Notes DB 90: Psychogenesis_2024
Sunday 11 February 2024 - Saturday 17 February y 2024
[page 172]
Sunday 11 February 2024
We have to kill to live (Nicholls 1992a) Jeffrey Nicholls (1992a): An essay on value
The question is where does the killing stop and life begin? Thirty one years after I wrote that essay I am coming to the end of a quest for life, a website about god, the source of life, conceived as an empty eternal omnipotent mind, the initial singularity. How does this singularity create life? There are two stages. First there is an idea, a structure in Hilbert space, a dead kinematic thing. Then it gives this idea live by giving it piece of its own life by 'zero-sum bifurcation' splitting itself into debt (potential) and cash (actuality) and investing the cash in its idea, and so on (See Cognitive Cosmology pages 4: Theology: a new paradigm? to 17: Gravitation and quantum theory—in the beginning
How did we learn this? Physics, by taking the world apart to see how it works. First we found photons and electrons. Then we became more violent and discovered alpha particles and neutrons. Finally we came to something we could not
[page 173]
take apart, the eternal proton comprising quarks and gluons which are not capable of independent existence. Now we have come to the last page of the story of creation, cc25_chromodynamics and what can we say? First just tell the story - deep inelastic scattering. And then try to explain what it means, its political consequences, its implications for war and killing, the subject that has motivated me ever since I was terrified by nuclear weapons and the fear of having to be killed in Vietnam. So as ever, write on. Proton - Wikipedia, Quark - Wikipedia, Gluon - Wikipedia
' The Book': Preface: Motivation; Introduction: Summary; Chapter 1: A brief history of European theology; 2: In the Beginning . . .
What about the notion that the foundations of the next evolutionary step must be survivors capable of reproduction so as to access the next round of variation and testing? They therefore need to be sustained by some existing environment. How does this apply to the group of elementary particles we have called angels? Do the quarks and gluons have to form a group to survive. We have a problem here similar to the origins of life.
We note that the proton is permanent and has a sort of 3D interior. Maybe 4D Minkowski space is formed first with photons, electrons and positrons and the 3D space of gluons arises
[page 174]
as a system complex enough to be the genes of a 3D hadron. Here we are speculating. First we write out the sequence of work that led to deep knowledge of deep inelastic scattering and then look for a route to hadrons. No reason to be wildly speculative. Also need to speculate about screening and antiscreening which seem to be rather ad hoc conclusions drawn from the ad hocery of renormalization. Electric-field screening - Wikipedia, Asymptotic freedom - Wikipedia
No one has ever read anything of mine and told me that this is good enough to publish or for me to offer you a job. In this way I have always found myself working alone rather than in collaboration and it seems that it might be very late in my life for me to achieve sufficient notoriety to make a living out of my work. This does not seem to bother me because I feel the family motto: I am not prejudiced, I just know. So I keep going forever.
When I was a builder I was never moody. Everything was so straightforward. Now I am in the writing business I have become an oscillator, moving from despair to elation, potential to action on a daily basis as I find myself inside or outside my intellectual comfort zone. Now I do not know what to say about chromodynamics, so I try retail therapy.
[page 175]
cc24_trans_minkowski posits an alternative to quantum field theory which I now propose to expound and verify by applying it to chromodynamics . What hope haveI? Is the proton an image of the universe, the foundation of symmetry with respect to complexity - a continuation of the whole hog to see where it ends.
Monday 12 February 2024
cc25_chromodynamics: Electrodynamics is the paradigm for chromodynamics but it may need changing so I am free to dream up something that does not depend on renormalization, which is a result of the [mistaken] decision to make Minkowski space the domain of Hilbert space. What I am promoting here is von Neumann's formulation of quantum theory which I take to be the kinematic foundation of the Universe, the von Neumann vacuum built by naked gravitation.
