The Physics of Pure Time Sequence

[Felix Schrodinger]

Felix, I just now posted an entry that includes the whole TOE, with diagrams, in an attachment called "Eliminative Panpsychism." Please let me know if this answers your questions, which are very much to the point. -- Carey

Hi Carey

No, I don't think it does answer the questions. It does, however, pose a lot more very interesting questions. I am pondering where your view of reality interacts with mine as I'm a 'naive realist'.

Regards
Felix

PS - I'm a cat, do I possess a homunculum?

[Carey]

Felix, I'd be surprised if you, as a naive realist cat, did not have homunculi on your cortex, as I've never heard anything to the contrary.
Your confessed naive realism presents big difficulties for our "intersection" on interpretive issues. My mind-body book is a patient study of it. For here, I think we should focus on the uninterpreted calculus of this theory of physics, since it is simpler than Newton's theory or any other, which means we can handle it easily.
I don't bear the burden of my theory all alone. Rafael Sorkin has reformulated General Relativity in terms of "causal sets," which are the same as my time sequences. He doesn't know how to diagram any particles, and yet he already feels that he is hot on the trail of the Theory of Everything. The following link takes you to a nice summary, by Mr. Sorkin himself, of what causal sets are and how they serve physics. I see, by searching "causal sets," there are many new links that come up. I might have to do some more reading myself. -- Carey

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/s...s/causal_sets/

[Felix Schrodinger]

Your confessed naive realism presents big difficulties for our "intersection" on interpretive issues. Carey

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/s...s/causal_sets/

Hi Carey

Thanks for the link which is interesting.

BTW, I didn't "confess" to being a naive realist; I'm proud of it!

Felix

[neutralino]

I tried to upload the PDF of the quark structure, which is only 200Kb, but my status of "in training" seems to cut down on my upload size, and it wouldn't go. I tried another PDF of 120Kb, but it wouldn't go either. It says the filesize is over the limit. I think I've made 3 posts now, so maybe when I reach 5, I'll be a "belt," and I'll be able to upload it.
I wonder if this is a "post" that counts toward my first belt level? If so, I'll be at 4 here in a second. -- Carey

Sorry about the restrictions on uploading files-- the reason for having the "in training" status is to stop new members joining up and posting unsavoury attachments; and also as an encouragement to post a little to unlock some of the benefits!

Anyway, I see your problems are solved now, but if you have any problems in the future feel free to post in the "member feedback" forum, or alternatively send me a PM and I'll see what I can do.

Welcome, and I hope you enjoy your time here!

[Wick]

Hi Wick,
I'm attaching an article called "Eliminative Panpsychism." It has four parts. Part Two is "Physics Without Space," which reproduces the material in my published TOE booklet, slightly abridged and updated. The other parts address the epistemology and philosophy of science that led me to the theory. This is a "core dump" of everything I know in condensed form, so you won't need a copy of my published books. With luck, the article will be published later this year in a collection put together by David Skrbina.
The definition of mass-energy should be clear from the article. As to your other specific questions, let's see if the "ground plan" makes any advance on them. -- Carey

Thanks for the post, Carey. I'll read the document over and I'm sure I'll be asking some questions in the near future. Sorry for the delay in my response. I'm looking forward to what you have to say on this subject.

[Carey]

