Search FQXi

If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Contests Home

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: the Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 8:43am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Vladimir Tamari: on 9/29/12 at 9:21am UTC, wrote Hello dear Vijay. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80...

Vladimir Tamari: on 9/29/12 at 9:19am UTC, wrote Hello Dear Vijay Gupta Thank you for the explanation of your interesting...

Vijay Gupta: on 9/22/12 at 17:54pm UTC, wrote Dear James, In PicoPhysics, we are concerned with all aspect of nature...

Vijay Gupta: on 9/21/12 at 15:17pm UTC, wrote Goodmorning Dear Vladimir F. Tamari, Thanks for your comments. I followed...

Vijay Gupta: on 9/21/12 at 15:07pm UTC, wrote Dear Sreenath, PicoPhysics has been developed as a thought process to...

Vijay Gupta: on 9/21/12 at 15:00pm UTC, wrote Dear James, It is heartening to note that you read my article in fair...

James Putnam: on 9/20/12 at 17:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Vijay, Ok I think I understand that when you say: "... With this a...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

John Cox: "Mr.Dufourney, Thanks for the warning. Shall I call ahead and let the..." in New Podcast: Pluto,...

Steve Dufourny: "I am sorry , I become perhaps crazzy with all that" in New Podcast: Pluto,...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: "On the subject of time and gravity, I go by Bill Unruh`s statement; ‘ ....." in Is Gravity Time's Archer?

Steve Dufourny: "Hello dear Eckard,John,TH,... I don't know what I must do, all my net is..." in Alternative Models of...

Akinbo Ojo: "Steve, Eckard, et al Steve, Do you accept that light is a transverse wave..." in Alternative Models of...

Akinbo Ojo: "A very nice suggestion. This was how Physics used to be done when it was..." in Action and Excitement and...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, "I am not sure whether you refer to physically real ones or to..." in Quantum Coherence =...

Eckard Blumschein: "No Rob (2), You merely admitted that future sound cannot be heard and..." in Quantum Coherence =...

RECENT ARTICLES

Conjuring a Neutron Star from a Nanowire
Using tiny mechanical devices to create accelerations equivalent to 100 million times the Earth’s gravitational field—mimicking the arena of quantum gravity in the lab.

Inferring the Limits on Reality (that Even the Gods Must Obey)
The fuzziness of the quantum realm could arise from mathematical restrictions on what can ever be known.

The Quantum Thermodynamic Revolution
Combining theories of quantum information with the science of heat and energy transfer could lead to new technologies.

Face Off: Building a Toy Universe to Pit Quantum Theory Against Gravity
Using superconducting circuits to create a curved-spacetime analog with stronger gravity than our cosmos.

Is Gravity Time's Archer?
A new model argues the forces between particles in the early universe loosed time's arrow, creating temporal order from chaos.

FQXi FORUM
August 4, 2015

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2012 [back]
TOPIC: 5-Dimensional Universe by Vijay Mohan Gupta [refresh]

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 10:33 GMT
Essay Abstract

Human inquisitive search for order in nature led to evolution of abstractions on nature. Among the powerful abstractions are Space, Energy and Nominal Numbers. They form subject matter of this essay. The terms observation and observer share there meaning with measurement and ‘reference frame’ among others. Space is affiliated to frame of reference. Conservation includes neutralization when applied to charge Vs mass where no neutralization is experienced. Energy is affiliated to Conservation and measurement with nominal numbers. In this essay we propose a re-alignment of relationship between these abstractions and introduce a new term Anti-Konservation as defining characteristic of space. By doing so we overtly do away with legacy of fixed (no change) space carried from Cartesianism. The benefits include a 5-D view of universe ‘Space contains Energy’ and integration of many fundamental laws with explanation for some astronomical observations.

