search words. QUANTUM MINIMUM LENGTH STRUCTURE,superspaces, Topology, process physics, space time meshing, 3-space, strings, hologram, symmetry, dimensions,spin foam, loop quantum gravity, twistors, evolution, space-time, pregeometry, instanton, preon, universe, packing and kissing, metron, Deformed Special Relativity.




There is new info. SEE TOMORROWS_BIG_BANG

The old blogs were deleted and I saved them as pfblogrecovered.htm without formating

OR YOU CAN GO TO symmetrically structured spacetime, SUMMARY OF MY THREADS

You are going to need a bit of help. So read, Gerard 't Hooft and his two papers
Quantization of Point Particles in 2+1 Dimensional Gravity and Space-Time Discreteness
For basic physics read
Warren Siegel, High energy physics from easy to hard

I am always stimulated by the wealth of ideas that I am finding on the web. If what I have been thought/learned is wrong then my conclusions will be wrong. (They are no longer teaching that the sun is going around the earth!)

QUANTUM MINIMUM LENGTH STRUCTURE -QMLS is what I will be presenting.
It is from this first principle that our universe has evolved.
I have shown two ways of understanding minimum length. Let's look at the SPOT example first.
Here is my picture of one energy node and 3 “nul” nodes. The uncertainty is at the location … 1, 2, 3, or 4. Let’s see if you have been paying attention. The devil is in the details. If the energy density is at position # 1 then the uncertainty will be between position #1 and position # 3. Why? Because position # 2 is too close for minimum scale and position # 4 is too far for minimum scale and too close to position # 1. Therefore, the uncertainty will be between position # 1 and # 3.
There is NO uncertainty of the minimum length and of the minimum structure. The only uncertainty is the measurement. The uncertainty is in determining position # 1 or position # 3. The uncertainty principle does not apply to the “actual” structure only to its measurement. It is not an appropriate use of the Uncertainty Principle.
Quantum Mechanics and the Generalized Uncertainty Principle Jang Young Bang_ and Micheal S. Berger†
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS We have derived the generalized uncertainty principle from a toy model of discretized space by considering quantum mechanics on a circle where the compacification involves the momentum. This model may be useful in exploring how the ultraviolet limit is approached in more realistic models of discrete spacetime or models of quantum gravity with a fundamental or minimum length. This may result in an improved understanding of the origin of the generalized uncertainty principle in theories of quantum gravity.
What do you want to see?
It’s all the same thing.
The uncertainty (location of the energy density, 6 of them) can only be at one of those 24 locations on the Bloch sphere. (a 2d sphere, a hollow ball)
The “Quantum Minimum Length Structure”-QMLS

Experiment # 1
Get a pack of sticky circles from your office supply store. Mark six of them with a big “E”. It represents Energy in all its possible forms. The circle represents the smallest possible scale at which energy is contained. It is the Planck Area. It is the smallest distance that energy can travel. Your circles will look like the following arrangement.

You cannot put the Planck scale energy nodes any closer than shown. They must be separated by a “nul” node of no energy. Therefore, the minimum total surface area is 24 Planck units.
Experiment # 2
Get an orange that has a circumference of those six circles. Stick your circle on the orange. You have now proven that the minimum size of a Planck Sphere is 24,(l) in area and that there can only be six Planck size ENERGY in a Planck size sphere. Play with it. You will be able to find all kinds of quantum geometry relationships, like Hex. packing.
Experiment # 3
Now, lets go to 3d. From the 2d arrangement, we will take one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the X plane. Then one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the Y plane. Then one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the Z plane. Mathematically, "This is a spatially distributed complex function and is represented by a complex plane 6 dimensional function (x,y,z,ix,iy,iz) in the real most general three dimensional case.” To me, it is just the real location of the 2d energy in a 3d configuration. That will make a total of 6 energy nodes and 18 “nul” nodes.
This will make a 3d sphere that has 3 energy nodes and 9 “nul” nodes. From the previous 2d energy distribution we can get two (2) 3d spheres that contain 3 energy nodes and 9 “nul” nodes. Each sphere will have a total of 12 nodes.

