We are all made of light!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The scaling law of fractal space time goes as far as the acceleration of motion allows.however as fractal space-time is curves away at higher and higher accelerations like the earths surface a boundary horizon appears that is the limit to what we can see. This boundary layer is the speed of light, yes measured in m/s

Since fractal space time is non relative the laws of nature appear to behave differently at different scales.This why the quantum world appears so different to Einsteins universe and particles such as electrons can only exist at specific scales from our point of view. 3D space is flat but 4D space shows the the Universe itself is a singularity. it's singularities in singularities all the way down. Its a shame the the way physics is taught prevents people 'seeing' fractals as a important direction like lenght. It's like most of you observe the world like flat landers.

If people put all thier personal biased feelings away relax and observe the mandelbrott set under zoom you may just get it. Apply relativity to the rate of zoom.

You might learn something new.

I think you are getting my intentions wrong. proposing strange new theories is all part of the great game that is science. As Niels Bohr is reported to have said to someone: "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough." However, coming up with new theories is not enough. You have to test them. Even finding new ways to be wrong (been there, done that) can be fruitful, because you gain insight by finding out where you went wrong.

But to return to your theory, there are some questions which I have. What type of singularities (in terms of singularity theory) does your theory need and where do they come from? Why is space time fractal? If it is fractal, which type of fractal? What scaling law applies? What is its fractal dimension? Why does 3D space (curved according to general relativity) become singular in 4D (a 3D subspace has zero Lebesgue measure in 4D, but is not a singularity). In string (and brane) theory space is often considered as higher dimensional (11D is popular). Curvature in different directions account for different forces in some views of nature. Most importantly, which observations does your theory explain which other theories cannot? Can it provide conservation laws like conservation of charge and angular momentum?

Observing the Mandelbrot set at different zoom levels (as I have) teaches you about the Mandelbrot set, or at least what it looks like. Deeper understanding is gained by studying different types of fractals, and understand the fundamental principles behind them. I myself wrote code to compute many pretty pictures of different kinds of Lyapunov fractals. However, I prefer to observe nature (with or without my telescope) to gain greater understanding of nature.

Personally, I see a very different role for fractals. David Bohm described a deterministic counterpart of the Schrodinger equation. He does so by introducing a field which in my estimation produces a non-linear differential equation. This leads to chaotic motion in the sense that an infinitessimal change in initial position leads to unpredictability of the orbit due to the fractal nature of the attractor, in exactly the same way that quantum mechanics describes. Many detractors of Bohm's work point out that his equation is non-local, i.e. does not obey general relativity. My point is that neither does the Schrodinger equation. The Dirac equation is often said to be a relativistic Schrodinger equation, but it is only a Taylor approximation of one (and a very good one it is). I have sometimes toyed with the idea of trying to work out a relativistic Bohm equation, but so far I have not (it might be mathematically impossible).

[DarkStar7]

My approach to Science is much more general by looking and asking myself simple questions, researching a wide range of theories and doing thought experiments and then comparing them with already established ideas and tested theories. Most theories are right to a degree but many are not complete.

The best fractal that comes to mind is the Romanescu Cauliflower... But the veins in your body even your DNA is a fractal. Not to mention weather and financial markets.

If space-time were not fractal then what is the smallest object made of?

Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea pondered this. Can you divide objects down infinitely or not. If not why not?

[username]

I see things in my line of work with fractal character all the time but the emphasis should be put on 'character'. They only show that they are of fractal character at the length scales that I analyse them at, they are not a true fractal with extended self similarity. However by using that self similarity I can develop an equation that describes data, specifically the curvature of interfaces and their roughness. It doesn't extend to the macroscopic though and the way I understand it if it was a true fractal it should.

I only know my science I'm afraid and I can't talk about it the same statiscal framework that Michael can.

If the universe as we know it is truely fractally based then we are part of an aberation on the space time surface and therefore we exist in a train station locker as in Men in Black II and have a universe in our own train station lockers. Our fight against entropy must be repeated in both directions. That's basically what you're saying yeah?

[DarkStar7]

I believe the Universe is based mainly on a Finbonachi series fractal.

So anyhow if a photon enters a gravitation well and continues to orbit the singularity then this light is no longer traveling at 300 x 10m/s, as relative to a stationary observer it effectively is not moving. It's trajectory is measured more in frequency c/s or Hz.

