**Stephen P. King** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Sat, 20 Mar 1999 09:57:48 -0500*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 40] The Computational Complexity of LSs"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 38] Re: [time 37] Re:The ordering of spatial states and temporal events"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 37] Re:The ordering of spatial states and temporal events"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 41] Re: [time 37] Re:The ordering of spatial states and temporalevents"

Dear Matti,

Matti Pitkanen wrote:

*>
*

snip

[SPK]

*> 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 any observer can 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?
*

Yes! I would like to understand this "topological sum" better. Could

you explain it to us?

[MP]

*> 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.
*

*> *******
*

This strongly reminds me of the discussions of "phase transitions" that

are discussed in connection to symmetry breaking. What I am most

interested in is how "most naturally" is computed by Nature. This is

where I think that computational physics is important.

[SPK]

*> "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 spacetime:
*

*> thermodynamics with different temperatures and different
*

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

*> one sheet, potential flow at second sheet.
*

This idea is not unknown in physics since the Unruh effect is

related...

"The equivalence between an accelerated vacuum and a thermal bath, often

quoted as the Unruh effect, and the resulting insoluble paradoxes appear

to be artefacts due to an inadapted representation of accelerated

frames."

http://www.spectro.jussieu.fr/Vacuum/relat_e.html

for more mentions see:

https://members-central.home.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Unruh.html

(I tend to think spatially, so my use of multiple URLs that appear

unrelated is analogous to the interference pattern seen on a hologram

film... :) )

*> *******
*

[SPK]

*> 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.
*

I am going out on a long limb here, but could this "evolution" be

related to the Universe "computing" the zeros of the zeta function? This

seems to follow your thinking... ;)

*> ********
*

[SPK]

*> 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!
*

I am saying here that our observations are aspects of this Universal

"computation" mentioned earlier, but I am thinking of computation in

Peter Wegner's terms... ;)

Later,

Stephen

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 40] The Computational Complexity of LSs"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 38] Re: [time 37] Re:The ordering of spatial states and temporal events"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 37] Re:The ordering of spatial states and temporal events"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 41] 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
*