I wonder whether chromodynamics is prior to a consequence of electroweak theory. What is the order if these processes? The theory of evolution requires that the variation and selection must be based on the foundation of an existing species capable of mutation and reproduction [or a very far out chance where a whole lot of disparate elements come together to create a survivable group]. It seems that the massive bosons of the weak force have something to do with the elimination of antimatter
[page 176]
which would seem to be a barrier to the further evolution of the Universe by annihilating everything as fast as it is formed [rather like zero-sum bifurcation running backwards. Is it entropy that drags it forwards. We cannot increase entropy if everything is getting trashed all the time, like trying to generate civilization in the face of war]. Here a big difficulty is the fact that gluons and quarks cannot exist independently. So tentative outline:
25.1: Physics is built on experiment and observation.
25.2: Nuclear data - deep inelastic scattering.
25.3: The order of evolution
25.4: The antimatter problem. (Lars Eklund) Baryogenesis (Trodden 2016, Shapiro, Gorelik, Moskowitz, Baryon assymmetry, CP violation, Beutsche (2023), Anderson (2023), CERN (2024) ) Lars Eklund (2020): CERN: discovery sheds light on the great mystery of why the universe has less 'antimatter' than matter, Baryogenesis - Wikipedia, Mark Trodden (2016): Electroweak Baryogensis, Gennady Gorelik (2011): The Riddle of the Third Idea: How Did the Soviets Build a Thermonuclear Bomb So Suspiciously Fast?, Clara Moskowitz: What Happened to All of the Universe’s Antimatter?, CERN (2024): The matter-antimatter assymetry problem
The physics industry, like the theology industry, will do anthing for power and both have sold out to military force. In a way I am doing the same thing. By the end of the month I hope to be working full time on a book to connect physics to theology with the aim of correcting the politically motivated corruption of both. 24.? Wilczek (2004), Gross (2004).
Gross page 59: ' The early 1960 when I started my graduate studies at UC Berkeley were a period of experimental supremacy and theoretical impotence. The construction and utilization of major acelerators was proceeding fullsteam, Experimental
[page 177]
discoveries and surprizes appeared every few months. There was hardly any theory to speak of.' David J. Gross (2004): Nobel lecture: The Discovery of Asymptotic Freedom and the Emergence of QCD
Gross page 60: Freeman Dyson: 'the correct theory will not be found in the next hundred years.'
page 61: 'In my first course on QFT at Berkeley in 1965 I was taught that Field Theory = Feynman Rules. Today we know that there are are many phenomena, especially confinement in QCD, that cannot be understood perturbatively.
' The obvious conclusion that all hadrons were composites of more fundamental constituents was thwarted by the fact that no matter how hard hadrons were smashed into one another, one had not been able to liberate these hypothetical constituents.'
page 62: In QED the vacuum contains virtual electron-positron pairs. If a charge is inserted into this dielectric medium, it distorts or polarises the virtual dipoles and this will screen the charge. Consequently the charge seen at some distance will be reduced in magnitude and the further one goes the smaller the charge . . . The beta function which is minus the logarithmic derivative of charge with respect to distance is thus positive. [what is the difference between the inserted negative charge and the vacuum negative charge?]' Beta function (physics) - Wikipedia
' . . . dielectric screening is a natural physical explanation and
[page 178]
of charge renormalization they [Landau and co] were unaware of any simple reason for the opposite effect. . . . Ladau decreed that " We are driven to the conclusion that the Hamiltonian method for strong interction is dead and must be buried, although of course with due honour."
page 63: ' S matrix theory had some notable successes . . . However there were drawbacks to a theory that was based on the principle that there is no theory. . . . until 1973 it was not thought proper to use fields theory without apologies. . . . in 1972 Murray Gell-Mann ended his talk on quarks with the summary "Let us end by emphasizing our main point, that it may well be possible to construct an empirical theory of hadrons based on quarks and some kind of glue, treated as fictitious, but with enough physical properties abstracted and applied to real hadrons to constitute a complete theory. Since the entities we start with are fictitious, there is no need for any conflict with the bootstrap or conventional parton point of view".'
page 64: Nowadays we realize that SU(3) is an accidental symmetry which arises because a few quarks (the up, down and strange quarks) are relatively light compared to the scale of strong interactions.'
page 65; 'Yet quarks were not seen . . .'
