Dr. rer. nat. habil. Norbert Schwarzer's Annus mirabilis Year - interview No6
About Apparent Asymmetries in the 3-Generations
Troy: in your paper “About Apparent Asymmetries in the 3-Generations”, you wrote that any system has the potential to come in three generations. What do you mean by that?
Norbert: Well mathematically you define a system with its attributes, degrees of freedom, properties which are mathematically equal to dimensions and then you do your math to define the minimum, say you apply the Hamilton Extremal principle. Then you do more math which is the Bianchi identity, and then you see… what! No matter what system I have, it can exist in three very fundamental states.
Troy: Not just for physical systems then, it can be for any system you want to describe?
Norbert: Yes, any system, no matter what.
Troy: Can you give an example of something that is non-physical?
Norbert: The mind!
Troy: That is certainly very, very different!
Norbert: Consciousness! My son discussed this thing with me and made a video about the three generations of consciousness (see below linked video).
Troy: Wow, this is something that would be very interesting for all of those trying to build an AI or worried about an AI having consciousness!
Norbert: yeah maybe. You have a certain mindset, and you may not be able to develop consciousness because it is not in the right state. I don’t know, I think there is much more to it. The essential point is that each and every system has the possibility to exist in the three states being determined and predefined by the Bianchi identity.
Troy: You say it has the possibility or potential to be in three generations, but it doesn’t have to be, right?
Norbert: No, because there is only one state being stable and this is the lowest one. So it’s the electron with the charged leptons, while the other two are not stable. They are the excited states.
Troy: You have a base state or a simple system that has the ability to become more excited and become more complex or evolve or it calms down….
Norbert: It’s just getting heavier!
Troy: Then from the mind point of view or an idea point of view, it would be a simple idea has a certain mass and as the idea gets more complex it generates more mass and more inertia etcetera.
Norbert: Yeah, the third state might drive you crazy!
Troy: (Laughing) Alright, so coming back to the paper which is about asymmetries in a three generation system. So with respect to the asymmetries in three generations of particles, what does asymmetry mean in this respect and are you talking about asymmetry in the Universe or ?
Norbert: No, no, no. Asymmetry discussed in the paper is just the one where I refer to positive and negative masses, meaning matter and anti-matter. Because the interesting thing here is that there is a numerical asymmetry. There is also another one having to do with how fermionic mass is being produced, which comes in paper #12. This asymmetry there is not discussed, it is something that I still have to do. Another paper will come about this if I have enough time and resources of course. But the suspicion I have had when using the Bianchi identity on those already existing elementary particles, I have found that it does matter, numerically, whether I assume anti-matter or whether I assume matter to come in three generations. Of course, both come in three generations but there are small differences which obviously come from the accuracy with which I can do those calculations. What does this mean? Well let’s just think about the universe as an ever-calculating entity. It calculates itself. It is not simply there. It calculates itself to be there.
Troy: Are you saying that we could be in an intelligent Universe?
Norbert: No, in a ‘calculating one’.
Troy: A calculating Universe.
Norbert: A computer calculates, it is not necessarily intelligent!
Troy: Yes, good point.
Norbert: The universe obviously cannot calculate with an infinite accuracy. As a computer can’t, there seems to be a limit. Let’s say the limit is of a size, lets call it the plank scale. The plank length is something like 10-36 metres or something, so it is extremely small. With the first particle being about one billion times bigger in size, you would have exactly the necessary asymmetry that you would require to explain the missing anti-matter in our universe.
Troy: Can we side track for a moment? For most people I think even the thought of what anti matter is, is confusing. What does anti matter even mean? What is it?
Norbert: Well matter moves forward in time, anti-matter moves backward in time. That’s the classical explanation. The more complicated explanation at least with fermions I have found when deriving the Dirac equation from the Einstein Hilbert action, is that there is always a forward and backward movement with both, but with different aspects of their existence. The classical theory only describes one of these aspects. We have scaling factors to everything in our Universe. These scaling factors are coming with metrics, where the scaling is just having to do with a volume, and they also come with the curvature. Let’s call one the metric scaling and the other the Ricci scaling. Then with matter the metric or volume scaling moves forward in time, the curvature scaling moves backwards in time and with anti-matter it is the other way around. This automatically allows for asymmetry, but within this paper which you are referring to, I have found there is also the possibility for asymmetry between matter and anti-matter coming just from a numerical issue. But this would automatically mean that the Universe calculates itself and by making numerical errors it produced the excess of matter. And made it dominant toward recessive antimatter. Hence our ‘matter’ Universe and the possibility for us to exist in it, to live in.
Troy: You also wrote “What if this non specialty actually leads to a miniscule of symmetry regarding the number of parameter options for matter and anti matter particles? “
Norbert: This is the same. Because we do not know how many dimensions or parameters that we need to describe certain particles. It’s probably less for the neutrinos than for the charged leptons, and its more for the quarks. This is more parameters.
Troy: I guess the important part here is that you haven’t constrained in this derivation, there’s no constraint on the number of parameters? Is that correct to say?
Norbert: Yes, so far, I have nothing fixed. This is just a general possibility where I wanted to mention all possible explanations leading to asymmetries within this path of calculation.
Troy: Then based on your comment that we could be living in a calculating Universe or we are living in a calculating Universe, what is the significance of that to physics and science in general? To me it’s mind blowing, I mean wow!
Norbert: What is the significance? Well that everything has a certain uncertainty, which is just the ‘accuracy uncertainty’ of the computer we are living in. Which also COULD EXPLAIN the asymmetry effect! This follows from the derivations I have performed so far! This is just a bunch of conclusions I extracted from there, and it is from those conclusions where I know that I do not know everything!
Troy: if I have understood you correctly and maybe taking some creative freedom to explore. You’re describing or showing an algorithm that potentially describes the universe as it has been running for 13.8 billion years?
Norbert: As a computer program. Yes.
Troy: I am sure the people reading this might be thinking now “does that mean we live in a simulation?”
Norbert: Absolutely, it could be. Or it’s a program run away from its original purpose. Because it seems to be self-evolutionary.
Troy: Or reality is a simulation, it’s not really simulating anything because it’s not copying anything, it’s, its own unique system.
Norbert: This is exactly what’s been meant when you say only because this is just in your head, this does not necessarily mean that it is not real.
Troy: (laughing) So each of us in our own head could be running, or are running our own simulation.
Norbert: We do!
Troy: And that’s our own perspective!
Norbert: Yes. That is why “the theory of perspectivity”, which comes with the moon problem.
Troy: Which we discussed in an earlier interview. (Interview No4 https://gpplasma.com/blog/dr-schwarzers-annus-mirabilis-year-interview-no4 )
Norbert: Yes.