This does not help. You can't see anything with a Planck radius, even with our most powerful microscopes and you cant have a circle in 1d. — universeness

Can't you imagine a thin cylinder? We can't see a Calabi-Yau manifold either. Or even a 26d variation of it. Or branes. Or vibrating strings.

Yes. But if the circle is wrapped around the cylinder it can only move along the cylinder axis. Which means one dimension — Hillary

If you place a circular piece of paper on the surface of a pipe (cylinder) then you can slide it around in 2d. 4 directions, forwards, backwards, left and right.

Yes. The standard view. How then can they couple to a field of virtual gauge particles? — Hillary

As I suggested before 'virtual' means not real. Virtual gauge particles don't exist, they are mathematical concepts. Some exchange goes on between particles when they 'interact,' but we only have mathematical models of what's going on.

Which doesn't mean that particles are no 3d Planck volumes, looking pointlike from 3 directions. If you're a rigid 1d circle, a circle, on a thin cylinder, you can only move forward or backwards, not around it. If you meet another circle, your distance to it is not zero, though you can't get closer — Hillary

Why would the circle be rigid? point particles behave like waves not ping pong balls.
Two circles 'meeting' on the curved surface would interact like waves if they are bosonic and would not be able to interact like waves if they are fermionic.

If you place a circular piece of paper on the surface of a pipe (cylinder) then you can slide it around in 2d. 4 directions, forwards, backwards, left and right. — universeness

But it's the motion in the large dimension that counts. The circle might rotate around the cylinder and that can be interpreted as spin in the 3d case.

Can't you imagine a thin cylinder? — Hillary

Sure, I can start with a tin foil pipe shape and imagine it has very little thickness but if it has no thickness then it disappears from my view but I can still imagine that it's there but is too thin for me to see.

We can't see a Calabi-Yau manifold either. Or even a 26d variation of it. Or branes. Or vibrating strings. — Hillary

I know, which is why science uses modeling to hypothesize but that doesn't make virtual particles real or bring Calabi-Yau manifolds/strings/branes/10 dimensions onto existence. Such may exist in reality we don't know yet.

As I suggested before 'virtual' means not real — universeness

No. You said undetectable means not real. Which is the question. What the math in qft describes are litterally particles rotating in spacetime with an infinity of independent momenta and energies.

But it's the motion in the large dimension that counts. — Hillary

Why?
The flexible paper circle on the surface of the pipe can also rotate(spin) as well as move in 4 directions

I know, which is why science uses modeling to hypothesize but that doesn't make virtual particles real or bring Calabi-Yau manifolds/strings/branes/10 dimensions onto existence. Such may exist in reality we don't know yet. — universeness

Yes, but some things are obviously just math, without a counterpart in reality. Such a thing is string theory. Just consider its early incarnation 5d Kaluza-Klein theory. Non-quantum but inconsistent. Radion fields dont exist. Like many inventions, if not all, in string theory.

Why?
The flexible paper circle on the surface of the pipe can also rotate(spin) as well as move in 4 directions — universeness

Like I said, for the bulk motion only one component matters, like the 3 for tiny Planck spheres. The rotation degree of freedom has only implications for spin, not for motion in the large dimension. Just imagine you're a small circle on the cylinder, or a tiny Planck sphere on the 6d space. Its fun!

No. You said undetectable means not real. — Hillary

Do you have the quote where I typed that?

What the math in qft describes are litterally particles rotating in spacetime with an infinity of independent momenta and energies. — Hillary

From the ask a physicist site:
It seems strange to abandon the idea of rotation when talking about angular momentum, but there it is. Somehow particles have angular momentum, in almost every important sense, even acting like a gyroscope, but without doing all of the usual rotating. Instead, a particle’s angular momentum is just another property that it has, like charge or mass. Physicists use the word “spin” or “intrinsic spin” to distinguish the angular momentum that particles “just kinda have” from the regular angular momentum of physically rotating things

Yes, but some things are obviously just math, without a counterpart in reality. Such a thing is string theory. Just consider its early incarnation 5d Kaluza-Klein theory. Non-quantum but inconsistent. Radion fields dont exist. Like many inventions, if not all, in string theory. — Hillary

The same can be said for the musings of the DIMP guy, the mobius strip/klein bottle guy and you, the 4d torus guy.

The same can be said for the musings of the DIMP guy, the mobius strip/klein bottle guy and you, the 4d torus guy. — universeness

The difference being, that the 6d spacetime with 3d Planck spheres offers more explanations. It's no torus, by the way...