Francis Lou: 'Bootstrap is less a theory than a tautology.'
[page 179]
Gross page 66: ' The SLAC deep inelastic scattering experiments has a profound impact on me. They clearly showed that the proton behaved, when observed over short times, as if it were made out of point-like objects of spin one half.'
page 67: 'Experiments indicated that scaling was in fine shape. But one could hardly turn off the interactions between the quarks, or make them very weak, since then one would expect hadrons to break up easily into their quark constituents, and no one ever observed free quarks. This paradox and the search for an explanation of scaling would preoocupy me for the next 4 years.
Venaziano: String theory. Gabriele_Veneziano - Wikipedia
page 68: ' I felt strongly that scaling was a permanent feature of strong interactions. Gerard 't Hooft's spectacular work on the renormalizability of Yang-Mills theories reintroduced non-Abelian gauge theories to the community. The electroweak theory of S. Glashow and S. Weinberg was revived. . . . The operator product analysis was extended to the light cone, the relevant region of deep inelastic scattering. Gerardus 't Hooft (1999): Nobel Lecture 1999: A Confrontation with Infinity
Gross page 69: Most important, from my point of view, was the revival of the renormalization group by Wilson. Kenneth G Wilson (1982): Nobel Lecture: The Renormalisation Group and Critical Phenomena
'First I would prove that 'Ultraviolet Stability, the vanishing of the effective coupling at short distances, later called asymptotic
[page 180]
freedom, was necessary to explain scaling. Second I would show there are no asymptotically free field theories.
Gross page 70: . . . to investigate asymptotic freedom it suffices to study the behaviour of the β functions in the vicinity of the origin of coupling constant space. I told [Frank Wilczek] my program to determine whether quantum field theory could account for scaling. We decided we would calculate the β function of Yang-Mills theory.
Calculate (arithmetic) Think (logic}
page 71: 'Why are non-Abelian gauge theories asymptotically free? . . . The easiest way to understand this is by considering the magnetic screening properties of the vacuum. In a relativistic theory one can calculate the dielectric constant ε in terms of the magnetic permeability μ since εμ = 1. In classical physics, all media are diamagnetic. This is because, classically, all magnets arise from electric currents and the response of a system to an applied magnetic field is to set up currents to decrease the field (Lenz's Law). Thus μ < 1, a situation that corresponds to electric screening or ε > 1. However, in quantum mechanical systems, paramagnetism is possible. This is the case in non-Abelian gauge theories where the gluons are charged particles of spin one. They behave as permanent magnetic dipoles
[page 181]
then align themselves to an applied external field increasing its magnitude and producing μ > 1. We can therefore regard anti-screening of the Yang-Mills vacuum as paramagnetism. QCD is asymptotically free because the anti-scrteening of the gluons overcomes the screening due to the quarks. Diamagnetism - Wikipedia
Gross page 72: 'For me the discovery of anti-screening was totally unexpected.'
page 75: 'Before asymptotic freedom it seemed that we were still far from a theory of hadrons; afterwards it seemed clear that QCD was such a theory.'
page 76: At large distances, however, perturbation theory was useless. In fact, today, after 31 years of study, we still lack reliable analytic tools for treating this region of QCD.
page 78: '. . . asymptotic freedom greatly increased or confidence in the consistency of quantum field theory, produced the first example of a theory with no adjustable parameters, enabled us to probe the very early history of the Universe and allowed us to extrapolate the standard model to high energy.
