Friday, October 21, 2022

Professor Tejinder P. Singh's Noncommutative grand unified model of physics

 

This interview with Jeremy Rys aired today. Thanks Jeremy. It was wonderful talking to you all.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hi Professor Singh: thanks for the discussion today. I think this is what I was referring to regarding the photon and h-bar. So when you derive the charge from h-bar are you taking into account the noncommutative time-frequency of Planck's constant?
thanks,
drew hempel
Alain Connes: "h is Planck’s constant, a factor that converts frequencies into energies....the indication of the existence of a deformation with one parameter ( h here) of the algebra of functions into a non-commutative algebra...the plateaus corresponding to integral multiples of e2/h there are other flat regions for the Hall voltage which correspond to rational values of h/e2 σH with mostly odd denominators...the experimental results of spectroscopy forced Heisenberg to replace the classical frequency group of the system by the groupoid of quantum transitions. Imitating for this groupoid the con- struction of a group convolution algebra, Heisenberg rediscovered matrix multiplication and invented quantum mechanics. Heisenberg replaced classical mechanics, in which the observable quantities commute pairwise, by matrix mechanics, in which observable quantities as important as position and momentum no longer commute. Heisenberg’s rules of algebraic calculation were imposed on him by the experimental results of spectroscopy. However, Heisenberg did not understand right away that the algebra he was working with was already known to mathematicians and was called the algebra of matrices. It was Jordan and Born who noticed this. In fact, Jordan had remarked that the conditions which, in Heisenberg’s formalism, correspond to the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization rules, signified that the diagonal elements of the matrix [p, q] were equal to −i(h-bar). ...By analogy with classical mechanics, one requires the observables q of position and p of momentum to satisfy [p, q] = −i(h-bar), where h-bar = h/2π . Let π : H→SO(V ) be the representation of H in V , and ρ : Spin(V )→SO(V ) be the Spin covering. In general π does not lift to Spin(V ), and so we form the double covering of H given by: ̃H = {(h, s) ∈ H×Spin(V ) ; π(h) = ρ(s)}. Let u ∈ Spin(V ), u2 = 1, be the generator of the kernel of ρ, Let S± be the half-spin representation of Spin(V ). Since u ∈ ̃H acts by −1 on both ε and S± it follows that ε± = ε⊗S± are unitary H-modules." Noncommutative Geometry (1990) Alain Connes This is what I meant by the noncommutative photon via 1/2 spin.
 via my chat livestream!!
 
 Professor T. Singh: "Both quantum theory, and space-time, are emergent phenomena. They emerge from the generalised trace dynamics. In the new world, nothing commutes with anything. Nothing is local, neither in space, nor in time. Locality and separability are approximations of our present day universe. Spontaneous collapse is omnipotent and at play, making the universe look like it does. However, appearances can be deceptive. Deep down, if we look very carefully, everything is everywhere all the time, in a manner of speaking. Wandering is a property of the approximate universe. It is an illusion." There Are No Goals To Wander To Tejinder Singh, 2017
 
 Professor T. Singh: "Furthermore, the spontaneous localisation of a sufficiently large number of entangled STM atoms necessarily results in the formation of a black hole - that simplest and most beautiful of classical objects, characterised only by their mass, charge, and angular momentum. And if one tries to make a probing device which can go sub-Planckian and experience the deterministic matrix dynamics at play there, the device necessarily becomes a black hole. It cannot communicate the knowledge of deterministic dynamics to the outside universe. It is as if the STM atom has two pristine states: one being the matter-dominated state (i.e. the quantum electron), and the other being the gravity dominated state (the black hole). The quantum electron and the classical black-hole are dual states of each other - the former is the ultimate particle, and the latter is the ultimate computer."
 
