existential trichotomy

[AntonioLao]

The three quantum states of existence are matter, energy, and square of energy. Unfortunately, only quantized energy can be described by existing physical theories like QED and QCD. There is no physical theory that can give a plausible quantum theory of matter regardless of the experimentally verifiable existence of elementary particles, atoms, molecules, planets, stars, and galaxies. This problem is attributed to the physical property of mass. The values of mass could vary continuously between zero and infinity by simply calculating its relativistic changes. The elementary particles with zero mass are the photons, gluons, gravitons, and maybe the electron neutrinos. All other elementary particles have experimentally measureable mass. These values could go as high as 92 GeV (billions of electron volts) for the Z-zero boson of the electroweak theory or as low as ½ MeV (millions of electron volts) for the rest mass of the electron. In theory, the highest mass value of infinity is attributed to the naked singularity of the big bang theory. It is a naked singularity not clothed by an event horizon. Therefore, the ambiguous and paradoxical values of the Schwarzschild radius taking value of infinity but supposedly must have the value of zero is responsible for the breakdown of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

This theoretical failure desperately requires a new salvaging theory of quantum gravity which is equivalent to a unique quantum theory of mass. On the other hand, a quantum theory of squares of energy exists but it has been disguised as the total relativistic energy: E=cp+mc. Where and when p=0 (the linear momentum is zero) then E=mc or E=mc. This is precisely Einstein’s mass and energy equivalence. Where and when m=0 (rest mass is zero) then E=cp or E=cp or p=E/c. This is precisely the linear momentum of the photon. Therefore, it can be said that a theory of the photon alone does satisfy the existential trichotomy of the universe.

[SteveA]

I have a feeling there is a physical theory that goes deeper and bypasses uncertainty but at the expense of objectivity, though it may be that there's a tradeoff and a limited form of objectivity could still be available.

If you have to fit a straight line for all observers, that's a loss of a dimension of information but if you don't need to do any statistical curve fitting, then there really was never any uncertainty to a measurement. Every one happened just as it did, and there were no probability windows involved. Though you could likely tradeoff uncertainty by reducing the number of observers (the more "local" the less uncertainty) - entropy between observations can be less when fewer unknowns are in the measurements.

How to construct that model? Good question!

Thank you for all your detailed posts. I enjoy the variety of ideas you pursue.

[SteveA]

Here's a post I made that appears related:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/metaph...html#post97588

Energy is what is detected/perceived. Matter is constructed from accumulations/memories of these, so yes, a theory of photons and an accumulation/integration of their energy could explain matter indirectly.

[AntonioLao]

I hoping to understand completely the distinctions between color charges and electric charges which is the same as understanding quarks and leptons. The first is a local space-time effect while the second is a global space-time effect.

[SteveA]

I hoping to understand completely the distinctions between color charges and electric charges which is the same as understanding quarks and leptons. The first is a local space-time effect while the second is a global space-time effect.

The basic model of time that I typically always use is just that of a sequence of experiences/qualities encountered. The lowest form of information is binary and this requires two symbols, but we need to add time to this as well to be able to transmit arbitrary streams of binary symbols - this requires at least one extra symbol (notice that we could really say that we always experience "time" and just call it a superimposed state of A, or AAAAA....... as long as nothing else is detected, it just appears as a single event).

If we only had two states, then we might think we could transmit arbitrary binary information, but that's not true because the "duration"/distance/time/length/period etc. of each symbol would always be detected as 1.

For example, if this was detected 0001100001111100111...

All the identical symbols in a sequence would appear compressed into 1 each and we'd just "see":

0101010101... etc.

So using only two symbols just gives us two possible phases of an oscillation. (Notice that so far I've been implicitly assuming some external and inexplicable "memory" or space exsits such that we can remember sequences)

But if we have three symbols, we could, for example use 0 1 and "," to denote a stream:

000,,,1,,111,000,0,00,111,..

etc. and this compresses to 0,1,1,0,0,0,1,...