Author Bio

Academically Vijay Gupta is an electronics engineer. He lives in Toronto, Canada. Theoretical Physics has been his passion since 1965. He initiated himself into a Pico-Physics - rethink process to integrate laws of physics into Unary law. Explanation begins with creation of particles in Space. The properties of these particles are evolved and identify with individual matter particles. Simple facts like 3-Dimensions of space, Time, Inertia, Force, Mass, Charge etc have to be integrated into Unary Law. Results of PicoPhysics match most of contemporary physics. It differs on elementary particles and theory of universe. www.picophysics.org

Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear Mr. Gupta,

I think that your essay is one of the finest works on abstraction I have ever read. For myself, I think the scientists are wrong in assuming that there are three theoretical dimensions with one aspect to them. I believe the reverse is true. I strongly feel that there could only be one dimension that always has three aspects to it. Your concept of the possibility of there being 5 dimensions though is far superior to my humble one.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 17:32 GMT
Hi,

You are false both of you.Please respect the GR and its sister the SR.Now I am going to explain quickly why it is not possible.

Because for the respects of all our proportions due to rotating 3D spheres, we must accept the 3D in all abnalyzes.Because Mr Gupta, without this 3D and its relativistic evolutive 4D space time.Don't confound the vectors of course !!!!Without this 3D I am repeating, we cannot see the contemplations of this magnificient UNIVERSAL 3D SPHERE IN EVOLUTION OF MASS .

I am very chocked to see how scientists interpret our foundamental laws.Oh My God, but what do they do ?

Please dear extradimensionalists, the complexity is to analyze the 3D in details towards the singularities, these walls , so not necessary to invent false diemsnions, let's calculate and analyze our pure 3D.In fact your works are a lost a time simply.For me also in trying to explain a rational road !

Regards and good luck that said .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Vijay Gupta replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 06:20 GMT
Dear Mr Steve Dufourny,

It is my pleasure to read your comments. Many mainstream physics experts will feel the same. Text of your comments hints to some basic questions. I will try my best to formulate and reply to them.

Before I address the questions, the 5-Dimensional universe to me is same as simple fact that Energy exists in Space. We can not intuitively conceive of energy...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 06:41 GMT
Dear Mr Joe Fisher,

Thanks for your comments and encouragement. 'One dimension that always has three aspects to it' is correct. If we divulge at what is meant by aspect is dimension and what is meant by dimesnion is the reality in my discussion.

Space has Euclidean 3-Dimensions. Knergy has two dimesnions (Energy and Chronological). The chronological dimension of Knergy is mapped onto one of the Euclidean dimensions. This gives us 5 dimensions of universe that is composed of Space and Knergy.

As you rightly said, we as human continue to work to understand nature. To understand we create an order based on abstractions and logic. In this aspect no one concept can estabish superiorty, but scope of applicability of abstraction is important. I have tried to make sure no aspect of mainstream physics as known to me about 40 years back is left out.

Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 15:43 GMT
Vijay

As per your request on my blog.

1 What ‘really’ occurs (assuming it does) we cannot know. We are trapped in a loop of sensory detection, which, given certain practical problems with that, we can enhance, scientifically, by hypothecation based on validated direct experience (ie that is indirect sensory experience). All the machinations post receipt at the sensory organ are...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 16:59 GMT

I would like to acknowledge and thank you for your valuable comments.

Your are correct in stating ‘What ‘really’ occurs (assuming it does) we cannot know?’ The view on validated direct experience as observation of a fact of nature is correct. When this experience is tied with a number, we call it a measurement in the language of PicoPhysics, otherwise it is an observation related to human senses. I have meditated on object, observer and observation to understand what we mean by observation. This is available as a write-up at

http://picophysics.org/concepts/observation-observer/

You have correctly stated Measured reality is the calibration of what exists. Existence part is seen as identity of reality. The calibration part is considered as attempts to identify a unit and number to represent the same. Here as well as on other points mentioned by you, I agree with you.