My previous postings on this site include two attachments that detail my TOE, which is framed entirely in the mathematics of causal sets. One attachment ("Eliminative Panpsychism") uses arrow diagrams to specify the structure of neutrinos and electrons, which compose what I call "the 4-D time lattice." The other attachment ("The Structure of Quarks") uses ball-and-stick models to specify a proposed structure for the nucleus. The cuboctahedron pictured there has an interior point joining 12 struts, or 12 "causal links." This means that there are 6 quanta arriving and 6 departing from that node. As the lattice is extended, every interior point will have that same context. It thus seems appropriate to call the nuclear lattice structure "a 6-D time lattice." We then have the handy terms "4-D lattice" and "6-D lattice" to distinguish EM structure from nuclear structure. The 4-D lattice, I presume, is the more extensive one of the two, since it is space-time. The 6-D lattice only extends far enough to form finite propagations of isolated nuclei. These nuclei have their location in the more extensive 4-D lattice by sharing periodic nodes with their companion electron clouds. Please reference the preceding attachments in conjunction with the new material below.
In the quarks photo, the cube formation in the middle is proposed as the proto-form of a proton, because of the tri-lateral symmetries that serve to account for the 3-way color- charge of chromodynamics. Another consideration that reinforces my confidence is the calculation of 1836 as the mass-ratio of proton to electron. This would be the lynchpin in my theory, inasmuch as it would explain why particles have the specific mass values that experiments indicate.
The model in the middle has 36 struts. The next bigger cube, formed by fitting eight such cubes together, would have roughly (8 x 36) struts. The next bigger cube after that fits 27 cubes together, for (27 x 36) struts. Here, I propose, we have reached the structure of a single proton. Such a proton has roughly (27 x 36) nuclear lattice quanta of equal frequency. 1836 is (27 x 34) x 2. Two discrepancies are evident. There is a factor of "2" unaccounted for, and there is the discrepancy between "34" versus "36." I propose to account for the factor of "2" by synchronizing two cycles of the proton (in chained repetition) to one cycle of a hydrogen cloud cycle, thus mating 6-D structure to 4-D structure to compose one cycle of a complete hydrogen atom.
The discrepancy between "34" and "36" remains to be explained. The nuclear lattice of a proton provides a "cage" for further quanta at stepped down frequency/energy values, just as the 4-D lattice provides locations for its own lower frequency quanta. Taking these further nuclear quanta locations into account provides flexibility in how to build a proton with the right mass. Using the flexibility to trade off high frequency links for lower frequency links in the energy accounting, and doing exact calculations instead of rough ones, I came to a reasonably symmetrical modeling that yields 1836. I got the feeling that I had reached only one derivation out of many, so I didn't have the confidence that I had homed in on the right one. Given the incentive of such calculation, together with nature's evident demands for high symmetry, the fine structure of a stable proton should be ascertainable, yielding a mass of 1836 with respect to that of an electron.

[Carey]

Hi Wick, I'm attaching an excerpt from my TOE booklet which shows my derivation of Bohr's formula using causal sets. It explains more explicitly than my other postings how the frequency/wavelength data from the spectroscopy of the atoms, as encapsulated in Bohr's formula, results from the structure and activity of the electron clouds, when these clouds are modeled as causal sets. Time dilation as the basis for quantum gravity is evidenced in these diagrams as well. -- Carey

[Wick]

Hi Carey,

I have some bizarre beliefs about the nature of time. So I'm going to pose a few questions that might seem nonsensical. Please consider them:

You speak of a space-time latice. A latice suggests a structure of some kind--like a woven cloth. But what if time is not like string? What if time is more like motion?

How do we know that when we consider the point particles you describe that we are seeing everything the point particle is?

While I agree that time can move only in one direction, it seems that if time is part of a space-time lattice, it doesn't move at all. Question: Can you talk about your theory without talking about time as a motion?

Regards!

Wick

[Felix Schrodinger]

I'm attaching an excerpt from my TOE booklet which shows my derivation of Bohr's formula using causal sets. It explains more explicitly than my other postings how the frequency/wavelength data from the spectroscopy of the atoms, as encapsulated in Bohr's formula, results from the structure and activity of the electron clouds, when these clouds are modeled as causal sets. Time dilation as the basis for quantum gravity is evidenced in these diagrams as well.

I have some bizarre beliefs about the nature of time. So I'm going to pose a few questions that might seem nonsensical. Please consider them: You speak of a space-time latice. A latice suggests a structure of some kind--like a woven cloth. But what if time is not like string? What if time is more like motion? How do we know that when we consider the point particles you describe that we are seeing everything the point particle is? While I agree that time can move only in one direction, it seems that if time is part of a space-time lattice, it doesn't move at all. Question: Can you talk about your theory without talking about time as a motion?

