WDEshleman@aol.com
Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:35:32 EDT
In a message dated 8/25/99 8:01:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
stephenk1@home.com writes:
> Could you elaborate some more about your thinking of 2^LEVEL hierarchy?
Dear Stephen,
LEVEL = 0 is a level of scalars where collections of fermions add "perfectly"
in all of its 3 orthogonal directions. LEVEL = 0 is the level of the
observer
and is relative to the world in which the observer resides. That is, the
observer is always at a LEVEL = 0. Collections of bosons add up into
areas at this level and the fermions add up into volumes in this 3d space,
but the level of scalars is 1d in the sense that a sphere can change volume
or surface area only by changing its 1d radius. The energy factor for this
level is [ 1 + x^(2^0) ] = 1 + x .
LEVEL = 1 is a level of vectors; i.e. a^2 + b^2 = c^2 . There are 2^1 = 2
other
worlds at this level. This level is 2d in the sense that c is in the plane
of a & b.
The energy factor for this level is sqrt[ 1 + x^2 ] .
LEVEL = 2 is the first level of relativistic effects. There are 2^2 = 4
other worlds
at this level. This level makes the observer at LEVEL = 0 think that reality
is 4d.
The energy factors for this level ( 1 + x^4 )^(1/4) and ( 1/(1 - x^(1/4) )
LEVEL = 3 is tha first level of real/virtual particles. There are 2^3 = 8
other
worlds at this level. With the word dimension substituted for the word
world,
Matti's TGD shows that the standard predictions of QM (and some more)
result from the interaction (intersection) of levels 2 & 3 (4d & 8d) and the
creation of an infinite dimension geometry. I would prefer to go to LEVEL =
4,
etc. instead and therefore assume the infinite dimension geometry from the
start.
LEVEL = 4 and above keep all of the possible LEVEL = 0 fermions
and structures at levels 1,2, & 3 from collapsing to singularities and
from expanding apart to nothingness.
That is, from collapsing below R = GM/c^2 and from expanding above
R = (c/2) * sqrt(3/pi/G/rho) where M = rho * (4/3) * pi * R^3 .
A deductive reason for the levels is what I lack, but inductively they seem
so natural.
Sincerely,
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:31 JST