On chronological dimension, I agree with you. In mainstream physics, this is hidden in the linguistic definition of reality itself. For example, if energy or mass is given property of conservation. I believe the reason is originally we were not able to think in terms of transfinite numbers (uncountable infinities). We could easily conceive a line segment of 2 centimetres being twice as large as one centimetre. But when we consider the points in these two lines, both have infinite points. Georg Cantor gave us the additional numbers to represent the difference in point counts on lines of differing lengths, but the same has not been interpreted on these lines. In this essay, I am making an attempt to bring to fore-front the dimension of time instead of hiding it linguistically. This also helps us place special relativity on firmer grounds.

Distinguishing realities has to be based on what they are. In this presentation and others to follow, we will be able to establish that at the core, are two realities; Space and Knergy. Out of this Knergy is naturally quantized and binds occupied space together.

You have correctly stated that Time does not physically exist. It represents dynamic states of universe across which Knergy is quantitatively preserved. In Pico-Physics thought process we have more or less same thought process as yours on time. We put it across in terms of instance – a snap shot of universe, and event an occurrence or presence of Knergy in space. Time is seen as distance between events and Samay (the chronological dimension) as distance between instances.

You are again right to state that ‘Space does not physically exist’. Its existence is meaningful when either is occupied by Knergy or traversed by Knergy. Otherwise, it can be just considered as collection of points defined by four values (Euclidean co-ordinates and event gap from observer) where Knergy is present at any instance.

Please advice if I was able to interpret and integrate your opinion correctly into my thought process.

Thanks and regards

Vijay Gupta

Paul reed replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 06:19 GMT
Vijay

“The view on validated direct experience as observation of a fact of nature is correct”

But be careful not to translate that, or what I say, as there must be direct, and validated, sensory experience for fact. There are many reasons why this may not be true, or more obviously, possible (para 22 my essay). So hypothecation is necessary, but it is based on, and checked against, direct experience as far as possible. Therefore there are facts and ‘indirect’ facts. The point is, not assertion and not a model/ representational device which does not correspond with how physical phenomena occur and hence generates assertion.

“I have meditated on object, observer and observation to understand what we mean by observation”

Any form of sensing (including observation) involves the passive receipt of a physically existent phenomenon. In travelling, it came to the same spatial point at the same time as the receiving organ of a sensory system. Some light hit an eye rather than a brick wall. The difference is that subsequently within the sensory system it is processable as ‘information’.

There is no infinity, just ‘unbelievably large/many’. For physical reality to occur, it must be definite. That is, as at any point in time there is X, which is physically existent. But, it would be impossible for us to define (say) the monitor in front of you in terms of its physically existent state (ie X). However, that measuring failure should not lead to the misrepresentation of reality.

Time does not represent anything. The whole concept needs to be eradicated. There is difference, which indicates alteration. And the rate of change irrespective of type is calibrated by a measuring system known as timing. By definition, there can be no change within a physically existent state (reality) because change involves more than one, it is difference between (ie more than one), not a characteristic of one.

“Please advice if I was able to interpret and integrate your opinion correctly into my thought process”

On the face of it, yes. But there are some concepts in your essay I do not understand (I will give it another read) AND I have learnt in a year of posting here that people seem, indeed believe, to agree but actually do not. So I would be grateful if you could similarly read my essay again and comment on it. That will tease out any underlying differences.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 14:08 GMT
Good morning Paul,

Thanks for your comments on my essay. I appreciate yourself commenting your essay with paragraph numbers. It is a great idea.

I have meditated on reality quite a bit before coming to conclusions reflected in my current thinking. Your emphasis on logic and physical reality in Para 3 to 9 is perfectly compatible with special relativity and Lorentz transformations. Lorentz transformations can be read to state that if different realities exist with characteristic speed different than speed of light, they are mutually non-interacting. Their location can not be ascertained. This was one of my earlier conclusions drawn from reading Lorentz transformations.

My current approach is understanding reality in terms of reality and identity. I am at peace with this understanding, as I am able to order and control my thoughts on this basis. Before I developed this approach to reality, I remain confused on reality. May be I remained in confused state on reality for about 10 years.

