What is the current understanding of time in modern physics?

[Antonio Lao]

Can you show correspondance of the graviton, as a double torus genus two?

It seems that i can show this only in a one dimensional topological structure of the Hopf ring.

 

[Antonio Lao]

sol2,

With regard to dimension, I going the opposite of what Michio Kaku suggested. He suggested going to higher dimension for unification. I am working on a theory that can only make sense in one dimension of space.

 

[Antonio Lao]

sol2,

The unification of U(1), SU(2), SU(3), and gravity maybe beyond the Planck scale seems to indicate to me that the resultant force derived from all fundamental orthogonal forces of nature in a small region of spacetime is tremendous because they are the vector sum of the infinite numbers of spacetime point each is associated with a contant magnitude force but its direction can vary. But to think that there must be a reason why the gravitational force is very weak is because gravity is the difference between two great orthogonal forces that are not equal in their numerical values.

$$F_G = F_E - F_B$$

and that antigravity is given by

$$F_G = F_B - F_E$$

Both gravity and antigravity are the difference of the projected forces in an arbitrary axis.

 

[Antonio Lao]

sol2,

For p-branes, the topologies are the p numbers of projected plane. So branes topology are good for particles with 1/2 integer spin.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Is there a connection in how we are view the higher aspects of geometry in regard to probabiilty determinations?

The random quantum fluctuations of the vacuum are good indications that spacetime points are quantized with their six orthogonal forces. The random orientations of their directions give rise to two distinct topologies. The probability arises from this fundamental random fluctuations of the directions. In some case, H-plus is dominant, in other case H-minus is dominant. When a lot of H-minus combined together, the inertial mass is increase creating black holes and to balance the forces, the H-pluses expand as noted by the universal expansion. There seems to be a 2 to 1 ratio between the formation of H-plus and H-minus.

 

[sol2]

I just got the opportunity to go over your posts now. I will need some time to think over what you are saying and will try to respond appropriately. I'll be doing that tomorrow.

Antonio:The unification of U(1), SU(2), SU(3), and gravity maybe beyond the Planck scale seems to indicate to me that the resultant force derived from all fundamental orthogonal forces of nature in a small region of spacetime is tremendous because they are the vector sum of the infinite numbers of spacetime point each is associated with a contant magnitude force but its direction can vary. But to think that there must be a reason why the gravitational force is very weak is because gravity is the difference between two great orthogonal forces that are not equal in their numerical values.

One of the puzzles for me in consideration of supersymmetry at a early time in the universe formation, requires such consistancy.

Antonio:From the interactions, they seem to indicate two kinds of mass. represents kinetic mass and represents potential mass which is another name for inertial mass and gravitational mass. Therefore, the graviton is made of exclusively. But can also be derived from the interaction between an and an . In this case, it's a higher excitation state of the graviton. Basically, all fermions are higher excitation states of the fundamental unit graviton . And all bosons are higher excitation states of the fundamental unit . Both H's are the square of energy .

I was trying to think of how I might have seen your points in terms of $H^{-}$
and $H^{+}$ in dynamcal movement, consistant from that early universe. This presents interesting comparisons to energy conversation to matter states. As you pointed out it would be quite strong in this supersymmetrical state, yet in terms of expansitory relevance, we are defining this action to end in a weak field manifestation? The gravitons are already in the bulk. You might want to correct my thinking here.

A topological space is described as being simply connected if every loop it contains can be shrunk to a single point; a loop with this property is called contractible. For example, ordinary Euclidean space is simply connected, and so is the surface of a sphere, but the surface of a doughnut isn't. The group of rotations in three dimensions, SO(3), is not simply connected, because the set of rotations around any fixed direction by angles ranging from – to forms a loop that is not contractible. This becomes clear if you picture SO(3) as a solid sphere of radius , with a rotation by the angle around an axis pointing in the direction of a unit vector u being represented by the vector u. Antipodal points on the surface of the sphere correspond to identical rotations, so any continuous path that crosses the surface must re-appear on the opposite side of the sphere. Having formed a loop from any diameter of the sphere, the two endpoints of the diameter will necessarily remain on opposite sides. Gathering up portions of the loop and poking them through the surface won't make the loop contractible, because doing this to any segment that lies between two points on the surface breaks the original segment in three, and only pairs of such segments could be contracted down to points.

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/21/DiracNotes.html

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/21/21.html

 

[Antonio Lao]

Sol2,

The theory of H-plus and H-minus, as you might have already noticed, is time independent because its variables are metrics and orthogonal forces.

But the topological structure and because of its dynamic, can also represent a chronon (quantum of time).

If we needed time incorporated into the theory, then the forces must be expressed in the time rate of change of linear momenta. When these are done, we get a generalized double actions integral which is numerically equal or greater than the square of Planck's constant.

$$\int_{0}^{\infty} \int_{\infty}^{0}\left[E^2\right]\,dt_1\,dt_2 \geq h^2$$

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Riemannian geometry is static. But if the geometry is dynamic, i.e. introducing a force into the geometry, then the sphere can never be a closed surface.

Certainly the geometry of space-time is dynamic. Each dimension is a force unwrapping the space in a direction perpendicular to all previous.
The fourth too. Therefore the cube in the fourth dimension is transformed to sphere.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Therefore the cube in the fourth dimension is transformed to sphere.

Then in the fifth, the 4-sphere is transformed back to a cube? Could you write down the transform matrix for me?

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Then in the fifth, the 4-sphere is transformed back to a cube? Could you write down the transform matrix for me?

Cube and corresponding matrixes it is the STATICS. Rotation of a cube concerning all three coordinates forms a sphere. The fifth and the following dimensions are sphere too because any rotation of sphere gives a sphere in the result.
We can observe spheres in the nature. Such form have atoms, planets, stars and the universe itself. But where you saw a cube in the nature? Crystal lattice this three-dimensional internal structure of four-dimensional object.

Michael.

 

[sol2]

If we entertain the sphere these are interesting ideas.


How would they compare to the Klein bottle back to back, or compare to the mobius band?

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

If we entertain the sphere these are interesting ideas.


How would they compare to the Klein bottle back to back, or compare to the mobius band?

The sphere is not a simple figure. Its surface does not contain direct lines.
The sphere can be received through rotation of a cube only.
It satisfies to the requirement of a principle of perpendicularity to all previous dimensions.
Except of that, we lIve in the dynamic space which was valid named as "SPACETIME".

 

[sol2]

The sphere is not a simple figure. Its surface does not contain direct lines.
The sphere can be received through rotation of a cube only.
It satisfies to the requirement of a principle of perpendicularity to all previous dimensions.
Except of that, we lIve in the dynamic space which was valid named as "SPACETIME".

I understood your example to Antonio the first time

To reduce topological movement to a coordinate system?

We still focus on GR, but I think we tend to forget that people were seeing the higher geometries even while Einstein was looking at Reinmann and his graduation speech. We have to thank Gauss:)(rephrase his name if you will:) for his developements and the success of his teachings?

Also the success of leaving Euclid's postulates to a fifth, and how could we not have accepted non-euclidean coordinates?