This isn't very efficient of a representation though and it's much more natural to organize these are rotations around a triangular form ABC, and we could consider the sequence ABCABCABC... to all be clockwise/true/1/positive direction of rotation and the complimentary CBACBACBA... to be negative.

So if we detected the sequence ABACBCABC, this would represent rotations 1000111.

But notice also that an observation of ABACBCABC could fundamental exist as any of an infinite number of sequences:

ABACBCABC = AAA...BBB...AAA...CCC...BBB...CCC...AAA...BBB...CC C...

If we had a "random" selection for each symbol, we should encounter on average 1/3 duplication in adjacent symbols and this accumulates into a total of a 1/2 "uncertainty" in duration with a Poisson Distribution arising from the 1/3 probability of adjacent duplications.

So we have the possibility of a fundamental uncertain in the duration or length of time (similar to a Planck time) for each symbol.

Notice also that this form of communication has properties of supporting any number of dimensions for forms and every subsequent "observation" alters its form in terms of time (by compressing adjacent redundancies) as well as lowering the dimensionality of the form by 1 (for example, apples exist in 3 dimensions, but we see 2, the "depth" of the surface is unknown and hence ideas regarding a holographic universe arise. Notice also the 3 way symmetry of quarks conveying a lowest level of information)

Also notice that a strand of DNA contains 4 basic symbols but is embedded with a structure that has a property of 5 way symmetries and rotation.

There's an interesting calculation I did in trying to find how the fine structure constant might arise and I assumed it should related to the probability of a logical function in space preserving information. There was one of these that showed a manner in which mapping one of 3 symbols in pairs to an information conserving representation as another pair of 3 "phase"/dimension/orthogonal symbols is ~1/137.27 and the computation is by considering all permutations of possible functions of a single half of this and then squaring it to find the probability that both in the pair are capable of conserving information.

(3^2)!=9!=362880 is the number of permutations of the input space for a 2 input 3 symbol function. For which we'd be required to have triplets for each of the 3 possible output symbols, which gives us a possible information conserving output function space of:

(3^2)!/(3!^3)=1680

And a total possible input space of 3^(3^2)=19683

The relative density of the information conserving space is:

(3^2)!/(3!^3)/(3^(3^2))=1680/19683~=1/11.716

(This is very close to the square root of the find structure constant of ~11.706)

For a pair we get 11.716^2~=137.27 compared to ~137.04

But it gets much much close when we extend this beyond 3 dimensions and I used a phi related approximation of 20(phi^4)~=137.082, which appears to use the 4th and 5th dimensional properties and by computing the relative error between both of these versus the fine structure constant of 137.03599911 the ratio of these two errors is ~5.001 to 1. Now that appears quite a bit more than coincidental.

There was also another polynomial approximation I saw that similarly appeared to be constructed from a recurring and rather simple algorithm similar to computing an iterated Newton Method solution for a square root of 10 (related to phi) and it was effectively identical to within measured accuracy of the fine structure constant, but I didn't quite get all the pieces tied together into a simple recursive form but it looked like that was what it was doing.

Oh, there's actually a problem with the manner that I did the three symbol computation. Squaring the probability of one half is not necessarily "correct" and it implies a computational structure that may be impossible to create because it doesn't consider the influences of recurrances within a network - notice that if we truly had a random network, information conservation would ultimately appear to arise simply because any information that was not conserved would not be detected and we would then instead only see the information conserved "luckily".

Anyway, these are just ideas that you may enjoy mulling over.

There's also a way to extract an entire 3-D "particle" tree out of these three way symbolic representations and they have the equivalent of forces when aligned in various ways to each other, due to superpositions making identical symbols/quarks appear to disappear/shrink space and these properties also closely match the fundamental particles in physics.

If you're interested in more of this, I can find a link to some things I've posted elsewhere.

