Center for Perfection Studies • The Big Board–Little Universe Project • USA • October 7, 2017 •
BY BRUCE CAMBER
Nima Arkani-Hamed of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton,
with a sweeping naturalness, proclaims “Spacetime is doomed” (go to 5:45 minutes of 1.22.44). As he lectures, he paces back and forth. His really-real reality is within his ever-so-illusive amplituhedron with a string to a planar N = 4 supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory. He declares that it’s equal to the perturbative topological B-model string theory in twistor space (an ever-so-positive Grassmannian). To which I reply, “Yes, of course. We knew that.”
Richard Feynman invokes Minkowski (first column, eight down), and simply says,
“Space of itself, and time of itself will sink into mere shadows, and only a kind of union between them shall survive.”
(Six Not-so-Easy Pieces, Basic Books, 1962, 2011, page 109, last paragraph).
Stephen Wolfram, the founder of Wolfram Research and the software application, Mathematica, is in search of an ultimate theory that answers the question, What Is Spacetime, Really?, and in this article, he concludes that computer automata theory provides clues but no answers. Still, there’s long been a suspicion that something has to be quantized about space down to the Planck length (10-34 m). But when people think about it (and engage their favorite theory… spin networks or loop quantum gravity or whatever), they’ve also assumed that whatever happens at that notation has to be connected to the formalism of quantum mechanics and the quantum amplitude of things. Not necessarily. We’ll continue exploring this idea more deeply as we go forward.
This series of analyses will explore how light is also expressed as space-time within all 202 notations.
- We’ll examine concepts used by those people who Ron Cowen visits to explore the essence of quantum entanglement and space-time geometry.
- We’ll walk along behind Gil Lonzarich in his study of phase transitions and quantum fluctuations. Professional writer, Elizabeth Gibney, has written an excellent introductory piece.
- We’ll go back to earlier discussions with McTaggart and his 1908 work, “The Unreality of Time.” He’s a precursor to Arkani-Hamed and Feynman.
If time is unreal, is Albert Einstein wrong within his theory of gravity? He says time is relative-and-dynamical-and-inextricably interwoven with directions x, y and z into a four-dimensional “space-time” fabric. Yes, Al, but what about your mentor-sponsor, Max Planck and those Planck base units? We’ll argue that the fabric extends in an ordered fashion, about 67 base-2 notations (doublings) right down to each Planck unit and those 67 doublings accommodate all the partial answers of scholar-scientists who have not had enough conceptual room within which to allow their formulae and networks to breathe.
We will try to get our 202 notations into the public market and the academic yard. If it is cogent, we have a new worldview based on an integrated universe view and that changes everything. If it is not cogent, we will have found a place where logic and math have “natural” discontinuities. More…
* Footnote: From the 1899-1905 work of Max Planck, his formula redefines the very nature of light. Until scholar-scientists recognize it (and that it “works” well beyond our visible spectrum and even beyond the established electromagnetic spectrum uniquely within each notation, 1-202), we are truncating our imaginations, our mathematics, and our ability to engage the truly small-scale universe. -BEC
|Let’s study the numbers:||Analyzing the numbers:
• Measuring an Expanding Universe
• Thrust of the Universe
• Let’s study numbers
• The Universe Clock
• Small-Human-Large Scale
• Preliminary article: hypostatics
• Explore the universe?
• Big bang theory unnecessary
• Why this model until now?
Where do we go from here?
• Contacting scholars
• Index of many articles