 
 The information about black hole formation is coded in the anti-self-adjoint part of the fermionic Hamiltonian of entangled STM atoms. Upon Hawking evaporation, this information is not lost. It is present in the evaporated
radiation, but at sub-Planckian length scales. To detect this correlation of entanglements in the Hawking radiation one will have to probe the radiation at sub-Planck scales, but that will again result in the probe becoming another new black hole!
Nonetheless, in spite of black holes turning up all over the place, it is possible to make a fully
predictable quantum computer using our matrix dynamics, in the laboratory, at least in princi-
ple. The computer and the apparatus that measures the outcome are the two sub-systems of a combined deterministic system with the condition that the total mass is less than Planck mass.
So that at all events a black hole formation is avoided. To make the quantum computer, a set of entangled STM atoms is employed, with the initial conditions of the matrix dynamics [i.e. initial values of matrix components] precisely known. Then the quantum computation part proceeds just as in a conventional quantum computer, noting that the number of qubits is small enough that the spontaneous localisation lifetime is much longer than the duration of the computation. When the time comes to measure the output (which will be one of the matrix components), the system interacts (deterministically) with a much larger collection of STM atoms (a second quantum system).
This step is analogous to an electron arriving at the photographic plate (measuring apparatus) in a double slit interference experiment. Except that, now the plate is replaced by a large entangled quantum system with total mass such that the non-unitary evolution becomes significant, and spontaneous localisation sets in rapidly, on a measurable time scale. The quantum superposition present in the quantum computer will decay, deterministically, to a predictable outcome, which can be programmed algorithmically, knowing the rules of the matrix dynamics. We have a quantum
Turing machine with predictability.

 Professor Singh's hope is that physics will be able to test at this deeper level of reality. In terms of not being observable Sir Roger Penrose and Brian Josephson (both Nobel physicists) defer to quantum biology. So my own research is based in listening as logical inference and not observing. So even though there may not be physics achievable in terms of the truth of reality in fact the truth of our biology, if properly understand in terms of noncommutativity, already makes nonlocality perceivable. For example in a quiet room it is proven we can hear the amplitude or intensity of sound as a wavelength smaller than an atom! Also the corroboration of the Hameroff-Penrose model by Dr. Anirban Bandypadhyay is through ultrasound as quantum coherence from noncommutativity. Tinnitus research has proven that the highest frequency we hear externally actually resonates our brain internally at ultrasound thereby activating this quantum nonlocality. Finally it is also proven that musicians can hear up to ten times faster than "time-frequency uncertainty" and since time-frequency uncertainty arises from noncommutative nonlocality this demonstrates again direct perception of formless awareness as nonlocality. So the ultrasound frequency is actually the microsecond wavelength which is also the quantum coherence between the right and left ear. So Penrose and Hameroff cite the research of Benjamin Libet demonstrating our brain registers perception at the microsecond wavelength in terms of reacting to our finger being pricked but if only the cerebral cortex is activated then there is no stimulation. This proves as Penrose's latest talk on "Science of Consciousness" youtube channel that in fact our actual perception of reality is precognitive due to nonlocality. So to claim that physics can't prove nonlocality ignores the fact that as Basil J. Hiley emphasizes about David Bohm's model - it is not quantum mechanics but rather an inherent quantum organic process of reality as nonlocality. Also just as Professor T. Singh points out this nonlocality is actually a "fifth force" as Basil J. Hiley also points out. This "Fifth force" is also antigravitational as reverse time force.

 Comments on the Mass of the Photon
B.G. Sidharth
International Institute for Applicable Mathematics & Information Sciences
Hyderabad (India) & Udine (Italy)
B.M. Birla Science Centre, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad

 

Returning to the mass of the photon, it can be argued that this is a result
of the non commutativity of spacetime at a micro scale.
Hi Professor T.P. Singh: Can you please relate the above to your model? You consider the spin 1 photon having a classical limit to create gravity?
thanks,
drew hempel

 Quantum twistor theoryand, indeed, as we shall be
seeing later (in Part D), also space-time curvatureinvolves considering twistors (and dua twistors) as non-commuting operators, 

 craftwizrd

7 mergers at each infinite? So there is no free will, just 7 choices we could have made? And all 7 choices have been made uhhhggg
I recommend reading Stuart Hameroff's paper on retrocausal free well - it's his most read paper. "How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will" Hameroff collaborates with Penrose who also has now a noncommutative foundation of reality (since 2018 so pretty recent switch!). "Quantum twistor theory—and, indeed, as we shall be seeing later (in Part D), also space-time curvature—involves considering twistors (and dua twistors) as non-commuting operators, " Also you can watch Alain Connes' video on quantum randomness. Penrose is relying on Alain Connes as is Professor T.P. Singh. So the key here is the external observation appears random and thus as free will. The protoconsciousness is nonlocality in "pre-Space" or in the noncommutative quantum algebra as the true free will (aligned with the Universe and thus informal). In Indian philosophy this is called Atman=Brahman. It always exists in the future as a quantum potential. Alain Connes - Temps et aléa du quantique - that's the youtube title. The lecture is in English and Professor Basil J. Hiley is working on a new paper based on that Connes lecture. thanks

 

No comments:

Post a Comment