zero space philosophy god existence | Agemoz's Physics Blog

Posts Tagged ‘zero space philosophy god existence’

Mathematics, Chaos, and God

August 25, 2013

I have made the greatest discovery of my life.

You see, I have spent the majority of my life searching for the mind of God, and I did this by observing the world around me, reading about it, and trying to draw conclusions unfettered by wishful or unsupportable thinking. I thought that by understanding physics, in particular the underlying geometry of quantum field theory coupled with special relativity, that I might see better how God works and thinks. Along the way, I came to the conclusion that this Unitary Twist Field idea made a lot of sense, and spent a lot of time trying to show how it might work. I wrote several simulators and tried to refine the ideas sufficiently–and maintain a Feynman skepticism whether they were workable or just simply wrong.

I still maintain that the main idea is probably right–and was beginning to come up with an experiment to induce a linear twist field. This turns out to be extremely hard, because the timing of the twist has to move at the speed of light–the twist generator has to be both very small and very high frequency. I envisioned sort of a prefetch driver mechanism that would charge plates in a cylinder in such a way that the field phase was anticipated. The assumption is that the rotating field would induce the magnetic portion of the twist and that detectable emission would occur. The reason I think nobody has built something like this before is that the phase timing of the plates has to be such that the twist propagates at speed c–you cannot make a propagating circuit to do this because electrons will travel down wires at less than the speed of light. You must design a circuit at multi-gigaHertz frequencies that adds phase to take the slower electron path and cancel it out. Such a configuration cannot occur in nature or even in antennas of any design. I have sufficient electronics knowledge that I know how to do this–but it still would be a difficult undertaking.

I was starting down the path of doing this when I watched the movie Pi. Kind of nutty, but still a good movie, I thought. A mentally disturbed mathematician uncovers a sequence of numbers that forms the unspeakable name of God and goes crazy uncovering the implications. He reaches peace only by expelling (literally) the knowledge from his mind. This movie gets a bunch of things wrong, but the principle is a great one. First, it claims mathematics is the language of all nature, and second, all nature is based/driven by patterns–wrong on both counts. Nature is the profound mixture of mathematics and chaos–not everything in it is well described by the language of mathematics. As a corollary, patterns are only part of the game, intrinsic randomness also drives the behaviors we see in nature.

But the point is still valid–while the “answer” wont be a 216 digit number, the mind of God could be said to take a form that could reside as an abstraction inside a human mind. That’s what I’ve been doing for about 25 years or so–trying to find that abstraction, or more likely some new portion of it. Then, the meaning of my life gets some resolution as I get closer to knowing God.

I tried to envision what would happen, like in the movie, if some human succeeds. Does that become a humanity singularity that is eventually inevitable? Is that the destiny of humanity–probably not me, but someone will eventually find that key? I woke up this morning and realized I had my answer, a life changing answer. Just waking up is a great time to do your mightiest thinking–that emerging consciousness is cleared and refreshed. I remember doing a lot of thinking about death and what it really means about us and God, and one day walking in a cemetary suddenly realizing “God Is Not Here”. Answers will not be found in the study of dying–it’s just the point where our thinking stops.

This morning, I woke up and realized that is also true of my study of physics. God Is Not Here. Because my leading hypothesis of existence is that there is a way for something to emerge from an infinity nothing (search for my previous posts on scale-less systems and the resulting something-from-nothing process), discovering another underlying structure to quantum field theory will NOT get me closer to God–He is not there. He might be involved somehow at a higher level, but the creation of existence from nothing is a series of steps that eventually results in the Big Bang and then the evolution to our existence. My discovery is this: the discoveries of physics is the process of discovering those steps, but does not point us to God (at least directly).

I have had my life profoundly turned on its head, for the search I’ve so diligently pursued and tried to do as rigorously as I could has come to an end–there is no point other than the pleasure of figuring something out. God Is Not Here.

Of course, new questions arise from the ashes–then, where is God? What do I do now?

