**Matti Pitkanen** (*matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi*)

*Sat, 20 Mar 1999 09:09:19 +0200 (EET)*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 39] Re: [time 37] Re:The ordering of spatial states and temporalevents"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 37] Re:The ordering of spatial states and temporal events"**Next in thread:**Stephen P. King: "[time 39] Re: [time 37] Re:The ordering of spatial states and temporalevents"

*> On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
*

*>
*

*> > Matti,
*

*> >
*

*> > Thanks for your thoughtfull comments. I will be reading and thinking
*

*> > about them. I still do have a bit of difficulty with the math terms. I
*

*> > do best if we could speak about them in terms of either examples or
*

*>> some analogy. I must frustrate you, I apologize. :)
*

*>
*

*> I must confess that my knowledge about LS is almost nil. I hope that
*

*> I will learn something in these discussions.
*

The paper co-authored by Hitoshi and Lance Fletcher

(http://www.kitada.com/time_III.html) explains all of the basic thinking

involved in LS. It is rather revolutionary and goes against the grain of

conventional physical thinking, but, that all said, it does provided a

starting point with which to address many other difficulties in modeling

consistently our world.

An example, the primitive ideas are examined:

"1.We begin by distinguishing the notion of a local system consisting of

a finite number of particles. Here we mean by "local" that the

positions of all particles in a local system are understood as defined

with respect to the same reference frame."

Here we do not assume any particular properties of the "particles"

other than what is explicitly stated and use the standard definition of

a "particle"; some entity existing at the locus of an set of

coordinates, but we do not assume any properties yet...

"2.In so far as the particles comprised in this local system are

understood locally, we note that these particles are describable

only in terms of quantum mechanics. In other words, to the extent that

we consider the particles solely within the local reference frame,

these particles have only quantum mechanical properties, and cannot be

described as classical particles in accordance with general relativity."

Here we postulate the particles properties.

"3.Next we consider the center of mass of a local system. Although the

local system is considered as composed of particles which -- as local

-- have only quantum mechanical properties, in our orthogonal approach

we posit that each point (t,x) in the Riemannian manifold X is

correlated to the center of mass of some local system. Therefore, in

our approach, the classical particles whose behavior is described by the

general theory of relativity are not understood as identical with

the "quantum mechanical" particles inhabiting the local system --

rather the classical particles are understood as precisely correlated

only with the centers of mass of the local systems."

Here the "center of mass" is distinguished. I think of this as how

a bubble has a particular "center of mass" defined by the geometry of the

surface as visible "on the outside", but do not necessarily have

knowledge of the "internal features." The center of mass is identified

with a classical particle at some point in a Riemannian manifold X.

Here I must mention that the usual Riemannian manifold X used is,

I believe, only a special case. I think that there is much more structure

involved. Your ideas, I think are an indication of this structure that

generalizes X. The use of p-adics and ultrametrics would give us ways of

defining histories, as you well point out! :)

[MP]

There is clear analogy with many sheeted spacetime. In TGD elementary

particles correspond to so called CP2 type extremals of size of order 10^4

Planck lengths. They have metric with Euclidian signature but lightlike

curve as M^4_+ projection. These tiny 3-surfaces are glued by topological

sum to 3-surface which is roughly like a piece of Minkowski space with

size of order Compton length and possessing outer boundary. This process

leads to massivation of elementary particle described by p-adic

thermodynamics. It seems that one could think CP2 type extremal as a

local system and piece of M^4_+ as spacetime. Am I correct?

Hierarchy continues: for instance, quark like 3- surfaces are glued to

hadronic 3-surfaces, and so on. At human length scales my body is a

3-surface with outer boundary identifiable as my skin glued to a larger

3-surface.

By the way, topological sum contacts connecting different sheets

have induced metric with Euclidian signature and there is surface where

the signature changes to Minkowskian one: at these surface the value of

the p-adic prime characterizing effective topology of spacetime sheet

most naturally changes.

*******

"4.It is important to recognize that the distinction we are making

between local systems and classical particles which are the centers of

mass of local systems is not a simple distinction of

inclusion/exclusion. For example, we may consider a local system

containing some set of particles, and within that set of particles we

may identify a number of subordinate "sublocal" systems. It would seem

that the centers of mass of these sublocal systems must be "inside" the

local system as originally defined, but the sublocal system is at the

same time a local system, and we have said that the centers of mass of

local systems are correlated with classical particles whose behavior is

to be described in terms of relativity theory."

[MP]

Also this is consistent with manysheeted spacetime picture. Note that

one must generalize standard physics to manysheeted spaceetime:

thermodynamics with different temperatures and different

phases at various spacetime sheets. Hydrodynamics flows: turbulent flow at

one sheet, potential flow at second sheet.

*******

This, to me, indicates how hierarchical ordering can come into

play, but notice that there is no a priori ordering defined. Histories are

like orderings of files on a hard drive, there is no absolute ab initio

ordering, there is only that "stored" at the time of sampling and it is

subject to revision by the next read/write operation.

[MP]

In TGD framework ordering by p-adic topologies enters naturally. The

higher the value of p, the more refined the topology. Amazingly, one can

understand the evolution as gradual increase of p-adic prime associated

with the 3-surface characterizing entire Universe.

********

The act of

observing and/or measuring is an interaction that changes all involved,

but the very nature of 'nondeterminism" is that results can't be known

before hand, we only can calculate probabilities. The simple proof of

this is show by the fact that gambling will never discover a "system" to

cheap the "house". That would allow for a computer to violate

thermodynamics!

I have links to the Maxwell Demon information to show how others think

about these kind of ideas. We are dealing with a very complex situation

and thus must expect that any complete explanation of it will be even

more so!

Later,

Stephen

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 39] Re: [time 37] Re:The ordering of spatial states and temporalevents"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 37] Re:The ordering of spatial states and temporal events"**Next in thread:**Stephen P. King: "[time 39] Re: [time 37] Re:The ordering of spatial states and temporalevents"

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