Para 10 to 14 in your essay is looking at core/foundations/fundamentals of existence and reality. Mainstream physics uses our well developed intuition on these matters but is otherwise silent (at least not taught to us at school level). I have made an attempt to bring the intuition into picture when considering these aspects.

Para 15 to 24 divulge into different aspects of observation while Para 25 to 29 on measurement aspects. I agree on most of the points. Being an engineer, I think in terms of numbers and units. This is reflected in my approach to understanding these issues. My approach is available at http://picophysics.org/concepts/observation-observer/ .

Para 30 to 37 indicate the relationship of the ideas with mainstream physics. This is what all of us are doing here - attempting to evaluate our ideas for usefulness to mainstream physics. I believe you have great ideas and understanding about nature. I find them to be useful.

I greatly appreciate the time you have taken to help me in the process and continue to look forward to receive your comments on my thoughts and approach to understanding nature.

Thanks and Best Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 10:40 GMT
Dear Vijay Gupta,

you have presented a lot of information in your essay and have obviously put a lot of thought into how it all works. How should Knergy be said? Being unfamiliar with it and not knowing how to say it, I had to keep referring back to the definition and translating it.

I agree that there is energy associated with matter but I have reservation about agreeing that it is a property /dimension of the matter itself.I think it can be symptomatic, for want of a better word, of a relationship to other matter and /or the environment. If the matter could be isolated from all other matter and environment (which is impossible))the kinetic energy, and minimisation of potential energy, that gives change also would not exist. The -relationships- are necessary for the particular change to occur and for it to be defined.

Though I am not sure of the advantages of describing reality as you have, you probably are. It would take me a while to become familiar with what you propose.We do not need to agree.Good luck in the competition, and I hope you find lots of appreciative readers.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 12:30 GMT
Dear Georgina Parry,

It is my pleasure to receive your comments of 5-Dimensional universe. 5-Dimesions of space is another way of stating that Space contains Energy. However, when we try to understand what energy is, we find that no specifics can describe energy but conceptual conservation. An investigation into conceptual conservation leads us to other realities that are considered conserved. Prominent among others are charge & momentum. These others are distinguishable from Energy and matter in one respect that is neutralization. If we are able to distinguish between realities that are conserved, with neutralization as basis we hypothesise Konservation as conservation without neutralization.

Now when we attempt to understand Energy and matter we reach another bottleneck. That is observed magnitude depends on observer for energy. For matter – say a billion atoms of hydrogen, it is not dependant on observer. To distinguish between matter and energy we coin another word ‘Knergy’ pronounced as K-e’nergy.

This leads us to Knergy and Konservation. Now we look back at the fact of Energy exists in space. In attempt to transform this truth statement into law of nature we replace Energy with Knergy. ‘Space Contains Knergy’ is now termed Unary law.

The distinction between Energy & Knergy is described in further details at http://picophysics.org/concepts/konservation-and-knergy/.

The pdf commentary for download and keeping for referenceis available at http://vmguptaphy.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/konservation.p
df

For this statement to be called ‘Unary Law’, it has to be self contained. At this time, still definition space as 3-D continuum is borrowed from outside. I will continue with this in a moment.

Thanks and best regards,

Vijay Gupta

Anonymous replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 12:58 GMT
Dear Georgina Parry

Continued (3-Dimesnions of space)

Understanding of space is build in contrast with Konservation with an eye on knowledge about nature already accumulated into our intuition. In the exercise to arrive at Unary law, we give pride of place to human intuition.

Some logically direct corollaries of Unary law are detailed at http://picophysics.org/unary-law/unary-law-corollaries/

The pdf commentary is available at http://vmguptaphy.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/unary-law-coro

The main derivative statements emerging out of this discussion are;

1.- Space has three dimensions

2.- Knergy moves at constant speed in space.

3.- Time is progressive and unidirectional.

4.- Knergy can be freely distributed in space.

5.- Space has affinity to possess Knergy

6.- Space devoid of Knergy is homogenous

These results give us sufficient leverage to call 'Space contains Knergy' as law of nature. Since it acts as mother law we call it Unary Law. Now all laws of nature at minimum need to meet the test of being compatible to this statement 'Space contains Knergy' or unary law.