Agemoz

Tags:death, existence, quantum theory, scaleless physics existence, twist ring, twist theory, twists quantization, zero space philosophy god existence
Posted in philosophy, Physics | Leave a Comment »

Lattice fields and Specular Simulation (latest work)

August 25, 2012

The latest work on the twist model is proceeding. This work makes the assumptions noted in previous posts–EM interactions are mediated by photons as a quantized linear field twists. The current work assumes these photons comprise the macroscopic electrostatic and magnetic field, are unitary, and that they are sparse (do not interact). It assumes that the twist has a common imaginary axis and three real dimensions on R3, similar but not the same as the QFT EM field, which is a complex value on R3 (t is assumed in both cases). Electron-photon interactions occur when a twist ring captures a linear twist and absorbs it. I am assuming that a photon twist is magnetic when the real axis of the twist is normal to the real dimension direction of travel, and is electrostatic when the real axis of the twist is tangent to the direction of travel (note how relativistic motion will alter the apparent axis direction, causing the expected shift of photons from electrostatic to magnetic or vice versa).

This set of assumptions creates a model where the linear twist of the photon will affect a twist ring electron in different ways depending on the photon twist axis direction. Yes, this is a rather classical approach that ignores the fact that quantum interactions are probability distributions, among other things. My approach is to create a model simulation environment to test the hypothesis that quantization can accurately be represented by field twists, the foundation of the unitary twist field theory. It does not currently include entanglement, which I represent as the assumption that field twist phase information is instantaneous but that particles (twists) are group wave assemblies that propagate no faster than the speed of light.

These assumptions require that I make changes to my current simulator, which is a lattice approximation of a continuous vector field twist. I was able to show in that simulator that a continuous twist solution could not work due to the unitary field blocking effect. From that (and from QFT), I concluded that the twist field must be sparse and specular, where interactions are mediated by linear twist photons that do not interact. I cannot use my existing simulator for this model but must make a new version, which is underway. It will take a while so my posts will become less frequent until I get this working.

However, since I am now going away from a lattice simulator to a sparse model simulator, it did make me think about lattices as a representation of existence, and I concluded that that cannot be. I have often seen theories that our universe is a quantum scale lattice of Planck length. This supposedly would explain quantization, but I don’t think it works–the devil is in the details. If the lattice is periodic, such as an array of cube vertexes or tetrahedral vertices, then there should be angles that propagate photons differently than others. If our existence is spinning on a periodic lattice, we should see harmonics of that spin as background noise. Within the range of our ability to detect such “radiation” from space, neither are happening.

So, suppose the lattice is not periodic but is a random clustering of vertexes, which solves the problem of periodicity causing background frequencies. In that case, I would expect that photon propagation would have velocity variation as it propagated through varying spacing of vertexes. There would have to be an upper bound to the density of vertexes to ensure apparent constant speed, and I struggle to think what would enforce that bound. This is probably the most workable of the lattice ideas, but due to the necessity of a vertex spacing constraint, there would have to be an upper limit to the allowable energy of a photon, something we have no evidence for. At this point, I think there is no likelihood that existence can be described as a lattice. That hypothesis is attractive because we can easily imagine a creator God could build a computer that could most easily create a model of existence using a lattice of some form. But even though the Planck length lattice is far too small for us to detect directly, I don’t think the evidence points that way. (Side note: it’s so interesting to look at early literature to see the historical evolution of what people thought formed the underlying basis for our existence–early on, God creating and controlling a mechanical model, then universe models were complex automated assemblies of gears and pullies, then the steam-engine or steam-punk type of machine, then mechanical computing engines, and now computer program driven machines simulating a lattice… What is next? !)

Back to the lack of evidence for an underlying lattice to our existence. This is a more important realization than it might appear, especially from a philosophical standpoint. If there was evidence that the universe was built on a lattice, that would strongly imply creation by a being, because a lattice is an underlying structure and constraint. Evidence that there is no lattice, which is what I think I am seeing, would imply that there is no higher being because it is hard for me to imagine constructing a world without a lattice. Of course, it would only be a mild implication, because my ability to imagine how a universe could be constructed without a lattice is limited. Nevertheless, it is a pointer in the direction of existence coming from nothing rather than being constructed by a God.

Pretty interesting stuff! More to come as the new simulator work gets underway.
Agemoz

Tags:existence, lattice, photon, quantization, twist, twist ring physics, vector field, zero space philosophy god existence
Posted in philosophy, Physics | Leave a Comment »

scale-less systems and God

July 2, 2008

An interesting revelation last night, and some thoughts that I’ve been circling around for a long time but am starting to see more directly.