How many energy nodes does a proton or a neutron have? We call them “quarks”.
Do you have a model that can generate “quarks”?
A physicist will quickly point out that the total energy of a proton or a neutron is not the sum of the 3 quarks. There is something else making up the total energy. How right! Let’s put the proton into the 3d spacetime configuration that I have worked out, the 12 hex. packing of 12 spheres. There is plenty of room. 12 spheres X 12 nodes = 144 nodes that are available. A proton will only use 12 nodes.

All of the above has been derived for “first principles”. The speed of light is CONSTANT. If you change the speed of light then you have changed the distance, (l), that light must travel. © as a constant depend directly on (l) the distance. It does not depend on the size of (l). Therefore, (l) can be 10^-33 or even 10^-18.
The speed of light is a constant. Therefore, the distance, (l), that light travels is a constant. It has always been a constant.
Another paper …. Another small step towards using the Quantum Minimum Length Structure (QMLS) This approach could be applied to find out what is happening on a membrane; both are 2D.
Loop quantization of spherically symmetric midi-superspaces
Miguel Campiglia1, Rodolfo Gambini1, Jorge Pullin
27 March 2007
We quantize the exterior of spherically symmetric vacuum space-times using a midi-superspace reduction within the Ashtekar new variables. Through a partial gauge fixing we eliminate the diffeomorphism constraint and are left with a Hamiltonian constraint that is first class. We complete the quantization in the loop representation. We also use the model to discuss the issues that will arise in more general contexts in the “uniform discretization” approach to the dynamics. p.12 If one adopts the point of view commonly used in loop quantum cosmology, that the quantum of distance should have a minimum value, then one would not expect to take the limit ñ going to zero, but to keep the parameters at a minimum value. In such a case one could expect to eliminate the singularity. This is plausible since then the triads would likely not go to zero.
Have we seen a Quantum minimum length image?
I can only quote T.D. Visser. Look at his picture of the 3 slit experiment p. 5.
You will see the minimum length structure.
Once you have understood the concept of “minimum length” you will be able to see that it is the fundamental building block of EVERYTHING and that it is observable everywhere., including giving an insight into the Double Slit Experiment (DSE).
Read the links on “Structuralism”. You will find the explanations much better than my efforts. Quantum Gravity Meets Structuralism: Interweaving Relations in the Fundation of Physics by Dean Rickles and Steven French
Also, Lucien Hardy "Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms"

A name for the ABOVE FIGURE would be a HYPERBOLIC Stellated Tetrahedron/stella octangula/Self-Dual Polyhedron /Tetrahedron 2-Compound. This is the shape of the PLANCK SCALE VOID that is created from spinning/rotating a 2D PLANCK SIZE WAVE. As a result, we obtain THE 3D UNIVERSE THAT WE PERCEIVE.

The largest number of unit in a circles which can touch a given unit circle is six. For spheres, the maximum number is 12.

What you are looking at is the 3d topology of a space particle. This shape was probably discovered by a CAVEMAN when he looked inside the packed balls of rabbit droppings. There are records of this shape going back to early civilization.

I am showing you the interior topology of that spot/instanton/preon/particle of space. This is what you get when you spin/rotate each of the four position of the 2d "spot". Packed Spheres. (follow the links to learn more ...ball, hyperspheres, hypersphere packing)

It will take a future "math. kid" to express this into formulas that tie in with formulas being used by scientists.

This is a 2d version of space, circle packing, it contains/explains The Inverse Square Law (ISL) and the Uncertainty Principle. Since the volume is not affected by having cubic close packing or hexagonal close packing, then it is possible for a 3d spot to be in either configuration. As a result, the visible macro effects could be the reason EMF travel as a wave as well as the afore mentioned.

Here is the minimum size of a 2D sphere made up of Planck size waves. Do not forget the two waves on the z axis, which are not shown. This is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.

The red is forbidden. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.

The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay flat all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some up spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.

Of course it is ..... Lay out those six 2D waves on the flat. (you will need 24 positions) Which of course means that the universe is made from 2D waves seperated by a Planck distance. No higher dimensions needed. :D

James G. Gilson with Stochastic Simulation of The Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum has worked the math that I needed to demonstrate 2D packing.