If we look down the 4D vortex of a BH we see what looks like the electromagnetic spectrum. Gravity (curved spacetime)is converted into electromagnetic radiation (twisted spacetime)and right in the heart of the singularity bosons are converted into fermionic quarks via some Higgs process, or magnetic monopole event.. Then we have the Top and Anti top quarks that can decay quicker than they can annihilate themselves. For every matter particle produced by contracting space-time the universe expands out in the other direction.

[RobH]

My approach to Science is much more general by looking and asking myself simple questions, researching a wide range of theories and doing thought experiments and then comparing them with already established ideas and tested theories. Most theories are right to a degree but many are not complete.

Your approach is the same as the approach that the ancient Greeks took, where scholars talked and debated their various ideas and decided, after much deliberation, which was correct.

This is philosophy, not science.

Modern science can be traced back to the 16th and 17th centuries and absolutely requires independently verifiable experimental proof, and then is required to make testable predictions, in order to become a valid theory. Anything else, whilst it may be the basis for an interesting discussion over a few beers, isn't science.

Michael has asked some valid questions that your hypothesis should be able to provide some answers to.

At the moment though, without any answers to the valid questions that have been asked of it, your hypothesis is somewhat reminiscent of the famous Monty Python sketch.......

[DarkStar7]

The thing is that the Science of Chaos of fractals and complexity presents us with a natural world that is indeterminate. Science requires repeatability of measurement .This is probably why the discussion of Chaos science is only whispered by professional scientists. However it is not ignored, and is popping up in all areas of science, even quantum physics, but it a taboo subject. Science prefers a clockwork universe. It is unfortunate that nature works this way, but who are we to tell nature how to work.

You may call what I say philosophy, I'm comfortable with that. I am certainly not a Spiritualist believer. I am not always right and hope to learn by my mistakes. I dont seek a certificate to impress or letters after my name, I do not seek personal gain, I just wish to get a true understanding of nature.

I must admit since Einsteins time much of Science is shameful and corrupt for seeking personal and commercial and political gain over truth.Being out of the system gives me the a unique perspective.

I truelly believe I can see this world with this extra fractal spatial dimension of scale.. and it's beautiful

[DarkStar7]

There are many Scientific papers such as from Laurent Nottale and such like which may come close to answering the questions posed above but presenting them here will not help the debate because of the indeterminable nature of nature. Science today is stifled by those who are in the right circles who can steer science for their own ambitions. For example inflation theory is not a theory at all and can not be proved but is accepted because of the correct observational evidence of an expanding universe. The hypothesis of inflation breaks many rules of thermodynamics and conservation laws etc.The big bang models observation evidence is not in question but the frame work of the model is wrong. Yet it is accepted by those in positions of influence.While more credible theories are thrown out because they can't proved completely. I for one prefer a sensible theory that is not complete, over one that is ridiculous but 'believed' by the experts. Don't trust the modern day experts!

For equalibrium an expanding universe must have space-time that is collapsing somewhere else. Logical!

[DarkStar7]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618102826.htm

Interesting

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The discussion of chaos science is not whispered at all. It is an active area of research. There are entire journals devoted to it. Chaos theory makes precise predictions, not on the outcome of a single experiment, but on the statistics of the outcomes of many experiments. It has this in common with quantum mechanics. By acquiring many measurements we can verify predictions.

I assume you mean Fibonacci fractal. The next question is why that one? The Fibonacci sequence occurs often in nature, bu not so much the Fibonacci fractal (which is quite an artificial construct).

[JulianO]

For example inflation theory is not a theory at all and can not be proved but is accepted because of the correct observational evidence of an expanding universe. The hypothesis of inflation breaks many rules of thermodynamics and conservation laws etc.

Care to explain exactly how inflation breaks some of the most cherished laws of physics?

[DarkStar7]

The discussion of chaos science is not whispered at all. It is an active area of research. There are entire journals devoted to it. Chaos theory makes precise predictions, not on the outcome of a single experiment, but on the statistics of the outcomes of many experiments. It has this in common with quantum mechanics. By acquiring many measurements we can verify predictions.

Chaos theory can NOT make precise predictions because by its very mature small permutations over time can have large changes in the final result. It is indeterminate. Classic Science is determinate. Classic Science prefers a clockwork universe. One where we have precise result.This is why mathematical renormalisation is used to remove chaos from any cosmological theory.Chaos theory is used only in very clear indeterminate areas such as financial markets and meteorology.