First–when we look at the implications of a scale-less system, that is, a system which “starts out” with no distinguishing spatial or temporal characteristics (Aristotle’s “nothing” with no time), something becomes apparent. If our existence did *not* spontaneously emerge from some infinite treatment/scaling of a nothing spacetime, that would seem to imply a God, a pre-existing Creator. Sort of a variation of the old Who/what created the Creator type of argument, except more precise. A clearer way to see this is this: if there is no God, then our existence must have evolved somehow, both spatially/dimensionally and temporally, from a nothing scaled over an infinite range (it’s simple to prove that a finite ranged nothing could not evolve into something). While I am very suspicious of pure logic analysis in philosophy (Parmenides and others tried rationalism to deduce the difference between ideas and existence, when the real problem is nothing more than how these words are defined), it seems rigorous to say that if we assume there is no God and try to see if our existence could arise, we must also assume that the starting point is zero space-time with no evident dimensions. Otherwise, we have to assume that a non-zero space-time was either created or has “always existed”.

Created, of course, implies God–and “always existed” is a temporal concept that can be hard to wrap one’s mind around, and is worthy of more discussion. One way to define always existed would be to say that that space-time *is* God–it could not come to being on its own. Put another way, an “always existed” existence is a presumption of spatial and temporal content and requires an external Creator to bring it into reality.

So, since my working hypothesis is that this all emerged from zero spacetime without need for a Creator, the logical conclusion is that our existence is a scale-less system. If there were any absolutes, they would have to pre-exist, and thus this would not be a zero spacetime, and some form of a Creator would have to exist.

This is all a really long winded way of saying–either our existence is scale-less, or God exists.

So, now we get to the thinking I’ve been circling around but have really nailed down: the speed of light and the mass/radius/energy of electrons (or the relation of energy to frequency in a single photon) are all scale-less. They cannot depend on any pre-existing characteristic of space time. And thus, they have to be derivable in order to be emergent and constant throughout a spacetime that has no intrinsic scale.

Tags:zero space philosophy god existence
Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

About Me

I'm an amateur physicist. I've studied physics and philosophy for a very long time, and have investigated some of the unanswered questions in physics with an intent of finding some possible explanations or theories on how they might work. Two of the most interesting questions for me are whether there is a geometrical basis for quantization and special relativity, and why there is a particle zoo (that is, is there an underlying structure that results in the particle zoo). I'm well aware of the danger of crackpot theories (usually characterized by just enough knowledge to get things wrong or silly), but allow myself to pursue ideas anyway as long as I'm clear about their speculative nature. I don't pretend that I have any significant discoveries to report, but thoroughly enjoy pursuing various ideas about how the universe works. To faciliate this study, I've created a lattice simulator that allows me to test a variety of ideas.

Unitary Twist Field Theory

A long description and justification for the thinking that has led to the Unitary Twist Field Theory. Note, IANAP (I am not a Physicist). This is long and describes the historical evolution of the Unitary Rotation Vector Field. The latest work has changed several parts, I am in the process of updating this.

Summary: A unitary rotation vector field is investigated as an underlying field that gives rise to the particles and fields of the Standard Model. The underlying field is single-valued, waves cannot pass through other waves. This is the means by which quantum interference redirects particle paths. The simulation work has revealed a new principle:

Quantum interference is responsible for redirecting particles along wave interference peaks–and also for creating those particles.

Long description: This effort to work out the details of this unitary twist field is based on the underlying assumption that our existence can emerge from nothing, and posits a reductionist approach to explaining the particle zoo. The theory basically says that there is a continuous rotation field in R3 + I that can produce stable solitons. Here is a list of the steps I have taken to arrive at this theory:

a: If existence does not require an intellect to form, the existence must arise from nothing, both space and time.

b: If existence does require an intellect (e.g, God) then further investigation isn’t really necessary because the rules for existence are set in a place we do not have access to.

c: One way to determine if the creating intellect exists would be to determine if the existence could not come into being without at least two rules, and such rules would have to come into existence from a creator. Saying that existence formed with one and only one rule is equivalent to saying that existence could arise from nothing and God is not required.

d: Finding God seems to be pretty much unanswerable without clear direct communication from God, whereas coming up with a way that existence could form from nothing seems to be an alternative possible approach for a human mind to answer the question about the existence of God.

