011. "McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology", McGraw-Hill, 2007. "Origins of the Universe for Dummies", Stephen Pincock, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2007. "CliffsQuickReview Chemistry", Harold D. Nathan and Charles Henrickson, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The Trash Can ought to be named the Bit Bucket.

. Like nada OR -1 + 1 = 0.

You are correct: no analogy is perfect, some are awful. Speaking only of charge, are protons and electrons different? If so, do they differ qualitatively, quantitatively or both? Charge is being purely quantum, in that none are inside +/- e? Do you think renormalization (as is) "has a future" so to speak? You dig above now? Trying to lose zero except for counting.

This would be just another current-math weird-algebra tool, with divergence not possible as the goal. ("new math" means something new under old umbrella) The current math has renormallization which has no future. Charges are opposite in quality not quantity. Only quantity (counting) is involved in ions balancing to zero. Can there be opposite quantities the same stuff? With electrons and holes, maybe.

(By way of focus...) All of this true stuff says that geometric patterns sometimes come from thin air. But the page #1 stuff here would characterize quite differently, and in opposite directions. IT is other and seperate patterns trying to say that there is unkown physical geometry below. The former ("yours") is known graphic geometry trying to say that something unrelated must be its cause. (i.e the geometry is the thesis vs. the geometry is the data.) Geometry could be a cause rather than an effect. Old bias.

You are all so kind to trust me. We have nothing without that. Redacted from the complete work: "Counting doesn't count."

The subject should say reunification, it's only been a few hundreds years. They have their data but it's experiential not experimental and worse, can't be repeatedly gathered. Now, think of scientists rather than science. Many of their fellow humans are on the other side or both sides. They have a lot to gain be$ide$ peace on Earth. Minimum, all have a right to exist.