a. Consistency of QFT: 'the decrease of effective coupling for large energy means that no new physics need arise at short distances. There are no infinities at all, the bare coupling is finite and in fact just valishes. . . . We are vey close to having a
[page 182]
rigorous mathematical proof of the existence of aymptotically free gauge theories in four dimensions - at least when placed in a finite box to tame the infrared dynamics that produce confinement.
b. No adjustable parameters. At first glance QCD has only one parameter, the dimentionless number that specifies the strength of the Force. . . . It is sometimes claimed that the origin of mass is the Higgs mechanism which is responsible for the breaking of the electroweak symmetry that unbroken would forbid quark masses This is incorrect. Most, 99% of the proton mass is due to the kinetic and ptential energy of the massless gluons and the essentially massles quarks, confined within the proton.
c. The early history of the Universe. . . . To trace the history of the Universe we must understand the dynamics that operates when the universe was hot and the particles were very energetic. . . . Today, especially since QCD simplifies at high energy, we can extrapolate to very early times when nucleons melt and quarks and gluons are liberated to form a quark-gluon plasma.
d. Unification '. . . the apparently insurmountable barrier to unification—namely the large difference in strength btween strong interactions and the electro-weak interactions—
[page 183]
was seen to be a very low energy phenomenon. Since strong interactions decrease in strength with increasing energy, these forces would have a common origin at very high energy — 1014 – 1016 GeV all forces and gravitation unified (you wish).
Wilczek Nobel page 101: Gell-Mann and Zweig; Hadrons made of quarks. Frank Wilczek (2004): Nobel lecture: Asymptotic Freedom: from Paradox to Paradigm
The atmosphere of weirdness thickened into paradox when Friedman, Kendall and Taylor began to poke into the inside of protons.'
page 102: Paradox 1: Powerful interactions ought to be associated with powerful radiation. When the most powerful interaction in nature, the strong interaction did not obey this rule, it posed a sharp paradox. (Quarks are free but confined)
Paradox 2: Special relativity and quantum mechanics both work [but they are naturally separated by operating in different spaces, Hilbert and Minkowski.]
Dirac on antiparticles [maybe this is not a quantum thing but a Minkowski thing when we square the amplitude and get a negative number].
Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga on ultraviolet divergences and particle creation and annihilation in the 'vacuum'. This is a generalization of the complementarity between momentum and position which is fundamental to ordinary non-relativistic quantum mechanics [when people map Hilbert space onto Minkowski space, which really has no meaning].
' empty space becomes densely populated with virtual particles; empty space comes to behave like a dynamic medium. Zero point energy and renormalization.
page 104: Storms in teacups created by mixing kinematics with dynamics,
[page 184]
Wilczek page 105: Paradox lost, antiscreening and asymptotic freedom [which will not work of space is just space and not full of fictitious particles created out of nothing!].
Wilczek page 107: 'By using the elaborate [and fictitious] technical machinery of quantum field theory (including the renormalization group, operator product expansions and approximate dispersion relations [which we assume to be all embedded in reality]) we were able to be much more specific and quantitative about the implications of our theory than my loose pictorial language suggests. In particular, the strong interaction does not turn off abruptly, and there is a non-zero probability that quarks will radiate when poked. It is only asymptotically, as energies go to infinity, that the probability of radiation vanished.
4 paradigms: 1. The hard reality of quarks and gluons.
page 108: 'Quarks and (especially) gluons had become ideally simple entities whose propertied are fully defined by mathematically precise slgorithms [Hermitian operators?].
Hard radiation, capable of significantly redirecting the flow of energy snd momentum is rare [??]. But soft radition, that produces additional particles moving in the same direction without deflecting the overall flow, is common [???]. page 111: Paradigm 2: Mass comes from energy [as Einstein might have said].