e: Such an approach could start with the limits of current human knowledge, the known existence of the particle zoo. If a reductionist approach could be taken as to why the particles exist, we may be a step closer to saying that an intellect is not needed to create this existence. Conversely, if we can show with reasonable probability that it’s impossible to form particles from some continuous field, that’s an argument in favor of the necessity of an intellect in creating our existence.

f: I am assuming that a continuous field that can create stable particles is a reductionary step–that is, a step in the direction of finding a single rule defining this existence.

g: Now I start applying known physics to this field to determine what it must look like. I am assuming that this field is opaque, that is, there aren’t any parallel overlapping fields. This is clear because multiple rules are necessary to form two fields.

h: I assume that this field has elements that can only rotate. No displacement or magnitude can be applied to any field element. This assumption comes from the E = hv relation for particles, which basically says that particles are described only by frequency, there is no field degree of freedom equivalent to field magnitude.

i: when objects move, the field elements pass rotations via three types of momentum to adjacent elements. In this theory, no field element ever “moves”, instead particles move because field rotations pass as momentum from one field element to the next.

j: In order for E = hv to work, there has to be a means of ensuring that no partial or multiple count of rotations can exist. This is a form of field quantization, and I have proposed a background lowest energy state. In such a system, field rotations called twists start and stop at the background state rotation angle.

k: To ensure that R3 does not have an observable resonance (which would be experimentally discernable) that would undermine gauge theory symmetries, this background states points to an imaginary dimension. It is not possible to have the background state point to a basis vector in R3.

l: If the field has a crossproduct momentum transfer as well as the more standard linear translation of angular momentum of field rotation elements, this becomes a necessary and sufficient condition for forming stable linear particles of arbitrary frequency. UPDATE: simulation work shows that quantum interference is responsible for particle formation.

m: the crossproduct rule for momentum displacement allow a particle to start a single twist, and allows the particle to end the twist after one full rotation.

n: The crossproduct rule also allows the formation of twists that move along a curve. This is possible due to the vector combination of the crossproduct that is normal to the current element rotation orientation and speed. UPDATE: simulation work shows that quantum interference is responsible for path curvature.

o: If twists can curve, there are some twists that will form stable closed loops. There are many possible stable curve solutions, which I am proposing is the basis for the particle zoo.

p: A single free linear twist models a photon of some energy and length defined by the frequency of twist rotation.

q: Since the twist moves from +I background state to an R3 direction and continuing to rotate through to the +I direction, polarization of this twist arises as a linear combination of the two R3 vectors normal to the direction of twist travel. UPDATE: new simulation data suggests that quantum interference and momentum provide a basis for polarization, this will be revised.

r: The crossproduct momentum translation is necessary to allow a twist to start and to stop, otherwise field symmetry would propagate in both directions simultaneously at every point in the twist, and stable particles could not form (they would dissipate). In other words, the quantization of the field is ensured with the background state, and the ability to start and stop a twist arises from the crossproduct momentum translation. Thus it can be stated that to form stable particles from a field, it is necessary that a field capable of forming stable particles must have a handedness that can only come from a crossproduct momentum property. UPDATE: simulation results show this and following sections needs to be revised.

s: This handedness thus must be ingrained in any field solution that produces stable particles. This handedness of the field will show up in some cases as a chirality violation.

t: In order for the twist propagation to be stable, the only possible momentum transfer via crossproduct relation is at the speed of light, where the leading and trailing edge of the twist cannot be affected or connected to neighboring element rotations.

u: Any closed loop rotation sequence thus will be limited to the speed of light. If one were to unravel the cylindrical spiral path this loop takes in Minkowski space, a single quantized twist will form a right triangle where the hypotenuse is the speed of light times the time of one rotation of the twist, one side is the particle travel distance, and the other side of the triangle is the radius of the loop. This right triangle enforces a relation between the loop travel speed and the speed of light. This relation computes to the beta factor of special relativity and is the means by which special relativity geometrically arises from the twist theory.

v: A corollary to u: above is that time dilation for every particle results from the constrained stretching of the spiral helix in Minkowski space as the particle increases speed proportionate to the speed of light. In other words, each particle’s relativistic clock is implied by the time to complete a single twist. Observing from different frames of reference will alter the apparent time to complete a twist and thus affect the relative passage of time between particle and observer.

w: A single closed loop models the electron of one type of spin. The twist direction relative to direction of travel defines a spin-up or spin-down electron, whereas the loop curvature relative to the handedness of the field defines the particle vs the antiparticle version of the electron. Note that a linear twist does not have these degrees of freedom, so there is no antiparticle to the linear twist photon.

