but by a question of education and consistency, please use always the same phylosophy for stoping/erasing any no relevant comments.

It is my belief (and of others) that your meaning of “irrelevant” is rather flexible, specially when you open a topic on a “stringy theme” and people here finalize it attacking to Lubos Motl. I still wonder that you maintain several of those comments and personal attacks intact.

Of course, this is your blog and I respect your decision. No problem by my part, this was only a comment.

http://olympus.het.brown.edu/~danieldf/papels/math-ph/bonolis2004.pdf

(..via It’s Equal But It’s Different)

Regarding my previous comment (partly in response to one of Ben’s), see Section 6. – Einstein vs. mathematicians: Minkowski and the special theory of relativity (p. 20-27).

Matti and Juan,

Please stop using this weblog as a discussion forum for your own ideas that have nothing to do with the topics here. I’ll delete any further comments of this kind.

It has been a pleasure read your post. Still i may apologize because i do have studied TGD, but when I have some time free i will do.

I also work with a two-time formalism, therefore some times i talk about a 4+1D formalism. Humm, interesting! What is the status of the “geometric time appearing in field equations of physics” in your formalism?

I think that with apparently breaking of the second law in self asemmbly you mean integral decreasing of disorder or perhaps or on a diferential rate sense (negative production of entropy).

I found time ago that spacetime cannot be represented by usual differentiable manifolds (bye bye Calabi-Yaus), but still I cannot claim for fractal-like behavior, since i do know if a fractal description would be exact or only an approximation valid in certain regimes. I simply are not sure.

Really interesting, in my approach the failure of scattering theory is associated to density of matter. In particle physics with small effective densities, S-matrix work perfectly. for condensed matter situations, all the formalism breaks down and one works with phenomenological issues ad hoc.

The failure of usual relativistic description of bound states is more complex in my approach

Yes i also found that reductionsim fail, in fact it is a proven fact (usually ignored by physicists and by all string theorists) that string theory does not verify the equation for complexity level.

In my approach nature has a hierarchical structure and no one level is in deep more important that other. Upper levels are not totally reduced to simple lower levels, in fact there is information that is not contained in lower levels, e.g. particle. That is the failure of particle physics to explain upper structures for example biomolecules.

A priori my theory contain MOND approach like a limiting case for the explaining of anomalous acceleration and the missing matter problem.

Thank you for interesting comments.

The most obvious apparent violations of second law relate to self assembly and behavior of phase conjugate light.

In my own theoretical framework they are apparent violations so that here we agree. I feel it necessary to distinguish between two times: the geometric time appearing in field equations of physics and the experienced time whose basic unit is quantum jump and which corresponds in average sense to some increment of geometric time which is however proportional to hbar so that there is a hierarcy for the geometric average durations of quantum jump (moment of consciousness) just like there is hierarchy of material systems: elementary particles, hadrons, nuclei, atoms…

The differences between these times are obvious: consider only reversibility (irreversibility) of geometric (experienced) time. With respect to the experienced time second law holds still true but since TGD predicts that both positive and negative arrows of geometric time (positive and negative sign of conserved inertial energy, two possible manners to select the fermionic Fock state in second quantization), processes such as self assembly for which controlling process proceeds backwards in the geometric time, apparently break the second law.

Concerning the “more quantal” issue. Increase of hbar means essentially fractal scaling: quantum coherence lengths and times are scaled up. For scattering cross sections in perturbative regime the effect is perhaps somewhat surprisingly just the opposite since higher order corrections come in powers of alpha= g^2/4*pi*hbar, which is reduced. For bound state energies which cannot be understood perturbatively the situation is different: in the case of hydrogen effects is simple scaling by 1/hbar^2 proportionality of binding energy. An interseting hypothesis is that hbar increases when the perturbative series for S-matrix fails.

Macrostructure indeed affects microstructure and reductionism fails: this is one of the main implications of TGD. This is already implied by what I call topological quantization: space-time surface has a many-sheeted structure with sheets having outer boundary (magnetic flux tubes, “topological light rays”, etc..) identifiable as quantum coherence regions and forming a length and time scale hierarchy. Quantum classical correspondence together with the fact that these regions can have arbitrarily large but finite size suggests a generalization of quantum theory and dynamical and quantized hbar provides it.

Concerning strange unobserved matter: I am believer in TGD based variants of string like objects identifiable as magnetic flux tubes. Simplest of them are cosmic strings, 4-D surfaces X^2xY^2, where X^2 is string orbit in M^4 and Y^2 holomorphically imbedded 2-manifold of CP_2. A cosmic string traversing through the nucleus of galaxy in a direction transverse to the galactic plane (naturally assignable to the galactic jet) creates a Newtonian 1/rho potential, which explains the constant velocity spectrum of stars: no dark matter elsewhere would be the minimum option. I do not know how closely this relates to your explanation. Actually TGD allows to identify galactic black hole as a highly convoluted cosmic string. Galaxies would be pearls in a cosmic necklace.