[page 185]
Wilczek page 113; 'These pictures [CGI]make it clear amd tangible that a quantum vacuum is a dynamic medium whose properties and responses large define the behaviour of matter [and whose mass-energy is 10120 times greater than the mass of the Universe]. Computer-generated imagery - Wikipedia
Paradigm 3: the early Universe was simple [agreed]
Jesus was a carpenter [as my father often reminded me]. He was not some intellectual blockhead who thought the graduations on his tape created ulimited quantities of energy which required renormalization away by screening to make the tape measure properly.
page 114: Paradigm 4: Symmetry rules.
page 121: The greatest lesson: We can understand simple things once we penetrate the fog of academia.
Taylor page 632: 'Forty years of electron scattering experient have had a significant impact on our understanding of the basic components of matter. Richard E. Taylor (1990): Nobel Lecture: I. Deep Inelastic Scattering: The Early Years
Friedman (1990) Jerome I. Friedman (1990): Nobel Lecture III: Deep Inelastic Scattering: Comparisons with the quark model
Friedman page 121: ' The constituent model which opened the way for a simple dynamical interpretation of the deep inelastic results was the parton model of Feynman. He developed the model to describe hadron hadron interactions in which the constituents of one hadron interact with those of another. These constituents, called partons were identified with the fundamental bare particles of an underlying
[page 186]
field theory of the strong interactions. He applied this model to deep inelastic scattering after he had sen the early scaling results, . . . In this application of the model the proton is conjectured to consist of pointlike partons from which the electron scatters. The model is implemented in a frame approaching the infinite momentum frame in which the relativistic time dilation slows down the motion nearly to a standstill. The electron thus sees and incoherently scatters from the partons which are non-interacting with eachother during the time the virtual photon is exchanged. In this frame the impulse approximation is assumed to hold so that the scattering process is sensitive only to the properties and momenta of the partons.
What have I got to say about deep inelastic scattering? Inside the proton and all the other hadrons is a little world with the same properties as the big world, including freely moving agents and the impossibility of escape.
A state vector is a kinematic representative of a state [as this sentence is a kinematic representative of my state of mind] a state ψ with the property that ei ψ = ψ. It is not a state. A particle is a state, a dynamic reality whose personality is represented by ψ [a name], the content of its mind, since every particle is a living divinity. The quantum of action is not an uncertainty principle, it is a certainty principle, an algorithm that defines
[page 187]
a process which in dynamic form is the particle carrying the process, like me. We are going back to the old indigenous story, everything is alive, from the proton to the Universe, everything is a source or personality with two components a mind and a body, its body having a physical interface with other minds. Chromodynamics is the science of a living eternal source, the proton.
Tuesday 13 February 2024
I understand many occasional bouts of despair. I have faith in my hypothesis that the Universe is divine, but I can also see the immense burden of falsehood built into theology, physics and politics and despair that a source as small as myself can change this reality. I cannot back down however and so will continue to write what I believe to be true in the hope that there is truth in the song From Little Things Big Things Grow. I will continue building evidence into my opinion until it becomes clear that the best use of my time is no longer simply thinking and writing but propagation of my view of reality. Paul Kelly & Kev Carmody: From little things, big things grow
So far no ideas about how to deal with chromodynamics.
We delete the energetic virtual vacuum and restore Hilbert space to its rightful primacy and with this all this screening and antiscreening which just looks like politics to me and chromodynamics needs a whole new explanation along the lines of cognitive cosmology. We have the same problem with the origin of hadrons as with the origin of life which is how such a complex system can come into existence and we would like to find some steps along the way as I have done from naked gravitation to spacetime and particles. In other words we are looking for the random discovery of self-sustaining groups which are endowed with the power of reproduction like the trinitarian initial singularity.