x: Quarks are posited to be linked twist loops, the up quarks have a single link going through its center and the down quark has two. The strong force results when linked twist loops are pulled apart such that twist momentums approach each other with an asymptotic direction conflict. The passage of a twist through the center of a loop affects the rotation of the loop by increasing the crossproduct momentum of the loop. Note that since electrons are modeled by a loop with no central twist going through it, electrons (and positrons) cannot combine with quarks.

z: This modeling of quarks seems to correlate to the masses of the up and down quarks–the twist going through the center of a up quark loop acts with a central force that causes the loop radius to reduce by half. The doubling of the resultant normal (to direction of twist travel) acceleration results in a loop that is 1/4 the size of the electron loop model. Similarly, a down quark has two twists going through its center, doubling again the normal acceleration of twist travel and causing that loop to be 1/8 in size. The rest masses of the electron, up quark and down quark correlate to this geometric analysis of particle loops. Electrons have a .511MeV mass, up quarks are 2.3MeV, and down quarks are 4.8MeV. Admittedly this may all be numerology, but I was surprised to find this mass correlation to loop length.

y: A possible model for the weak force results because there is a small chance for linked twist loops to tunnel through each other. If the rotation of one twist loop matches the rotation of a linked loop right at the point where linked loops are being pulled apart, the loops can separate. This is proposed as particle decay and would model the randomizing effect of the weak force.

Glossary

3D + T: the three spatial and 1 time-wise dimensions of our existence. Equations usually are set up for solutions in this space.

Causal: Causality: The property where a particle or field changes according to special relativity, that is, changes cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.

Dirac Equation: Relativistic equations using operators that effectively describes electron behavior in an atom and relativistic interactions of particles

Electron, Positron: charged fundamental quantum particles with spin (no known substructure with a fixed rest mass)

EM: EM Field: Electromagnetic Field.

Entangled Particles: A property of a system of particles where resolving a state of one of the particles instantly (non-causally) affects the remaining particles

Frame of Reference: Used in Special Relativity, refers to the observer's position relative to a system being observed. Special Relativity describes how a system (for example, a set of particles) will appear to the observer that is dependent on how fast and in what direction the observer is moving in relation to the system.

General Relativity: Einstein's theory describing the stress-energy tensor, which details the equivalence of acceleration and gravity and describes how dimensions distort and forces apply when objects are accelerated, especially as speeds approach the speed of light. For example, it describes how a particle's mass increases as it is accelerated.

Interference: Quantum interference: The property at small (quantum) scale where the probability of a particle state or location varies according to wave superposition, the trait of waves interfering with each other

Lorentz Transform: equations that describe how dimensions of time and space distort in different frames of reference (special relativity)

QFT: Quantum Field Theory: theory of how fields, such as the electromagnetic field, are quantized.

Quantum, Quanta: property where fields or particles have a property that can only have a particular value from a set (the set of real or complex numbers, for example)

Quantum Mechanics: the equations that describe the wave-like behavior of particles in various systems, such as a particle in a box.

Photon: quantum of light. Only one possible value of energy, depending on frequency.

Planck's Constant: The lower bound for simultaneous measurement of two orthogonal properties such as a particle's position and momentum.

Relativistic: Usually refers to particles or interactions of particles with velocities that approach the speed of light

Rest mass: Since any particle with mass will have that mass increase as it is accelerated, rest mass is defined as an intrinsic property of a particle that is not moving

Schroedinger Equation: Wave Equation: second order differential equation that describes the probability distribution of (for example) an electron around an atom

Special Relativity: Einstein's theory that describes how dimensions (space and time) interconnect and vary according to an observer's frame of reference. It specifies causality of all particles or field components, and that the speed of light is the same constant in every frame of reference.

Twist: Field Twist: Author's idea of how photons and electrons (twist rings) substructure could be described

Uncertainty relation: Heisenberg uncertainty principle: the lower bound (planck's constant) for resolving two orthogonal properties of a system.

Unitary: in transforms, the property that preserves magnitude (such transforms can cause rotation or displacement, but cannot change the size or shape of objects). In vector spaces (such as fields), unitarity implies that all vectors have a constant magnitude, only direction varies.

Agemoz's Physics Blog