Why should the universe sometimes use fractals and other times not?

I personally have never seen perfect geometric shapes in the natural world.

I stated that it is a fractal universe, you say it isn't. Inside the quantum singularity at the plank scale the mathematics are renormalised because the physics apparently breaks down. If we left the infinities there doesn't it mean inside the plank limit there is something else? Why can't there be something inside the plank limit and something inside that ad infinitum?

If the answer is the universe is not a fractal.Then there must be a point where the universe stops.If the universe is bounded and has a size it would then contradictory because it would have to be an object contained in something else! It would have to have an outside.

If the infinitely small contains everything including the infinitely large then we do not have this issue.

Ok the start of this thread was we are made of light. Using Big Bang theory everything was borrowed from nothing and made everything. Since everything in the universe came from nothing, including light and us then the discussion still holds.

So what date did it all start?.. was it on a Wednesday? lol

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Chaos theory can NOT make precise predictions because by its very mature small permutations over time can have large changes in the final result. It is indeterminate. Classic Science is determinate. Classic Science prefers a clockwork universe. One where we have precise result.This is why mathematical renormalisation is used to remove chaos from any cosmological theory.Chaos theory is used only in very clear indeterminate areas such as financial markets and meteorology.

Apparently you have not understood my argument, or the nature of chaos theory at the mathematical level. I stated chaos theory cannot predict a single outcome precisely (here we agree), but it can predict the outcome of an esemble of experiments at the statistical level (and this is one point you missed). No matter of emphasis on the "not" will change this. See the work of Babloyantz on chaos theory and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. This is a recurring theme in physics, in statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory, which is a part of classical mechanics. Chaos theory (and this point is frequently misunderstood) is actually deterministic. Given an exact initial state, the future state can be determined into the distant future, provided we have an infinitely precise solver (like an analytical solution). In practise this may not exist. However, the Shadowing Lemma (and not the one from Terry Pratchett) shows that even with finite precision math a numerical simulation will stay arbitrarily close to at least one orbit of the system through state space (in other words it "shadows" some trajectory). By performing a sufficiently large number of simulations with differing initial states we can make predictions in a statistical sense.

Inflation is actually called upon in cosmology to explain why the universe as a whole appears to be near parabolic (i.e. is nearly flat at the cosmic scale). The cosmologists worried that only a very small space of initial conditions could lead to a universe as we see it today. By including inflation a much larger ensemble of initial big-bang states would yield a universe similar to what we see. You are of course right that current theories are intermediates between rather poor models we used to have (like Aristotelian mechanics) and some perfect (Platonic if you like) theory of life, the universe and everything.

Why should the universe sometimes use fractals and other times not?

I personally have never seen perfect geometric shapes in the natural world.

Apart from the isodensity surfaces of the s orbitals of an electron in a hydrogen atom? (and yes i know these are usually perturbed)

Besides, many shapes are neither perfect geometric shapes nor fractals. Real natural shapes will have a "natural messiness" at some level, and the ideal mathematical constructs found in theories are only ever approximations of the real world. The truth is ultimately unknowable.

I stated that it is a fractal universe, you say it isn't. Inside the quantum singularity at the plank scale the mathematics are renormalised because the physics apparently breaks down. If we left the infinities there doesn't it mean inside the plank limit there is something else? Why can't there be something inside the plank limit and something inside that ad infinitum?

No I stated I have not seen any indication it is fractal. Again you are using the word "singularity" in an odd, non-mathematical fashion, and that means we are most likely talking at crossed purposes. Our theories of what goes on at Planck (please include the "c") scale are not very good, especially in the sense that they are not very testable.

If the answer is the universe is not a fractal.Then there must be a point where the universe stops.If the universe is bounded and has a size it would then contradictory because it would have to be an object contained in something else! It would have to have an outside.

This kind of reasoning without the aid of mathematics is prone to error. First of all, the fractal nature can equally require infinitely small scales repeating a structure that potentially started out at a finite size. If space is curved we could see it as a 3D "surface" of a 4D "balloon", which is finite but has no boundaries in the 3D curve subspace. Besides, the initial singularity of the big bang could be infinitely large, and yet coud still explode and grow larger (see Hilbert's Hotel)

If the infinitely small contains everything including the infinitely large then we do not have this issue.