[AntonioLao]

a strand of DNA contains 4 basic symbols but is embedded with a structure that has a property of 5 way symmetries and rotation.

Could this be the reason why most people are right-handed? In the weak nuclear force there is a preference for either left or right since parity is conserved.

[SteveA]

Could this be the reason why most people are right-handed? In the weak nuclear force there is a preference for either left or right since parity is conserved.

That's an interesting thought. It's not the symmetries that give physical objects characteristics, but the asymmetries (the symmetries are potentials waiting to unfold - superpositions).

I think the progression in dimensions is sort of like this:

0? - dunno
1 - the fundamental substance (0-D - AAAA....)
2 - time/self (ABABABA.... a photon clock)
3 - information (ABCBCAC..., serial channel of binary communication - truths and falsehoods, dualities etc.)
4 - space (Strings of binary objects of arbitrary length)
5 - physical senses (there need to be at least 6 properties such that we can differentiate between 5 senses in time)
6 - spacetime (6 way symmetry broken into 5 senses of 4-D spacetime comprised of 3 quarks conveying binary information regarding the fundamental substance - conscious experience or awareness)
7 - ? Short term memory (7 way symmetry is prime and can't be factor into a lower dimensional representation, so it would be an "orthogonal" space)
8 - ? Matter ? (It's interesting to consider that this could be factored into a 3 layered representation of binary values - the intersection of 3 binary planes of information?)
9 - I don't know, but we could factor into 2 parallel information spaces, maybe like the real and imaginary components or position and velocity)

I admit it's difficult to map these to simple concepts because they have many interrelationships and it's not easy to intuitively be able to subtract time from a representation, but basically any space containing n attributes/symbols/dimensions can't contain objects with more than n-1 attributes + time, though we can factor information into multiple parallel spaces and each of these similarly inherits its own "laws of physics" that combine together in their interactions in a higher dimension.

The largest problem though is that the above is not actually what we're experiencing but instead the lowest forms of space that an experience can be factored into - an actual experienced moment is a single very large quantity and it's factored into relationships across many spaces in an experience and something like a prime quantity is unfactorable and could not be experienced in terms of a binary information space.

For example, let's say we had 5 colors to communicate, but someone is "color blind" and sees some of these colors as identical (for example 3 colors) - they see less information and the sequences appear harder to predict. Transitions between 5 symbols allow 1 of 4 "spectral" information to be transmitted, which could be factored into 2 separate binary channels at once. If one of these is not detected though, then it just appears to be a binary stream at a lower bandwith (fewer transitions per unit of time and more superimposed states).

But in the above case, you could determine that another space existed by measuring the probability of events and seeing a bias. If we compressed 5 symbols down to 3, then these three units have probabilities distributed in terms of 1/5ths and so it could be determined that this binary information existed within a higher dimensional space for which not all of it was witnessable and hence the non-uniform probability of observations.

Notice that for right/left handedness it occurs along a line of symmetry and fundamentally things are not symmetrical - symmetry (such as a sphere) indicates that and unknown is present and superimposed along at least one axis (notice that a random right/left motion would accumulate into a gaussian spread, which is symmetrical around the center, but not outside the center), but a preference for handedness show that some of these superimposed spaces are shared in common and we're effectively detecting a synchronized component within it. (It could be interesting to know if there's some close to rational ratio in terms of the percent population that is right handed - it might give a clue as to what dimensionality of space is being superimposed, but its probably more difficult than that because of learning and conditioning that would bias this).

In a sense, the beauty of symmetry may not arise from symmetry itself but a recognition of a hidden asymmetry - suggestions that a form is waiting to change - enough symmetry to make the features clear, but not enough to obscure a non-uniform surface of potential - fractals tend to possess those features - enough symmetry to recognize a form, but enough asymmetry to trace out complexity.

Likely the only perfectly symmetrical thing is onesself - a uniform space of possible experiences - but that's too symmetric gotta "mix it up" a bit