We must take seriously the holographic claim in any number of dimensions, then our results are therefore evidence against the existence of extra dimensions. Generalized Uncertainty Principle, Extra-dimensions and Holography
Doing the next scaling 2X means that the 6 Planck waves would also scale and that now we would have a manifestation in 12 positions.
Doing the dynamics is in future development Just as predicted in my 3D packing presentation. (The circle around the 12 sphere is suppose to be a sphere)
Lets see .. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had? 2(3(2 pi ))? Ghee!!!! Thing sure are growing bigger and faster. How far are we from 10^-18? We have definitely left Planck Scale.

Therefore, what we do at the Planck scale can be scaled up in size to the 3D packing and every relationship will scale accordingly. There will still be nothing inside.
Some people might find it easier to relate to my model by thinking about “Bloch ball or Bloch sphere”.
1. The surface of the “Bloch ball or Bloch sphere” is what we are “experiencing”.
2. Then Planck Scale gives is the minimum size and the distribution of those pure states (2D packing).
3. Then because the speed of light is a constant that means that those pure state do not have to be at the Planck scale. Their size will be determined by experimental observations.

Now! ... that is a nightmare. Now! ... that is holography.

The real thing is projected and the attributes are scaled.

Where is the real thing?
It's the 2D structure
So now ... what have we got? ...NEW PHYSICS and The answer to a lot of questions.
Why the fine structure constant?
Why is there so much empty space?
Why is the structure the way it is?
Why have we got a wave?
What is the mechanism for uncertainty?
What is the structure for the 2D membrane?
What is a starting place for M-Theory?
What is the structure of quantum foam/ZeroPointEnergy?
On .... and .... on.
The challenge will be for the "math kids" to formalize and make a dynamic model of spacetime and rediscover what I've been saying.

Here is a good starting place.

Quantum Geometry & New Concept of Space

Quantum geometry is a generalization of classical geometry. It incorporates various ideas and concepts of quantum physics, into the world of geometry. Quantum geometry deals with quantum spaces. In classical geometry spaces are always understandable as collections of points equipped with the appropriate additional structure. Quantum spaces are not viewable in this way. In general, quantum spaces have no points at all! They exhibit non-trivial quantum fluctuations of geometry at all scales. At the formal level, quantum spaces are described by certain non-commutative complex *-algebras. The elements of these algebras are interpretable as functions over the associated quantum spaces. Classical geometry is the commutative sector of quantum geometry. It is believed that quantum geometry could provide a consistent description of space-time at the level of ultra-small distances where classical concepts of the space-time continuum are not applicable. In principle, this could give the appropriate mathematical framework to formulate a coherent quantum theory of fundamental interactions.

Also, A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry, by Micho Durdevich

A very interesting potential application of quantum geometry in physics is to provide a mathematically coherent description of the physical space-time, at all scales---in particular at the level of ultra-small distances, characterized by the Planck length. Non-commutative geometry has a great conceptual value for the study of classical spaces. In many situations, the proofs of the theorems of classical geometry become more elegant and transparent if performed at the quantum level. The language of local coordinates, open sets and points, characteristic for classical geometry, sometimes hides the true geometrical structure. On the other hand, in non-commutative geometry we are a priory forced to work with the global entities inherently connected with the existing geometrical structure.

Self-consistency in Theories with a Minimal Length
The aim of this paper is to clarify the relation between three different approaches of theories with a minimal length scale: A modification of the Lorentz-group in the Deformed Special Relativity, theories with a Generalized Uncertainty Principle and those with Modified Dispersion Relations. It is shown that the first two are equivalent, how they can be translated into each other, and how the third can be obtained from them. An adequate theory with a minimal length scale requires all three features to be present.
We have shown that theories with a Generalized Uncertainty Principle are equivalent to these with a Deformed Special Relativity and that they can be obtained from each other in a straightforward way. We have derived how both result in a modified version of the dispersion relation, which needs not necessarily imply a varying speed of light. The explicit translations between the existing approaches have been given. Provided that all three modifications are made together, the framework is self-consistent and can be used to extend the Standard Model.