Again, see Hilbert's Hotel

Ok the start of this thread was we are made of light. Using Big Bang theory everything was borrowed from nothing and made everything. Since everything in the universe came from nothing, including light and us then the discussion still holds.

So what date did it all start?.. was it on a Wednesday? lol

Everything was not borrowed from nothing according to many theories. Vacuum had a non-zero energy density, and this is unstable. A symmetry-breaking phase transition took place and vacuum became zero-energy density filled with energetic particles.

And finally, you have still not said how a spin=0, charge=0 particle transforms into a spin=1/2, charge=-e particle without violating conservation of angular momentum and charge.

[DarkStar7]

Care to explain exactly how inflation breaks some of the most cherished laws of physics?

It was born in a singularity,where the laws of physics are stated to break down.

It occurred faster than light.

Where was the energy borrowed from?

Why did it happen at a specific time not earlier or later?

Inflation is not a theory it is a supporting hypothesis to the big bang theory.

I prefer the energy in universe to increase and form particles with every increase in size of universe.

Particles produced out of the void at a rate related to universal expansion.

We know the universe is expanding, we know there are high energy cosmic rays. We have cause and effect.

Inflation borrows energy from nowhere!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

It was born in a singularity,where the laws of physics are stated to break down.

It occurred faster than light.

Where was the energy borrowed from?

Why did it happen at a specific time not earlier or later?

Inflation is not a theory it is a supporting hypothesis to the big bang theory.

I prefer the energy in universe to increase and form particles with every increase in size of universe.

Particles produced out of the void at a rate related to universal expansion.

We know the universe is expanding, we know there are high energy cosmic rays. We have cause and effect.

Inflation borrows energy from nowhere!

I already answered that: non-zero vacuum energy density.

[DarkStar7]

I'm sorry but I must continue to disagree with chaos theory being deterministic. You can statistically see trends and patterns of cycles but at anytime the result from a system involving a degree of chaos can go into a completely unexpected state. It is never deterministic.

Please can show me evidence to the contrary.

[JulianO]

It was born in a singularity,where the laws of physics are stated to break down.

It came after the singularity, where laws of physics are reasonably well known.

It occurred faster than light.

Space expanded faster than the speed of light, which is allowed under relativity. So works fine with the current theories, but is perhaps a little unusual.

Where was the energy borrowed from?

Why did it happen at a specific time not earlier or later?

Energy stored in the false vacuum, see Guth. Timing I think comes from the "slow roll" down the slope from the false vacuum.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The non-determinism is only apparent, because in any real system the current state is never known perfectly. A chaotic system is fully deterministic, whatever you say.

[DarkStar7]

Alan Guth, says the universe started from a 'negative' energy vacuum density.

It is more likely the negative energy causing universal expansion ie dark energy is producing positive energy in the void and producing high energy particles.

[DarkStar7]

Juliano, you have no evidence for original faster than light inflation. Faster than light inflation is hypothetical construct from maths. You can't express it as fact. No one has ever witnessed anything travelling faster than light. Alan Guth 's inflation is used to support observation evidence of an expanding universe because no one had a better idea.

No one has added all the new stuff popping out of the void. Each little cosmic ray particle contains almost infinite energy, within it's own singularity!

[JulianO]

Juliano, you have no evidence for original faster than light inflation. Faster than light inflation is hypothetical construct from maths. You can't express it as fact. No one has ever witnessed anything travelling faster than light. Alan Guth 's inflation is used to support observation evidence of an expanding universe because no one had a better idea.

I don't say its fact, in fact (npi) I have doubts about inflation myself, although I'm not really in a position to challenge it, but I don't think it "breaks many rules of thermodynamics and conservation laws".

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Darkstar7, you are constantly complaining (incorrectly) that existing theories violate physical laws, but you still haven't been able to repair the glaring ones in your own. Stating there are gaps in other theories (and there are plenty of things we do not fully understand) does not in itself make your theories right.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Regarding the deterministic nature of chaotic systems, let us look at their definition. A chaotic system is any system described by ordinary differential equation, which have Lyapunov exponents with positive real parts in at least a part of their state space. What this means is that any minute change in state will cause the system to diverge exponentially away from the original orbit (at least initially).

The very fact that the system is described by ordinary differential equations means it is deterministic. The current state determines the future fully, in the absence of external forces. In practice you do not know the state perfectly, and there are external influence (also unknown).