I think that the limits of classical physics are encountered when one tries to understand intentional action and the coherent behavior of the matter in living organisms.

Matti Pitkanen

Some time ago I revised some of supposed violations of the second law in quantum regimes. The famous San Diego conference. Finally i discovered that all revised claims of violation of the second law were based in obvious misunderstanding of thermodynanmics and/or errors.

I also “showed” that formation of structures is compatible with a new generalized version of the second law for mesoscopic regimes.

Therefore, since that i known several of usual methods in laser physics, i doubt that any group can find real violation of the second law in laser phenomena.

I am not completely sure now of that the increase of hbar in Delta x*Delta p=about hbar–>hbar_s would make the system more quantal, just more uncertainty in coupled observables. I don’t think that can be exclusively represented like more quantum character in all situations. Remember classical statistical mechanics, asumed to be classical but with Delta x*Delta p different from zero.

Therein my emphasis in that perhaps you are working with some like alpa·h, with alpha a system parameter, instead of with variable h.

Could variation of your h explain cosmological redsift like the effect of travel of light for different phases of universe? Or am i wrong?

I don’t know the details of TGD and therefore I cannot do any serious comment still. However, I think that there is no real dark matter in the universe (this is another argument against ST and supposed dark matter explained from “cosmostrings”).

My explaining of galaxies and cluster “dark matter” like a discrepancy in standard gravity appears to be supported by experimental data. In fact, i can derive the well-known (1/r) behavior without invoking to strange unobserved matter.

What is your opinion?

“The possibility of several values of hbar would allow interaction between widely different time and length scales.”

It appears a fractal like behavior. Does macrostructure affects to microstructure in your TGD? If yes, this may be a violation of typical reductionism of particle physics.

Living matter is really interesting, still i found no sufficient time for doing research in that. Now i am working in gravitation and cosmology.

My point is that living matter is characterized by “long-range correlations”, but i don’t call that a “gigantic quantum structure”, since formulas for understanding living phenomena are really classical ones, e.g. chemical kinetics.

Of course, perhaps i am wrong, but i don’t know any macro-quantum effect violating classical laws usually applied, with success, in biology.

Cannot the movement of your hand be modelled with chemical kinetics (muscle) + transport theory (electrons, ions, etc.) + EM + classical mechanics (skeleton)?

I’m a mathematician (though unlike some – most? – people here, I like to think that math and physics are essentially the same; like two different sides of the same thing). What you describe/ask (abstract commutation relations vs. concrete PDSs) happens very often in mathematics. For example, consider finite groups; every finite group is a subgroup of some symmetric group (that is, all permutations of a set), and indeed that was the way people thinked of groups in the 19th century. Only in the 20th century started people think about abstract groups and their representation. Similarly, in the 19th century, continuous groups mostly meant groups of transformations of vector spaces; manifolds meant submanifolds of euclidean spaces (and again, every smooth manifold can be imbedded in a large euclidean space), etc. So why consider abstract objects instead “concrete” ones?
First, it is not always true that all abstract objects can be realized as “concrete” ones (like subobjects of some model object); and, even more significantly, the abstract viewpoint turned out to be very fruitful. For example, you can make a difference between intrinsic and extrinsic properties of an object: which are properties of the abstract object itself and which are consequences of the particular realization of it.

The increase of hbar in Delta x*Delta p=about hbar–>hbar_s would make the system more quantal.

One can imagine that a system consisting of ordinary elementary particles can make a transition to a large hbar phase without an appreciable change in four momenta of particles but with an increase in quantal size hbar/m defined by the Compton length. Macroscopic quantum phase is a natural outcome due to the quantum overlap of particles.

For instance, suppose that hbar_s/hbar= about 2^11 (a preferred value for hbar_s for certain reasons). Ordinary IR photon with energy of 1.24 eV corresponds to wavelength of one micrometer whereas “dark photon” would correspond to a microwave wavelength of 5 millimeters.

There are good arguments (in TGD Universe) for believing that dark matter particles form analogs of Bose Einstein condensates and emit coherently BE condensates of dark photons behaving very much like laser beams and decaying to ordinary photons with wavelength shorter by a factor 2^(-11) in our example (decoherence).

The possibility of several values of hbar would allow interaction between widely different time and length scales. This kind of interactions characterize living matter. Consider only how my intentional action to raise my hand eventually boils down to *coherently* occurring interactions in molecular and atomic length and time scales.

Matti Pitkanen