Not to be ignored. "Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond"
I used a different approach. The results are too similar to ignore. There are 112 pages to read.
Did Alexei Kitaev obey the Planck scale rule?
Perhaps the 4S model is the one that he needs.
The first and most obvious candidate that needs to be confirmed or disproved is the quantum Planck scale void. We have the mathematical tools ( quantum geometry) that can be applied to make predictions for the next round of experiments at CERN. Will the experimental tools be adequate or will we have to pass on the problem to the next generation?
My future search will be to look for the progress that is being made by our generation of experts.
If your searches find anything. Feel free to link it in the thread.
quivalent to the SchrNodinger representation of quantum mechanics. As a concrete implementation of our formalism, the simple harmonic oscillaIs it possible to have music? Of course! cHere is the math that can be applied to the gspoth?
ccwavesc. Planck void c.. quantum geometry c. 2 dimensions
"Hamiltonian and physical Hilbert space in polymer quantum mechanics"
Authors: Alejandro Corichi, Tatjana Vukasinac, Jose A. Zapata Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006
The dynamics is constructed as a continuum limit of effective theories characterized by a scale, and requires a renormalization of the inner product. The result is a physical Hilbert space in which the continuum Hamiltonian can be represented and that is unitarily etor is fully developed.


Also, if you put ..ccwavesc.... Planck void ...c.. quantum geometry ...c. 2 dimensions together you also get a new approach called The Group Field Theory.
see "Invited contribution: Daniele Oriti Thursday, November 02, 2006"
" The group field theory approach to quantum gravity Daniele Oriti"
08 July 2006
"Hidden Quantum Gravity in 4d Feynman diagrams:Emergence of spin foams Aristide Baratin, Laurent Freidel
03 Nov 2006"

Spin foam models give a well defined framework allowing to address the dynamical problem of quantizing gravity in a background independent manner, and provide a description of quantum space-times in a purely algebraic and combinatorial way [1]. The state of development is such that one can now propose, for Euclidean 4-dimensional pure gravity, well defined and finite quantum gravity transition amplitudes, which are independent of any triangulation or undesirable discrete structure [2].
So in summary, the spin foam hypothesis implies that usual Feynman graph can be expressed as the expectation value of certain observables in a topological spin foam model based on the PoincarLe group. The validity of such a statement is for us a non-trivial check in support of the spin foam hypothesis.
The check is fourfold:
first, spin foam should arise naturally in Feynman integrals;
second, the spin model should agree with the structure predicted by [7, 8];
third, it should confirm the idea that the limit GN -> 0 is a limit where gravity becomes topological;
fourth the Feynman diagram observables should be understood as a Wilson lines (or more generally spin networks) expectation value in this spin foam model. An analysis similar to the one done here has already been performed in 3d [12], where it has been shown that the corresponding spin foam model is constructed in terms of 6j symbols of the 3d Euclidean group for flat space. The deformation of this spin foam model using quantum group naturally leads to a formulation of Feynman diagram coupled to 3d quantum gravity amplitudes [10, 11]. This corresponds to a deformation of field theory carrying a deformed action of the PoincarLe group.
Indeed, in the formulation we have proposed, background geometry is dynamical and the dynamics is governed by a spin foam model.
Furthermore, this model is revealed to be topological, which confirms the idea that gravity becomes topological in the limit Gn -> 0.
The second interest of our results is that they provide a falsification test for any candidate for the quantum gravity amplitude; we indeed claim that it must reduce to the spin foam model (13) in a suitable semi-classical limit. This requirement represents strong constraints on the physically viable proposals for quantum gravity models.

(For clarity refer to my model.)
The quantum minimum length (spacetime structure) reveals itself in the nucleus of the atoms
See " Work functions, ionization potentials, and in-between: Scaling relations based on the image charge model"
" The double tetrahedron structure of the nucleus"
It is possible to have a dynamic model of the neucleus
"DYNAMIC MODEL double tetrahedron structure, by Norman D. Cook
The Nuclear Visualization Software"