Looking back it seems that cognitive cosmology has taken about two months per page and now I am on the grand finale but do not know how to pull it off. How do I construct asymptotic freedom? Proton is a model of the Universe so perhaps we go back to naked gravitation and make the proton the father of the Universe in some way, our Yahweh. We are all free to move on our orbits inside the Universe but we cannot get out, it is closed; except perhaps by following Alice down a black hole. Every particle is an image of the proton, a closed conscious source with a Hilbert mind inside. How do we fit the quarks and gluons into this? The gluons are the basic things and the quarks are their plaything and the electdons are the playthings of the photons,. I am a more or less closed
[page 189]
self sustaining system, eat, breathe, excrete so is the life of every other particle the same given the principle of symmetry with respect to complexity? How do photons reproduce. What are the details of anti-protons? How does the system initiate baryon asymmetry, by breaking the matter / antimatter symmetry. Does any of this have anything to do with sexual reproduction, or more deeply with the bifurcation of organisms into genes and living body?
Wednesday 14 February 2024
Axelrod: Evolution and the role of communication in cooperation, which brings us back to the networks and the isomorphism between the proton and the Universe mediated by network structure. Compare the hadron network to the general relativity network through a network view of the assembly of flat Minkowski spaces into closed general relativistic space through some special feature of 4D. All this 10 - 20 D stuff in string theory etc is superfluous, multiplying complexity for lack of insight into simplicity. The basic bootstrap, identified by Aristotle, is the mind body / gene ontogenesis loop. So we think god first dreamed up the proton and then built it, ie first dreamed up by bosons and fermions and then made networks abd the proton is the simplest possible network built on 3 and 2
[page 190]
Hoping to finish cognitive cosmology with a bit of a bang in cc25_chromodynamics but will it come true? How does logical confinement look in relation to physical confinement? What are the real reason for asymptotic freedom and confinement when we rule out screening, antiscreening and high entropy vacuum [all elements of Minkowski rather than Hilbert space]. Only saving grace is the computational reality of quantum mechanics which simply controls physical behaviour in its software role which has been selected by an evolutionary process which increases entropy by establishing durability of proton just as in cc24-transfinite-minkowski we increase entropy by spatial separation of particles by analogy to Aristotle's individualizing matter overcoming formal identity. Formal identity is a form of logical confinement - 2 identical angels = 1 angel. What I am looking for is a definite writedown (?) of quantum field theory based on the spurious vacuum.
What I am really looking for is in myself. To make my case for theology by creating a seamless union between theology and physics based on a careful appreciation and modelling of the data as I have received it in the nearly 80 yeards of interface with theocracy and imperialism. Cognitive cosmology is the background to 'the book' but I have to get it right as chromodynamics is the apogee of physical theology and the rainbow covenant between divinity and humanity.
[page 191]
So what we need is the equation Wilczek [records] and a set of operators to match. Maybe this is the time to start learning Python?
Yang-Mills existence and mass gap - Clay problem - solve this for cc25_chromodynamics - We need to construct QFT satisfying Wightman axioms and showing the existence of a mass gap.
Wightman axioms: The standard model of particle physics has no mathematically rigorous foundations.
W0: von Neumann quantum mechanics. Symmetry according to Wigner. Wigner postulated the transition probability between states to be the same for all observers related by the transformation of special relativity [ie Hilbert space is independent of Minkowski space] Wigner's classification - Wikipedia
Second part of zeroth axion: (U(a, A) fulfills spectral condition
Third part : Unique state, represented by a ray in Hilbert space unmoved under the action of the Poincare group called a vacuum.
W1: Fields are operator valued tempered distributions.
W2: Fields are covariant under the action of the Poincare group
W3: Spacelike separated fields either commute or anti-commute. Streater and Wightman page 96. Streater & Wightman (2000); PCT, Spin, Statistics and All That
The upshot of all this is that the unnatural imprisonment of Hilbert space in Minkowski spacee is the source of all the problems in quantum field theory which requires radical revision. So fix Wightman axioms.