It came as a great surprise that deterministic systems could be unpredictable. By contrast, systems described by stochastic differential equations have randomness built in, so unpredictable behaviour is to be expected. Even so, these stochastic differential equations still make predictions in terms of the average behaviour of a system, and the expected variance.

[DarkStar7]

Darkstar7, you are constantly complaining (incorrectly) that existing theories violate physical laws, but you still haven't been able to repair the glaring ones in your own. Stating there are gaps in other theories (and there are plenty of things we do not fully understand) does not in itself make your theories right.

Michael,

I stated that inflation breaks physical laws, and many theories are incomplete. I stated there is room for fractal and chaos in areas physics that where there is room for debate. As for inflation It has been excepted although I do not agree that space time can be separated from electromagnetic radiation and can travel separately faster than light. This is necessary for the inflation hypothesis to work. I think the inflation hypothesis is Guth. I must make it clear the observational evidence for the big bang is correct.

I think it is continually happening today all around us but is offset by the formation of micro gravitation singularities that are at the heart of fermions. The void itself is continually producing particles and antiparticles continuously but at every point in the subatomic but for the most part are very short lived and cancel out.

This quantum foam only exists at the subatomic because the forth spatial dimension begins to curve towards the universes singularity. This singularity is the same singularity that exists when anything is accelerated to the speed of light, either in special relativity in 3D space or in a 4th fractal scale dimension ie inside all fermions.

What I write may also be Guth..lol but it's what I presently think until someone convinces me of something better. Yes I can't prove anything, but current physics using the classical deterministic science and renormalisation trickery of mathematics can also not prove anything at the singularity.

The ideas I put forward are an not solely my own but contain in them good hypothesis that have been ignored because they can't be proved but are very good ideas none the less.

For example...

http://145.238.179.4/~luthier/nottale/arIJMP2.pdf

[DarkStar7]

Micheal,

I obviously confused indeterminism with unpredictability. Oops sorry. Still my point is that Chaos and fractals are disliked because the outcomes of experiments are unrepeatable.

Science prefers to have experiments with results that are always repeatable in order to call it a proof. There are many papers like Evans field theory and other gauge theories that are dismissed because the messy maths can't ever prove the theory, yet visually may be much representative of how nature works.

I can not prove my hypothesis but it makes perfect sense to me.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Michael,

I stated that inflation breaks physical laws, and many theories are incomplete. I stated there is room for fractal and chaos in areas physics that where there is room for debate. As for inflation It has been excepted although I do not agree that space time can be separated from electromagnetic radiation and can travel separately faster than light. This is necessary for the inflation hypothesis to work. I think the inflation hypothesis is Guth. I must make it clear the observational evidence for the big bang is correct.

I think it is continually happening today all around us but is offset by the formation of micro gravitation singularities that are at the heart of fermions. The void itself is continually producing particles and antiparticles continuously but at every point in the subatomic but for the most part are very short lived and cancel out.

This quantum foam only exists at the subatomic because the forth spatial dimension begins to curve towards the universes singularity. This singularity is the same singularity that exists when anything is accelerated to the speed of light, either in special relativity in 3D space or in a 4th fractal scale dimension ie inside all fermions.

What I write may also be Guth..lol but it's what I presently think until someone convinces me of something better. Yes I can't prove anything, but current physics using the classical deterministic science and renormalisation trickery of mathematics can also not prove anything at the singularity.

The ideas I put forward are an not solely my own but contain in them good hypothesis that have been ignored because they can't be proved but are very good ideas none the less.

For example...

http://145.238.179.4...ale/arIJMP2.pdf

You are right when you say inflation is an unproven hypothesis, but you are wrong when you say inflation breaks laws of physics. If it did, it would have suffered a barrage of criticism in scientific journals. It does not violate laws of thermodynamics, or general relativity (we had to show this in cosmology class). Space may expand at arbitrary rates (although bits get causally decoupled). The hypothesis you propose violates several laws, yet you choose to ignore that. This is not a matter of sloppy maths. I know of no observation of photons turning into single fermions, as suggested by your theory. I know of myriads of photons turning into pairs of fermions (or single uncharged mesons).

The endless repetition of the same arguments in this thread must remind many reader of Monty Python sketch, which contains the following fragment:

"Yes, it is!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes, it is!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes, it is!"

"This in not an argument, it is plain contradiction!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes, it is!"

.....

repeat ad nauseam