This is a blogpost directly from Matti Pitkänens blog. It seems that also Matti thinks that physics is only for physicists, and my efforts to give TGD lessons are in vain. I leave it for the readers to judge.
Matti also complains that the communication does not work, and I thought this would be one way to make things easier, not more difficult? Experts can go to Mattis blog, where they find the math and the physical phrases. I try to avoid them as far as possible here. I use more words, because words are my tool. The reader can determine if they form just a word-salat?
In an earlier blog discussion Hamed asked about some kind of program
for learning TGD in roughly the same manner as I did it myself. I
decided to write a brief summary about the basic steps leaving aside
the worst side tracks since 35 years means too flat learning curve;-).
I wrote a summary about the very first steps, that is the
steps made during the four years before my thesis and related to
classical dynamics mostly. I could not avoid mentioning and even
briefly explaining notions like the "world of classical worlds" (WCW),
quantum TGD, Kähler action, modified Dirac equation, zero energy
ontology, etc... since I want to relate the problems that I
encountered during the first years of TGD to their solutions which came
much later, some of them even during this year. I hope that I find
time to write similar summaries about later stages in the evolution of
TGD and add them to this text.
This summary does not provide any Golden Road to TGD. I do not
even know whether it is possible to learn TGD. And certainly it is much
more difficult to passively assimilate ideas of others than to actively
discover and develop ideas by one self. The authority of the original
discoverer - such as that of Witten's - can help enormously but I do not
possess this kind of authority so that I must trust only on the power
of the ideas themselves.
Since the text consists of five pages it is more practical to give only a link to the pdf file containing it.
Comments:
Ulla said...
I have stranded on the spacetime itself. I cannot decide
which is the most easy way into TGD, and I think today it is wrong to
start with introducing the classic concept of spacetime. There is
clearly an interest in this, because my small 3 texts has got quite many
visits. I have 30 texts written, but because of the uncertainty I have
not published them yet.
Maybe the intro of some important problems would be a more logical way? As the three body problem?
Zero Energy Ontology etc. To link these to mainstream physics is also difficult for me.
Matti Pitkanen said...
The fact is that understanding of TGD requires
understanding of basics of physics and mathematics. As a referee I have
read so many unified theories by people who have read a couple of
popular science books and got the impression that building a theory of
everything requires just "creativity" that unified theories cannot be
built in garage.
Physics and theoretical physics are
disciplines, whose development has taken a about 500 hundred years, a
life work of totally devoted brilliant people. Nowadays these 500 years
can be compressed to 3-4 years in university classes. This is wonderful
but during this time one of course gets only some important impressions,
not much more. There is no hope of compressing 500 years to a couple
of web articles. This would be however needed as a background to develop
introduction to TGD for dummies;-).
Anyone can learn
macro-economics but theoretical physics is a REALLY difficult
discipline. Think only that the best mathematical brains have worked for
28 years in vain with superstring models. They did not get anywhere.
We still have Einstein's theory as THE theory of gravitation.
The
following old saying still applies. "God give me the wisdom to see
what I cannot do and give strength to do what I can;-)". In my case
this means that I cannot write a five page essay leading the reader
to enlightment but I can improve endlessly the articulations of TGD so
that who have the needed background can easily understand it when the
Zeitgeist allows them to read an article about TGD in presence of
colleagues.
Ulla said...
I did not talk of a 5 page essay. I talked about the basic
questions leading to TGD. It is so enormously complex by itself. I have
met so many questions now that need explanation in terms of mainstream
thinking. The implicit part of TGD is one big obstacle. Also the
different parts are so intwined in each other that it is almost
impossible to start somewhere simple. This made me stop for a while, and
now I have so little time for this. My aim is to continue, but I need
advice what the best path would be. To simply repeat what you have said
is nonsense. I need to UNDERSTAND it. As Hamed said, the most
interesting part is the biology, but to reach there I need the physics
first. Without university physics and most of the math :) I have only
the words. And it is only an intro.
One thing that maybe went
wrong is the Kaluza-Klein thinking about the cosmological constant? It
led to string theory, but are there other ways out? Or is the try to
mathematize the unknown wrong in itself?