[page 192]
Hayes Cognitive Gadgets: Ideology and cognitive gadgets replace genes so we can develop headspaces that enable us to unite as one organism, all these headspaces are parts of theology, the theory of everything and when we are all agreed on one theology we can function as one organism in harmony with our planet. Our principal problem now is those control freaks who are prepared to kill people to get their way rather than honouring human rights and the democratic ideal that all members of a group should have a voice in deciding the management of the group that affects them all. This is the point of symmetry with respect to complexity. Jonathan Steele: Alexei Navalny obituary
Thursday 15 February 2024
Having decided to go all the way with my scheme to make all particles conscious I have to work out if it is feasible and one way to do this is to compare the entropy of the spacetime/ field view which sees all the information as contained in one large superposition of spacetime fields rather than in actual dynamic particulate agents [where we see fields as like angels, one field for all electrons which denies their individuality]. In social terms, do I have my own mind and control my own actions or is it as I was in the Church or other authoritarian orgsnizations like the Communist Party of China, the Dominican Order and the Nazi party which sets up a behavioural fields which controls us all on pain of death?
[page 193]
I love this argument and it all falls into place physically, theologically and politically. Can't wait to get back home and start writing but first I go to see Auntie with French Coffee cake.
This position rests on the principle of symmetry with respect to complexity. Do particles follow the same protocols as people? This seems to be the killer argument and I learnt it in the monastery where like in authoritarian societies I was required to confess my breeches of the law and other deficiencies every week in chapter. Of course I lied because my self esteem was too great to allow me to be an apparatchik and I am in the same position now with respect to physics and theology. Theocracies are doomed on entropy grounds [as is field theory since it does not give particles individuality??].
Field theories are involved in endless contortions to preserve the unity of their fields against the independence of particles.
Badly designed software misses the symmetries in the original problem so has to have a lot of patches to catch all the "exceptional" cases that result. We see this in quantum field theory.
Quantum field theory vs quantum particle theory.
Friday 16 February 2024
So we come down to the old argument about particles and
[page 194]
fields and I am opting for particles as images of the initial singularity. We may quote the quantum of action as the fundamental particle and quote the tragedy of Einstein's hopeless quest for a union of discrete particles with continuous fields, and the nineteenth century struggle for continuity which ended with Cantor's digitization of the continuum. Sed contra we have Auyang, Wilczek, Weinberg and most of the physics industry, but in the end I will go with my picture of myself seen through the eyes of Wiener, Turing, von Neumann and practical quantum theory. So I am happy now with cognitive cosmology and just have to dream up a particle picture of the proton connected to the particle picture of life as a union of genetics and ontogenesis. At least this seems to be a stable conclusion whose political consequences to be drawn out in cc27_ conclusion on the entropic death of theocracy. The book title: The Inevitable death of Theocracy.
McCulloch et. al. on 300 years of global temperature. McCulloch, Winter, Sherman & Trotter (2024): 300 years of sclerosponge thermometry shows global warming has exceeded 1.5 °C
Can we say particles are music, fields or cacophonies?
Quantum mechanics selects the particles out of the fields, the von Neumann vacuum [aka Hilbert space, a kinematic field associated with and driven by dynamic particles, children of initial singularity]
cc25_chromodynamics page 25: Quantum chromodynamics: QCD
[page 195]
1. Quantum mechanics as a theory of communication and computation [the starting point for cognitive cosmology].
Dune. QED against Field theory: Feynman QED. How do Feynman diagrams work? Martinus Veltman (1994): Diagrammatica: The Path to the Feynman Rules, Dune (2021 film) - Wikipedia
Saturday 17 February 2024
Cognitive cosmology evolutionary single particle approach vs field theory axiomatic approach embodies in Millennium prize basically destroyed by cosmological constant problem.
Evolution of life compared to evolution of protons / hadrons on survival of the fittest of a large spectrum of hadrons.