From the ask a physicist site:
It seems strange to abandon the idea of rotation when talking about angular momentum, but there it is. Somehow particles have angular momentum, in almost every important sense, even acting like a gyroscope, but without doing all of the usual rotating. Instead, a particle’s angular momentum is just another property that it has, like charge or mass. Physicists use the word “spin” or “intrinsic spin” to distinguish the angular momentum that particles “just kinda have” from the regular angular momentum of physically rotating things — universeness

That's not the rotation I talk about. You refer to spin. That's something different. The spin can be described by Planck spheres rotating. A small, non pointlike charge distribution creates magnetic moment.

It's no torus, by the way... — Hillary

Oh? You have changed your hypothesis? I will need to update your reference to the 6D manifold guy.

Haha! No, I've always said it's only the inside part of the torus. It resembles a wormhole and has negative curvature. The outside part is absent. It's cut open to make the inside part stretch to infinity. SemiTorus strikes again...

You are the only person to reply who understands the post. Thanks for your comment.

The big picture is that the universe has no beginning and no end. In the material universe, there are many existences that are indistinguishable from our bare eyes. But we know one thing that is constant is this process of becoming. It is the underlying element of all the things or events that we could observe here and now. With the process to become, there would be a process in evolution, namely there would be some circumstance that would form some kind of capability known as energy. This is something that has always been there and has been consistent with the Energy Conservation Law.

Eventually, the first existence from the dawn of time would be the first cause in dependent nature, and that is the universe itself. This means the universe corresponds with the inherent existence because of its unchanging nature. At the same time, perceptible truth would arise in the context of absolute truth, without exception. For example, it is impossible to measure the process of becoming unless one manipulates it in an observer mode, namely to grasp things with labels such as last Monday, next Tuesday, 3.25 pm, Friday 13th, 2020, etc. And the process of becoming observed varies with different observers under fluctuating vibrational frequencies, for instance, different planes of existence.

In the end, the absolute truth would be called the flux of spacetime a.k.a. the process of becoming. However, it is inappropriate to label the process of becoming either like this or like that because it has no beginning and no end in nature. In other words, anything that exists intrinsically will not involve change and the created objects cannot exist intrinsically because it implies change. Therefore, any activity resulting from variation cannot exist inherently, as there will be processes that will change over and over again. This means that there is an infinitely evolving multiverse within the sphere of existence a.k.a. the Universe.

I think he's closer to what physically happened than you can ever imagine. I actually know what existed before the big inflation from where space and thermodynamic time emerged inflationary. And lemme tellya, @val p miranda is damned close!

I never eat sushi, but I do not dislike sushi. I have spent numerous hours thinking about the post and I have borrowed from others--Aristotle, Kant, etc. If one thinks about the post, it appears more than plausible.

Thanks for the post and your understanding.

As I suggested before 'virtual' means not real. Virtual gauge particles don't exist, they are mathematical concepts — universeness

Sorry universeness, but here you are parroting the so-called experts. Not observable doesn’t mean virtual. We can imagine them. The moment you try to observe them, they become one of the external legs in Feynman diagrams and then they are not virtual anymore. So in a sense, the assumption that they are virtual is a hallucination, a dogma

The pleasure is mine! :wink:

Necessary in the sense that nothing cannot exist--nothing does not exist; therefore, something must exist.

Motion is the fundamental process. There is no past or future, only now. We remember events and record them.

If you want to know how the universe came to be, check my post on its origin

Eterrnal! That's another word with no existence.

For something to pop into existence from nothing

1. There must be, in Aristotelian terms, an efficient cause (primum movens).

2. There must be nothing

That's a contradiction, oui?

Ex nihilo nihil fit.

What actually drove inflation was a particular state of a 5D quantum spacetime. The 4D space part has the shape of a thin wormhole connecting two hyperbolic infinite spaces, on which two real, closed 3D universes emerged together with entropic time. When the both have accelerated away to infinity, two new one inflate on both sides of the hole. The negative curvature of the 5D quantum vacuum is the motor behind inflation

Motion is the fundamental process. There is no past or future, only now. We remember events and record them. — val p miranda

This is a juvenile argument. No one is denying that the present is what exists. The issue is that you keep saying there is no past. Stop talking about present and future. Focus on the issue. Your DNA is dependent upon the past. Your argument avoids the issue because you focus on everything but the proof that the past is real.

I am telling you that the past is real, and you think that you can disprove the past by talking about motion, present, future, etc., lol. None of these are arguments that say the past is not real, this is called a non-sequitur. The present does not disprove the past. Motion does not disprove the past. Time as a concept of movement does not entail an argument against the concept of past. Future is its own concept that does not entail an argument against the concept of the past.