I know you have the hierarchy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-a-dimension-anyway
Matti Pitkanen said...
Unfortunately words are not enough when one is trying
to talk about quantum physics or mathematics. In mathematics words
are only a shorthand - program calls initiating processes in the brain
of mathematician but not in brain of a layman. This mathematics is
sometimes very simple but difficult to grasp without background.
There is no concept so boringly simple as finite-D Hilbert space, but
when you try to understand quantum theory without it you encounter
mission impossible. Quantum superposition, quantum entanglement, and
quantum jump: here are three notions whose understanding without Hilbert
space is exceedingly difficult.
Complexity is very relative
notion. Basic principles are simple but once you start to really develop
and apply the theory, things become complex. So it is also with TGD:
TGD is a TOE covering everything form CP_2 length scale to cosmology and
one cannot expect simplicity at the level of implications.
The
theory of von Neumann algebras is excellent example of this: the axioms
look trivial but the mathematics generated by them looks formidable and
fascinating at the same time.
If you look about text book about
QED, something relatively simple by recent standards, you get
absolutely scared by the complexity of the formulas. And they are only
for electron-photon system!
I am sorry, but this is the
situation. It is very very lonely here and also the air is very cold and
thin;-). And it took 35 years to climb here;-). Maybe I should have
thought twice.
said...
Matti and Hamed, a learning strategy suggestion: to my
knowledge there is no better way to learn a thing than to internalize it
by trying to teach it to somebody else, "learn one thing, teach one
other" as the saying goes; so if Hamed finds suitable "victim" at some
stage of this process he could start trying to teach TGD - while
simultaneously learning it with the help that Matti can can provide.
Good
to see thins happening. The real test of TGD is can it be communicated
to other theoreticians and even laymen, or will it remain the "Lonely
God". ;)
PS: it's becoming almost impossible to post on this blog by passing the "not a robot" test. Which is both sad and funny.
Matti Pitkanen said...
To Santeri:
You are right about learning. Unfortunately too often only the teacher learns;-).
11 said...
Dear Matti,
Did you think about future experiments to support or falsify your TGD?
Matti Pitkanen said...
To 11:
Experimental tests are very important.
TGD makes a lot of predictions. Many of them are acutally successfully
tested already. Mention only p-adic mass calculations which are based
on extremely general assumptions.
a) No standard SUSY is one
prediction but no one takes this as interesting because standard SUSY is
already excluded in practice.
b) My hope was that the absence
of Higgs and identification of Higgs like state as pion of M_89 physics
could provide a killer test. It however turned out that TGD is
consistent with Higgslike state allowing at QFT limit effective
description of particle masses: this follows more or less from the
existence of QFT limit. Experimentally the situation is still unsettled.
Decays in two-gamma channel and to fermion pairs are both decisive.
c)
An excellent candidate for a breakthrough prediction is M_89 hadron
physics. The prediction of entire new hadron physics is sensational. The
recent observations from LHC (made for the first time already two yeas
ago and commented also here) have simplest interpretation as decay of
string like magnetic flux tubes to partons.
This kind of
objects should not appear at ultra high energies since they relate to
low energy hadron physics. The only possibility is that hadrons of new
hadron physics with large mass scale are in question. M_89 hadron
physics is of course the natural candidate for this hadron physics.
Already RHIC observed these events and QCD definitely does not predict
them. Therefore the notion of color glass condensate was introduced to
save the situation but it is not QCD prediction if we are honest. Quark
gluon plasma is the prediction of QCD.
More generally fractal
copies of hadron physics and also leptohadron physics predicting pion
like states consisting of color octet charged leptons are predicted.
These states have been observed for all lepton families but since they
do not fit with standard model the observations have been put under the
rug.