I am a long way from the conventional story but some intuitive pig-headedness causes me to reject the idea of continuous field and the idea that particles are states of a field rather than fixed points established by quantum theory in Hilbert space and energized by gravitation to become real particles, fermions or bosons, in Minkowski space. I now have to construct a critique of field theory that justifies my position and greatly simplifies physics by establishing the kinematic independence of Hilbert space and at the same time wins me the Millennium Prize for quantum physics. It pays to dream, but instead of doing this in a week it will take a year, the cream on the cognitive cosmological cake, the fruit of the heuristic of simplicity.
[page 195]
Lochlain O'Raifeartaigh (1999) page 4: '. . . it was Weyl who emphasized the role of gauge invariance [ie symmetry invariance] as a symmetry principle from which electromagnetism can be derived It took several decades until the importance of this symmetry principle — in its generalized form to non-Abelian gauge groups developed by Yang, Mills and others — to become fruitful for the description of the weak and strong interactions'. ie to become part of the quantum software, like phase, controlling the interactions [through messaging by massless bosons]. Lochlain O’Raifeartaigh (1999): Early History of Gauge Theories and Kaluza-Klein Theories, with a Glance at Recent Developments
page 5: ' The case of non-commutative geometry is a little different as the gauge-principle is used as input, but the change from a continuum to a discrete structure produces qualitatively new features,' Non commutation points to a logically causative interaction [(ab - ba) = quantum of action], as opposed to commutation = spacelike separation [and if there is no spacelike separation in Hilbert space there is no non-commutativity either?].
page 6: [diagram] key papers in the development of gauge theories.
page 13: ' In this remarkable paper, London suggested a reinterpretation of Weyl's principle of gauge invariance within the new quantum mechanics. The role of the metric space is taken over by the wave function snd the rescaling of the metric has to be replaced by the phase change of the wave function. F. London: Quantum-mechanical interpretation of Weyl’s theory
Vacuum state, no energy, no mass, so we get our energy from gravitation, which
[page 197]
the connects itself to the mass it creates via quantum mechanics.
Jaffe & Witten page 131: '. . . for QCD to describe the strong force successfully, it must have at the quantum level the three following properties, each of which is dramatically different from the behaviour of the classical theory:
(1) It must have a "mass gap;" namely there must be some constant Δ > 0 such that every excitation of the vacuum has energy at least Δ. Why? To explain why the nudear force is strong but short ranged. [But] Nuclear force is carried by massless gluons??
(2) It must have "quark confinement", because we see no free quarks
page 132: (3) It must have "chiral symmetry breaking," which means that the vacuum is potentially invariant (in the limit that the quark-bare masses vanish) only under a subgroup pf the full symmetry group that acts on the quark fields. . . .[this] is needed to account for the "current algebra" theory of soft pions that was developed in the 1960s.' Carlson, Jaffe & Wiles (2006): The Millennium Prize Problems
' These properties are not understood theoretically; there does not exist a convincing, whether or not mathematially complete, theoretical computation demonstrating any of the three properties of QCD, as opposed to a severely simplified truncation of it.' But it has evolved, so the quantum theory is there.
page 133: 'There are reasons to believe that QFT may be important in 21st century mathematics.' Can brains and quantum theory work without mathematics [ie by attending to the details without any overarching theory]?
page 134: '. . . QFT is the jumping off point for a quest that may prove central to 21st century physics—the efforts to unify gravity and quantum mechanics' (done that!).
[page 198]
Jaffe & Witten page 134: 'A quantum field, or local quantum field operator, is an operator valued generalized function on space time obeying certain axioms' - which seems wrong because operations are on Hilbert space. The whole idea of making Minkowski [space] the domain of Hilbert seems silly.
'Basically one requires that the Hilbert space H of the quantum field carry a representation of the Poincare group . . . A vacuum vector is an element of H that is invariant under (the representation of the) Poincare group'. What does this even mean?
One assumes that the representation has positive energy 0 < H and a vacuum vector Ω ∈ H that is unique up to a phase [ie a ray?]'.