The present is a notion of what is occurring "now". The future is a concept of what will occur after "now".
The past is a concept of what has occurred before "now".

"Now" does not prove that the past does not exist.
"Now" does not disprove that the past exists.
"Now" does not prove that the future does not exist.
"Now" does not disprove that the future exists.

"Now" exists because of motion.

"Motion" does not prove that the past does not exist.
"Motion" does not disprove that the past exists.
"Motion" does not prove that the future does not exist.
"Motion" does not disprove that the future exists.

Admit that you have no viable argument against the past other than to continuously talk about everything other than the past. Thus your argument is a non-sequitur.

The present exists, correct. The past is what has existed, and the future is what shall exist later.

The only way to adequately posit your argument against the past, is to say that the past never occurred in the first place. To which I will say, your memory is proof of the past, DNA is proof of the past, scars are proof of the past, development is proof of the past.

Saying that the present is only what exists, does not disprove the past. You can believe that the present is all that exists. But that is not a proof that the past does not exist.

We remember events and record them. — val p miranda

You remember events that happened when? If the past did not exist then you would remember events that are happening only right now. But that does not make sense, do you know why? Because the very definition of "remembering" is the recollection of past events. You see in the English language, the prefix "re" in this regard refers to "again", "repetition", etc.

re-
word-forming element meaning "back, back from, back to the original place;" also "again, anew, once more," also conveying the notion of "undoing" or "backward," etc. (see sense evolution below), c. 1200, from Old French re- and directly from Latin re- an inseparable prefix meaning "again; back; anew, against."

The many meanings in the notion of "back" give re- its broad sense-range: "a turning back; opposition; restoration to a former state; "transition to an opposite state." From the extended senses in "again," re- becomes "repetition of an action," and in this sense it is extremely common as a formative element in English, applicable to any verb.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/re-

Now, very easily, if you watch a movie from the past, and you do admit that movies exist right?

So, let's say you watch a movie from the past...

You say that the present is only what exists. Therefore, the movie shows the past and what existed in the past. But according to your argument you are saying that what the movie shows, exists right now?

So if your mother dies, and we have a video of her, does that mean your mother is still alive? Does the movie show the current existence of your mother's life? Or does the movie show the past existence of your mother's life?

Do you think that the DNA of your mother is part of the movie? Do you think that your dead mother is existing inside of the movie?

If we watch an old video from the 1900s and everyone in the video is currently dead, then how can we see them in the video? I mean, you said that only the present exists right? But they are dead.

Everyone in the video is currently dead, but the video exists right now, the present is all that exists, therefore the physical video exists right now, but here is the problem, the video conveys a meaning that represents people who are no longer alive Val P. The past is a meaning Val P, and this meaning as you admit, must exist right now. :)

You have thus, now been defeated.

Oh, btw, I'm sure that you will respond with one sentence saying time, or present, only exists, etc.

I am not interested, take care. I am not here to make you change your mind. :nerd:

The past doesn't exist. Only it's virtual image lingers on. All the particles that we're made of, are involve in one big irreversible trip from which is the core of time itself. We don't move trough space though like a dead system does, obeying the principle of least or stationary action. While our individual particles all obey such principle, the whole of our being, maintaining the ordered state against the entropic evil at work, isn't submit to such principle. Only when falling freely through the vacuum, the minimization of the Hilbert-Einstein action guarantees our path of minimum, and for those of the happy few in full understanding of the weirdness of quantum fields, its clear out domain of influence extends to the farthesr stars...

To the past we are connected by the virtual axis of time, a n ideal clock variable, it, extending to the first virtual cauldron from which it all emerged into real existence.

Sorry universeness, but here you are parroting the so-called experts. Not observable doesn’t mean virtual. We can imagine them. — Hillary

Your use of the term 'parroting' is a rather simplistic and unsuccessful attempt to dissuade people from listening to experts. A sinister but easily defeated tactic normally employed by the likes of Donald Trump and his supporters. As you say, you can only imagine virtual particles, that's because they are, like I said, not real and merely part of mathematical modeling, and yes, that's what the EXPERTS say.
Repeating what the experts say is a more reliable path to follow than repeating what you say about gods.

The moment you try to observe them, they become one of the external legs in Feynman diagrams and then they are not virtual anymore. So in a sense, the assumption that they are virtual is a hallucination, a dogma — Hillary

Was that how you created your gods? Did you try to observe them and then did you draw an external god leg in a Feynman diagram and then publish that scientific paper to the world as proof at last that gods exist? Has that paper been published and peer-reviewed yet?