Also "infrared" Regge trajectories for ordinary hadrons are
possible and there is recent evidence in case of ordinary hadrons for
them: the scale of mass splittins is about 20-40 MeV.
d) TGD
explains family replication in terms of the topology of partonic
2-surface and this also means predictions of new physics. Do gauge
bosons have analog of family replication meaning an exotic octet of
mesons besides singlet for dynamical symmetry SU(3) assigned to the 3
families? And how massive are the fermions corresponding to higher
genus: here there is a good argument supporting the guess that they are
massive.
These are just few predictions and related to particle
physics. There are myriads of predictions in cosmology and astrophysics
and also in biology. This because TGD Universe is fractal. Basic
quantitative tool is p-adic length scale hypothesis predicting a
hierarchy of length scales coming as powers of sqrt(2).
The problem is the communication barrier due to the extremely arrogant
attitudes of the academic researcher. For this I cannot do much. It
would be a job of psychiatrist.
ThePeSla said...
Matti,
This post is an excellent attempt at trying to
communicate these frontier ideas. I downloaded it in hard copy of 8
pages and read it carefully. If you are interested in my impressions
where we may share some evolution in our approaches I have stated it
there.
Professors, like Hoyle when I had tea with him- well he
said students are always coming to him to comment on their theories-of
course we talked about other things, down to earth and I mentioned
supporting him briefly if I did not have other directions but certainly
not the new Big Bang cosmology.
Still feel free to comment on my
system if I have in discussing yours made it a little easier- then you
can get down to maybe something more useful from my own.
I
mentioned the scientific american article ulla had posted in facebook-
there was a time when I did break from just those two ways to apply and
see dimensions and it was an awakening moment.
I think your more careful formal approach is much more difficult than freely allowing the intuition and poetic magic to flow.
But
where you say you cannot understand some things even in the asking
clearly that is an achievement and perhaps some things in the context
were not an error (holographic stuff and surfaces for example) but the
context is such an error.
As to why the advanced culture of
Finnish science does not support your project that is like some form of
economics it would take another Gauss to begin to phantom although I
made meager suggestions.
All in all a great posting, thank you. I
do wish I had the training in the exponential type notations but
perhaps they slow us down.
Matti Pitkanen said...
To Fractality:
I hope I can find time and energy
to continue the summaries, also about TGD inspired theory of
consciousness and quantum biology.
Thanks for Pesla for encouraging comments.
Matti Pitkanen said...
Not seriously. Just some general ideas about what makes information molecule information molecule.
said...
Not sure how relevant this is to above questions, but
watching this vid about psychological time and internal "clock" so far
unexplained
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DKPhPz5Hqqc)
gave the idea that internal clock or time-sense could be based on Shnoll effect. Through "information molecules"?.
Would that be the expectation of your general view about the relation of geometric times and psychological times?
Matti Pitkanen said...
Thank you for asking. I cannot answer without bringing in magnetic bodies.
One
of their basic tasks is go generate EEG rhythms which define the ticks
of clocks with different basic units of time. It has been observer that
the period of EEG decomposes to two parts such that during first half
there is coherence and second half non-coherence.
Maybe this
means that during the first half period "alpha" subself with say
average lifetime/wakeup time of .05 seconds wakes up and dies in the
beginning of second half period (roughly). We ourselves would do the
same in time scale of 12+12 hours. Wake-sleep cycle would define a
universal clock.
In standard picture one tries to understand
basic EEG rhythms in terms of various brain circuits. I see this as
hopeless project as trying to find standard SUSY at LHC;-) but modern
Big Science is full of this kind of desperate projects.
I have
talked in
http://matpitka.blogspot.fi/2012/11/quantum-dynamics-for-moduli-associated.html
about the recent views concerning the generation of the arrow of time.
I do not bother to type the recent view about time.
Perhaps it
is enought to say that in zero energy ontology the analog of clock
pendulum emerges at very abstract level. The state function reductions
at upper and lower boundary of causal diamond take place alternatively.
This has as an analog the motion of clock pendulum: the highest position
at right- that at left- that at right-..... This would correspond at
the level of self sleep-wake-up cycles which would be universal aspect
of consciousness.
As always I think that the understanding is
rather satisfactory now;-) . I must of course confess that the
understanding of the arrow of time has been an Odysseia similar to the
understanding of the nature of possibly existing Higgs in TGD
Universe;-).