Hi Wick and Carey

This is all very close to my heart. But I would like you to consider that the mechanism of time may be a simple mechanical one - one which fits with gravity and the other main 'forces' of nature.

Imagine that we have two packs of cards which are spread out on a large table. One pack is on the left with the larger denominations at its centre. The other is on the right, again with the larger denominations at the centre. Each pack represents a virtual particle which can only become real when it interacts with another. This is a simple representation of the process of decoherence which is well established.

Now what if another component is actually necessary for decoherence to take place? The vacuum energy (another well accepted feature of nature) has an apparent random structure of a seething mass of virtual particles which underly our existence. Imagine the VE as random cards which exist at every point on our table and that the sum of three card values is necessary to cause the two particles to interact and hence collapse into the real world.

The vacuum energy provides a structure governing the rate at which particles can collapse and hence a potential explanation for the mechanism of time. What I can't figure out is the relationship between the VE and the CBR - any ideas?

regards
Felix

[Carey]

Hi Carey,

I have some bizarre beliefs about the nature of time. So I'm going to pose a few questions that might seem nonsensical. Please consider them:

You speak of a space-time latice. A latice suggests a structure of some kind--like a woven cloth. But what if time is not like string? What if time is more like motion?

How do we know that when we consider the point particles you describe that we are seeing everything the point particle is?

While I agree that time can move only in one direction, it seems that if time is part of a space-time lattice, it doesn't move at all. Question: Can you talk about your theory without talking about time as a motion?

Regards!

Wick

Hi Carey,

I have some bizarre beliefs about the nature of time. So I'm going to pose a few questions that might seem nonsensical. Please consider them:

You speak of a space-time latice. A latice suggests a structure of some kind--like a woven cloth. But what if time is not like string? What if time is more like motion?

How do we know that when we consider the point particles you describe that we are seeing everything the point particle is?

While I agree that time can move only in one direction, it seems that if time is part of a space-time lattice, it doesn't move at all. Question: Can you talk about your theory without talking about time as a motion?

Regards!

Wick

My answer is given by Russell: "Thus matter and motion cease to be part of the fundamental apparatus of physics. What is fundamental is the four-dimensional manifold of events, with various kinds of causal relations." You suggest that my "time lattice" is cloth-like and material, like string, which is not right. Then you suggest it is like motion, which is also wrong. You gravitate first to "matter," and then to "motion," hitting on the two things that have ceased to be part of the fundamental apparatus of physics. To conceive of motion, you need a concept of something that can move, such as an electron. I have given the structural make-up of an electron as a time sequence with definite structure. Thus, time order has been used to define what an electron is, without regard to any motion we might wish to ascribe to such an electron. The ontological analysis has a strict logical order. At the bottom of the analysis is nothing but time-ordered moments. Particles are constructed from the base layer of temporal moments, which are bare logical individuals in the theory. The moments are not particles, and they are not geometric points. Besides the moments, there are the temporal transitions that connect one moment to another. Such a transition is a step of time, or step of change, which is not a motion. The moments and transitions are the relata and relations, respectively, that provide all the patterns-- the structure-- of the physical world. "Matter" is constructed of these components in the form of particle-like sequence patterns, and these have their calculable mass-energy values in my theory. Motion, in turn, is constructed from the forking and converging of multiple particle-like sequences. This logical order of ontological construction is thus an example of what Russell means by "matter and motion cease to be fundamental." The phrase has "teeth." Newton's primitives, apart from time order, are swept away. They're gone. All that's left are immaterial moments, and immaterial transitions connecting the moments. The transitions serve physics as its quanta. The moments have no physical analysis, as befits the logical individuals at the base of a speculative theory. To call the moments "points" or "particles" is to revert to Newtonian primitives, which is a failure to carry through with the ontological reduction. All this is conceptual, not perceptual. What then are the moments in themselves? Some of them are human mental events. The others are non-human mental events. Mental events are internally furnished with phenomenal fields and qualia, as direct experience attests. Thus we have the panpsychic view of the world promoted by Whitehead, who shares Russell's allegiance to eventism. -- Carey