[time 22] Re: [time 21] RE: Reformulating Weyl's Unified Field Theory

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Tue, 16 Mar 1999 07:36:03 -0500

Dear Hitoshi,

Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> Dear Stephen and Robert,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>
> To: ca314159 <ca314159@bestweb.net>
> Cc: Time List <time@kitada.com>
> Date: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 1:16 PM
> Subject: [time 20] Re: [time 18] Reformulating Weyl's Unified Field Theory
> >Dear Robert,
> >
> >ca314159 wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Stephen,
> >>
> >> Stephen P. King wrote:
> >> > Weyl's ideas seem to get into how LSs "appear" to each other, or more
> >> > directly, how the dynamics of LSs, considered from the "external"
> >> > perspective, behaive. I believe that the experimental evidence for this
> >> > is in the Hubble red shift data (COBE, etc.).

HK wrote:
> The Hubble red shift is also a consequence of general relativistic Universe
> with Robertson-Walker metric, not a consequence merely of Weyl's theory. At
> large these two theories seem to belong to the same category. Weyl's
> unification of gravitation and electromagnetism seem to be valid only if
> metric is close to the flat one, at least judging from what he writes.

        This is a good point! What happens when the curvature is not close to
being flat, such as in neutron stars need to be modelable. Perhaps the
effect manifested in the Robertson-Walker metric is descriptively the
same, like two different languages and paradigms trying to describe the
same phenomena.
> Also electromagnetic aspect is a quanutm mechanical one, where classical
> treatment breaks (e.g. the stability of matter (atoms, molecules,...) does not
> hold in classical electromagnetic theory). Further Weyl seems to be able to
> treat only one body problem (i.e. it can treat only the external forces, and
> cannot conisder the interactions between plural number of particles, which is
> essentially the same as Einstein's GR.)

        While the emmition and absorbtion of photons is a QM phenomena, the
light cone structures are not "internal" to LS as classical
trajectories. They are, as Hitoshi said before, perspectivist, e.g. a
means to observe. Weyl's treatement of only a single body, IMHO, is not
a problem in the context that such is an LS seen from the outside; it
would be a classical "particle."
        When thinking about this and we shift from internal LS QM behaviour to
external LS classical behaviour we must keep track of what is happening.
It can be very tricky! :)
> By these points, I feel that Weyl's theory does not seem to give a
> unification. I think the unification is possible only by regarding GR
> classical and electromagnetism quantum mechanical one, as John Baez suggests
> in the quotation in [time 17]. In this point, I do not understand what you
> mean, although I have a reservation at the point that you stated "I agree, but
> we must take Weyl, and these others contextually. " in [time 18].

        Granted, I agree. When we think of GR or any other model, such as
Weyl's or Mie's or Hawking's, we must take into consideration the tacit
assumptions involved. This is much like shifting from Japanese to
English to Navaho in a conversation. Each Language has certain tacit
assumptions "built in" in its grammar and semantic rule systems.

John Baez:
"In general relativity,the components of position depend on the
coordinate system you use. They
are not really observable quantities. We don't just go out and measure
the x coordinate of something. Fundamentally, what we do is measure
the relation of one physical object to another. Since the components of
position are not really physical observables, we shouldn't quantize

        While, Baez's point is well spoken and taken, we need to distinguish
between the properties of x coordinates that are "external" to the LS
and thus classical and not quantizable, and the internal LS
configurations that could represent such as data as quantum mechanical.
Again, the duality of matter and information plays a key role here. The
internal representations of the external x coordinats are NOT the same
thing as the external x coordinates.