Ulla said...
Matti, fortunately I have absolutely no intention to make
things more complex than they need to be. I only try to make some
introduction, nothing else.
I have seen enough of nonsense to
realize this is difficult, and that's why I usually ask. I WANT to do
this because TGD is really a good way to understand things. But the
details necessary are troublesome, and they force me to read lots and
lots of articles. I don't write for experts, but for common people with
common knowledge. For them words like math phrases are just garbage and
say absolutely nothing. I have to 'translate' TGD.
Cold and thin
air is good for the brain. Why on Earth did you have to come in my way?
You should not have had, if things worked well, as T said. Dammit.
I have no problems with the test, which maybe says something about me?
Ulla said...
Can I publish this discussion on my TGD Lessons?
Hamed said...
Dear Matti, and the readers,
When I see the posting I
encounter with many comments. I know more of these persons are very
interested to understand TGD, but there is a big problem for them that
are a lot of physics and mathematics for those that don’t know about
basic physics and mathematics.
I have some suggestions for the readers and I request from Matti if anything between them is wrong, he correct and complete it.
Generally
learning science is a process that needs patient but it is very
enjoyable ;-). About TGD this seems hard, because TGD is not only a
theory but a program, a lot of mathematical and physical ideas and
principles had evolved more than 30 years. Although learning TGD is hard
but it is possible if one has enough patient.
I encourage everyone
even laymen that are working in other fields of science to learn TGD.
Because the worldview of TGD makes deep influence on their thinking and
this leads to progress and evolution in other fields of science too.
How the laymen can learn TGD? I try to answer it.
in
learning consciousness and biological parts of TGD, although at first
it seems that these parts doesn’t need mathematics or physics but as I
tried it, when one goes further and asks some whys in the bases of them,
at end it will be Revealed that it needs understanding Quantum TGD.
Similarly understanding the bases of Quantum TGD without classical TGD
is impossible.
But for a beginner it is useful at first to
understanding the definitions of concepts of TGD from classical to
Quantum and after it to biology and consciousness at the introductory
level without going further. For this the overview articles of TGD is
very good.
After this, I encourage them to learn basic concepts of
physics and mathematics. For laymen I think it is possible to learn them
without calculations because it is enough for their purposes.
Unfortunately it is not enough for me ;-). The book “The road to
reality” of Penrose is very good for this purpose.(for example it gives
some good mathematical intuitions about Hilbert space for learning
Quantum too) The prerequisite for learning the book is physics and
mathematics of high school. The physical intuitions in this book are
very useful even for teachers in physics.
Santeri Satama
suggested to me to teach for better understanding. Yes, It will be
useful for my learning and I will try as I can. I remember the quoting
of Einstein “You do not really understand something unless you can
explain it to your grandmother.” ;-). I am certain that I can’t explain
anything of physics to my grandmother ;-) but I think I can do it at
least for the readers of the blog and request from Matti to correct it.
Matti Pitkanen said...
To Ulla:
Nothing against your proposal.
To Hamed:
Thank
you for a perspective of a person who is really working hard to
understand the ideas of TGD. It would be nice to have the "Road to
Reality" in bookshelf. This kind of books are God's gifts to human kind.
Maybe someone writes someday this kind of book explaining hyperfinite
factors, Kac Moody algebras and all that stuff which makes me feel
unpleasant;-).
I feel that technical side is not terribly
important but maybe this is illusion: to learn the conceptual thinking
one must perhaps learn first the basic techniques such as the
mathematics learned in theoretical physical classes during first few
years.
Maybe this relates to basic fact about language:
words as such have no meaning, they only induce self-organization
patterns giving rise to the experience of meaning. The meaning of the
word is quite different for a person with and for a person without the
adequate background.
Ulla said...
