FrediFizzx wrote:thray wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:thray123 wrote:You're assuming that matter has confines. What constrains it?

Best,

Tom

That is easy and no assumption. Gravitational torsion.

.

Of course it comes with assumptions. That matter can't exist without it. That Planck's constant is real. That gravity is in fact, nonlocal -- for if Planck's constant, a quantum derived measure dependent on matter's existence -- is real, you're engaged in circular reasoning. If gravity is a local phenomenon, however, Planck's constant has to assume a zero value. This is why I am so interested in Jay's program, a micro scale Lorentz transformation. We know that if PC is zero, the world is classical, and if classical, manifestly local.

Well, there is a chicken or the egg thing here sort of. But there is no doubt now-a-days that Planck's constant is real. Non-locality only exists very near to Planck length if at all since we

found that elementary matter particles have a "size" near Planck length with neutrinos being the odd man out. So gravity is pretty local up to that scale as far as normal matter particles are concerned.

.

If size matters. Planck's constant is an empirical measurement. Dirac's constant (h-bar divided by 2pi) is the theoretical equivalent -- the limit of quantization. If spacetime is continuous, however, it is quantized at no point. Gravity, which we know affects spacetime -- does not rule out that spacetime affects gravity. If one admits, via quantization, a limit to the spacetime effect on gravity -- spacetime loses its continuum property, and we are compelled to speak in terms of boundary conditions on 'local spacetime' and 'nonlocal spacetime'. Then the door is open to nonlocal causality. In a universe in which past and future entropy are identical, there must be a 2-way exchange of information, 1-dimensional and without boundary. A 1-dimension universe allows big bang cosmology (see Bekenstein-Mayo) from a physical singularity the freedom to oscillate between - 1 and + !. The 1-dimension signature, 0 + 1, is exactly what first led me to believe in Joy's framework. Marc Holman, one of the honest critics, noted that it required an extra degree of freedom not seen in our ordinary 3D space of measurement, and dismissed it for that reason. I agreed with the analysis, not with the dismissal.

If size matters, comparative size matters.

Everywhere. So we get all these Planck limits --

except the limit at the source. That's where size doesn't matter, because there aren't any particles, no confinement; the source is zero. That is the extra degree of freedom. As Einstein once said (quoting from my paper) "I think of a quantum as a singularity surrounded by a large vector field. A large number of quanta compose a vector field that differs little from what we currently accept as radiation."