SPK wrote:
> >> > Robert and I last night discussed how LSs act as adaptive antennas internally and like broadband
> >> > transmiters externally. What we see in Weyl's gauge variability is that
> >> > there is a dependence on the "history" or chronological ordering of a LS
> >> > with respect to what aspects of other LSs it can observe. We are also
> >> > thinking of LSs as adaptive filters, or Wegner's MIM's.
> >> > It is easy to see the connectionof gravity with consciousness when we
> >> > think in these terms.
RF wrote:
> >> I know very little about Weyl other than he's a clear thinker.
> >> If I had time, I would read more of his work.
> >>
> >> I'm still not even sure what LSs are exactly.
> >> I mentioned the broadband antennas because of your comment on
> >> the red shift being a property of finiteness reminded me of
> >> the truncation of "infinite" antennas and the resulting effects.
> >> But I don't see what that has to do with LSs. Maybe you can
> >> explain some more what you are thinking here.
> > I think that the way LSs can only represent internally a finite amount
> >of information, since it is composed of a finite number of "quantum
> >mechanical particles," yet is "exposed" to a potentially infinite amount
> >of information (the states of all other LS), defined by all of the other
> >LSs in the Universe, demonstrates this "truncation" effect. I have just
> >finished reading a paper by David Deutsch and Michael Lockwood, Sci. Am.
> >March 1994, "The Quantum Physics of Time Travel" that may illustrate an
> >analogous situation arising in the Everett-Dewitt Multiple universe
> >Interpretation. They calls it "asymmetric separation." The "autonomy
> >principle" looks suspiciously like the independence axioms of Local
> >Systems theory! I would even dare to say that Deutsch's multiple
> >universes are LSs! He just is missing the key axioms!
> > I'll try to write something up about this later. Suffice it to say, I
> >think that we may need to upgrade the base space of LS theory from a
> >Riemannian manifold to something along the lines of Wheeler's
> >"Superspace," where every point is a Riemannian manifold, each
> >representing a differently configured set of coupled LSs (in a bound
> >state?). This would allow us to examine the topological and algebraic
> >properties of LS interactions...
> >
> >> The point about adaptive filtering vs. spatial filtering is
> >> something Hitoshi might comment on.
> Not a comment, but an elementary question: Robert, would you explain "adaptive
> filtering and spatial filtering" and their difference some more? E.g. what
> kind of apparatus do people use in realizing those filterings? And what
> phenomena or results do they get by their observation?
> >> An "adaptive" optical filter
> >> might be one like Ealing's non-spatial holographic filter (these are
> >> a relatively recent development) that act on phases (momentum space ?)
> >> rather than an optical spatial filter which is also used holography,
> >> in which the beam is diffacted and the "noise" trimmed off by a template.
> >>
> >> Adaptive filters are temporal while spatial filters are in the
> >> spatial or equivalently the frequency domain. I still don't see
> >> what LSs are or where they fit in here or anywhere, I've only
> >> noted their properties from your discussions with Hitoshi.
> >> They seem analogous to wavelets in some way and to Saussure's
> >> "signs" in terms of their arbitrariness (non-deteminateness)
> >> and that these seem to be imbedded in a shaped space.
> >>
> >> Are local systems a kind of orthogonal basis ? How do they differ
> >> then with other bases ?
> > An LS defines constructively/adaptively, not a priori (!), a local
> >basis within itself that minimizes its "surface" while maximizing its
> >"volume" like a bubble blown by the wind...
> What does "constructively/adaptively" mean? My question is how one can
> _construct_ a basis of a local system that has such properties as you wrote:
> "that minimizes its "surface" while maximizing its "volume" like a bubble
> blown by the wind..." Does an LS have a sharp boundary or surface as a bubble
> has? Or do you use a metaphoric expression here?

        The LS would have a boundary; whether it is diffuse or sharp would seem
to depend on the restraint that it has, and I think that these are
proportional to the number of configurations available to an LS and/or
the "lenght" of the chronological ordering of its configurations. This
latter aspect speaks to how LS deal with temporal order modeling of
external appearences.

> >We might be correct in
> >thinking of LSs as adaptive filters, IIRs, or better yet, as interactive
> >agents, as Peter defines them.
> Stephen, I understand if you think LSs "as interactive agents." On the other
> points, I need the understanding of the meaning of "adaptive" and "IIRs."
> Could you explain them?

        I'll have to get back to you on that... :)
> The key feature that we much remember is
> >that separate from interactions that select "finite bucket-wise" their
> >finite properties, they are finite subsets of the Universe. It, in
> >itself, is Everything simultaneously...
> I agree. LS has a finite number of particles and in itself all are
> simultaneous. Then, _from your standpoint_, how do you reconcile the
> simultaneity inside an LS with the existence or appearance of causality
> outside it?

        More later... :)
> >
> >> --
> >>
> >> http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/
> >
> >Onward to the Unknown,
> >
> >Stephen
> >
> I feel you seem to sense some ideas, but I cannot see what your senses see.

        We are after all LSs ourselfs! :)
> Best wishes,
> Hitoshi



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:29:45 JST