Thanks Matti,
Hamed is right in the fact that
consciousness needs the physical background to be right understood. Also
every biological event need a physical explanation, and that is alone a
huge task. We have as instance with Matti discussed the meaning of
endorphins and serotonins, but without the physical background his
explanations seems meaningless, even nonsensical. This is exactly what
ordinary physicists encounter too, and this is why they say TGD is
rubbish. They simply have not the patience to learn it from basics. Many
times I feel I know more than them when I have tried to discuss things,
but then again I have too many empty boxes of knowledge. The mainstream
physicist have maybe what seems a coherent knowledge, but when I ask
deep enough it turns out they too know very little. This is why I asked
for a list of problems that show TGD as a possible solution.
Hamed is really very good for TGD. I hope time is ripe for it now, and he is not marginalized for it.
Matti Pitkanen said...
To Ulla;
Every generation of scientists plays again the evergreen "Emperor's new clothes" by H. C. Andersen.
A different thinking in many questions is very much charachteristic of TGD. Matti himself says that TGD is an oldfashioned quantum hadron model (as instance described by Björken), and the dimensions are emergent from microcosmos and gauge Lorentz invariance with its roots in the vacuum or zero point field. See also The model for hadron masses revisited.
The basic differencies of TGD in relation to other main theories:
The basic objection against TGD is acc. to Matti, that induced metrics for space-time surfaces in M^4 × CP_2 form an extremely limited set in the space of all space-time metrics appearing in the path integral formulation of General Relativity. Even special metrics like the metric of a rotating black hole fail to be imbeddable as an induced metric. For instance, one can argue that TGD cannot reproduce the post-Newtonian approximation to General Relativity because it involves linear superposition of gravitational fields of massive objects. Holger B. Nielsen made this objection for at least two decades ago. Perhaps the strong objection against TGD is that linear superposition for classical fields is lost.
The linear superposition is however central starting point of field theories. Many-sheeted space-time circumvent this argument. The replacement of linear superposition of fields with the superposition of their effecs meaning that sum is replaced with set theoretic union for space-time sheets. This simple observation has far reaching consequences: it becomes possible to replace the dynamics for a multitude of fields with the dynamics of space-time surfaces with only 4 imbedding space coordinates as primary dynamical variables. See also Standing waves in TGD.
The continuity has also been an obstacle in a world where even the quantum fraction is geometric.
Discrete vs continuous controversy in physics - discrete and continuous features coexist in any natural phenomenon, depending on the scales of observation.
I quote from the TGD Intro (2007) about the main differencies from mainstream:
TGD was originally an attempt to construct a Poincare invariant theory of gravitation. Spacetime, rather than being an abstract manifold endowed with a pseudo-Riemannian structure, is regarded as a 4-surface in the 8-dimensional space.
The identification of the spacetimes as a submanifolds leads to Poincare invariance broken only in cosmological scales and solves the conceptual difficulties related to the definition of the energy-momentum in General Relativity. Even more, sub-manifold geometry, being considerably richer in structure than the abstract manifold geometry behind General Relativity, leads to a geometrization of all basic interactions and elementary particle quantum numbers. In particular, classical electroweak gauge fields are obtained by inducing the spinor curvature of CP_2 to the spacetime surface.
Fig. 1. a) Future light cone of Minkowski space. b) CP_2 is obtained by identifying all points of C^3, space having 3 complex dimensions, which differ by a complex scaling \Lambda: z is identified with \Lambda x z.
This forces a generalization of the conventional spacetime concept to what might be called manysheeted spacetime or 'topological condensate'. The topologically trivial 3-space of General Relativity is replaced with a 'topological condensate' containing matter as particle like 3-surfaces "glued" to the topologically trivial background spacetime sheet by extremely tiny connected sum (wormhole) contacts having CP_2 size connecting the spacetime sheets. End quote.
The criticality.
One big problem in physics is the criticality, how a classic world can come from the quantum uncertainty. This problem does not differ so much from M-theory, but the solution does very much.
TGD can be seen as a model giving rise to GR as a simple 'mirror image', and also there is a double mirror. Time dimension also have this 'mirror image', and magnetism, em-'force' can be vanishing? See How to perform WCW integrations in generalized Feynman diagrams? and "The relationship between TGD and GRT". He writes (from the GRT abstract, and I have filled in other links):