Before reading the following you should have an understanding of my model. As a result you will be able to see that what is refered as “the bounce” is actually the threshold to the 2 dimensional configuration.
" The Issue of the Beginning in Quantum Gravity by Abhay Ashtekar, 14 july 2006"
We need a theory that incorporates not only the dynamical nature of geometry but also the ramifications of quantum physics. Does the ‘correct’ or ‘true’ physics stop at the big-bang also in quantum gravity? Or, is there yet another paradigm shift waiting in the wings?
In particular, the quantum space-time may be much larger than what general relativity has us believe, whence the big bang may not, after all, be the Beginning.
Now, quantum geometry tells us that the area operator has a minimum non-zero eigenvalue, _, and in the quantum theory it is natural to shrink the loop only till it attains this minimum.
p. 12 ….which is about 0.82 times the Planck density. However, then it bounces.
p.13 …. A qualitative picture that emerges is that the non-perturbative quantum geometry corrections are ‘repulsive’. While they are negligible under normal conditions, they dominate when curvature approaches the Planck scale and halt the collapse that would classically have lead to a singularity. The suggestion from LQC is that, a new repulsive force associated with the quantum nature of geometry may come into play near Planck density, strong enough to prevent the formation of singularities irrespective of how large the mass is. Since this force is negligible until one enters the Planck regime, predictions of classical relativity on the formation of trapped surfaces, dynamical and isolated horizons would still hold.
( NO singularities in the BLACK HOLES)
P.14 … Returning to the issue of the Beginning, the big-bang in particular appears to be an artifact of the assumption that the continuum, classical space-time of general relativity should hold at all scales. LQC strongly suggests that this approximation breaks down when the matter reaches Planck density. One might have at first thought that, since this is a tiny portion of space-time, whatever quantum effects there may be, they would have negligible effect on global properties of space-time and hence almost no bearing on the issue of The Beginning. However, detailed LQC calculations have shown that this intuition may be too naive. The ‘tiny portion’ may actually be a bridge to another large universe.
(The larger universe IS the 2 dimensional configuration of my model )
The physical, quantum space-time could be significantly larger than what general relativity had us believe. The outstanding open issue is whether this scenario persists when inhomogeneities are adequately incorporated in the analysis.
Initial conditions
When entropy is at 0.0% potential energy is at 100.0%. THIS WOULD BE A SOLID. This requires that there not be any freedom of movement. All dimensions are either unreacheable or occupied. With the reverse situation, entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%, all dimensions are empty and reachable. THIS IS A VOID.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY in 2 D ? It went from 100% to 90.69%. What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY in 3D? It went from 100% to 74.05%. This is the maximum packing density.
The horizon of a Black Hole is as I have described it. It is the 2D surface. It is supported by this paper. The interpretation of the math is wrong. It is not a “bounce”. Eventually, the “math kids” will get to a “full” math description of my model.
The discussion is at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6587&st=1395&#entry166952
I've always said, " I'm not that smart. If I thought of it someone else has thought of it before me."

WHY PACKING?If you look at the square packing, you will see 5 rows. The hexagonal packing of the 5 rows is not as high as the square packing. (hint- 1/R^2).

If you think of a case of eggs, there's an egg tray filled with eggs then another egg tray filled with more eggs then... you get the picture. Nobody is concentrating on the fact that the egg trays are the cause of the orderly packing of the eggs. In this example, the egg tray is the topology of space. The egg trays/space are made of something which we cannot see or of something that we have ignored or refused to admit as being there or of having any influence on our physical/atomic world. Circles, 2d, have a packing density of 0.9069 and spheres, 3d, have a packing density of 0.7405. Therefore, there is an increase of "voids/space" when going from 2d to 3d. (16.64%) Ellipsoid Packing, which could be the 2d version of space, is 0.703355.

There are 330 million neutrinos , one billion photons, and 0.5 protons per cubic meters of space. All nicely organized within a structured topology of space. If space did not have a structure then .... (use your imagination). The universe would not look the way it does. All of these "energy" particles are being moved by space. Atoms, are "packages" of energy.

Also, R. Buckminster Fuller has a good explaination of the tetrahedron. See Synergetics

Try interpenetrating tetrahedra by Chris Quigg, to see how he visualizes the organization of particles.
If you are new to physics then, go to: A Review of the Universe for explanations and definitions. You could also go to Particle Adventure.


Coupling gauge theory to spinfoam 3d quantum gravity Simone Speziale∗ Perimeter Institute, 31 Caroline St. N, Waterloo, ON N2L 2Y5, Canada. June 11, 2007


Here is another link showing visual representations of spin. Click on the picture until you see the spinning stella octangula.


You are a visitor since Oct 9/96.

=NEW= Last updated -Date: 15 July 2008