5-Dimensional Universe is a statement that says that if you would like to consider space and Knergy together as one reality, there are five dimensions to it. This gives us the heading of this essay '5-Dimensional Universe'.

Most of the text in essay is my attempt to be able to speak in the context of mainstream physics.

Thanks and best regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 12:29 GMT
Dear Georgina Parry,

Do we agree that 'Space Conatins Energy' is statement of truth?

Vijay Gupta

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 00:58 GMT
Dear Vijay Gupta I enjoyed reading your paper, and see you are seriously seeking a new physics from fundamental new starting points. Your analytical approach to define terms both mathematical and physical reflects your seriousness - also the historical perspective you bring to the discussion. I found that I could not understand exactly what some of your terms mean - perhaps concrete examples will be helpful. For example what is neutralization? I agree with you that a 5th dimension of energy is essential in conventional physics. In my Beautiful Universe Theory the ether nodes are carriers and transmitters of this energy of space. Such a 5-dimensional Universe was proposed in Kaluza-Klein theory. It has been suggested that the 5th dimension pertains to ether particles.

Keep up the good work! Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 12:14 GMT

It is a pleasure to receive your comments on my work. I am encouraged by your words. My efforts are directed towards understanding nature. I still have some hurdles to cross. One of them is to decide on natural units of measure. We have already zeroed on planks constant h (for Knergy) and speed of light (ratio). We need at least one more and have to...

view entire post

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 07:01 GMT
Dear Mr. Vijay Mohan Gupta

I thank you for your kind and encouraging response and explanations. Physics is really wonderful and I am enjoying the fqxi discussions to meet and discuss theories and ideas with like-minded people from around the world. Many years ago I saw the work of Prof. Rati Ram Sharma of Chandigarth and he too had proposed a new ether-based physics.

To include URL in your post click "link help page" under Add New Post below. It will explain the format - but I found that deleting the "http//:" from the link added will insure it works properly. Try it before you post.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 15:17 GMT

Thanks for your comments. I followed your link, and would like to express my thanks to you to point the same to me.

PicoPhysics is not based on Ether - since the concept of ether was based on propogation of disturbance (and energy causing it) in space. While KAMBHAR of PicoPhysics signifies the Non-Konserved nature of Space. It is not different from space itself.

So in PICOPHYSICS the third reality KAMBHAR is reflection of SPACE itself and introduced to keep the argument in line with human perceptions.

Thnaks and Best Regard,

Vijay Gupta

Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 16:47 GMT
Vijay

An intriguing and very original view, which I agree has important consistencies with my own model as well as demonstrating that the most fundamental assumptions are not beyond question. Certainly naive in places, but the opposite to naive is often 'indoctrinated', and there is quite enough of that.

I must confess I did struggle to absorb some parts, and was concerned abut others. For instance A model with ourselves at the centre of the universe was what Galileo's greatest advance helped us partly escape from. However we still need another conceptual step away to see the universe holistically. I fear any model that assumes us at the centre of anything is thus retrograde. It is a 'way of thinking'.

Modern western thinking will describe the position of 'a tree' as would a US student or GI.; "It's 200 paces thirty degrees to my left, east of south." A holistic description would be "It's 20m west of the last bend in the river". We view the universe the first way, which is quite useless in any absolute terms. When we understand the CMB axis of flow, the motion of our local group with respect to that, and the galaxy within the group, our arm within that, and the sum within the arm, etc etc, and what such as CMB 'frames last scattered' imply, only then may we be able to start seeing and understanding the bigger picture.

But that does not disqualify the rest of your concept, which I applaud, including matter as energy. I don't see that Georgina's view of energy as motion motion precludes that in any way, because matter all is also state of motion.

Finally I wonder what predictive power or success it may have had if any, at resolving anomalies etc. Of course as an astronomer I have rooted out many ignored aberrations not 'made public'. I refer to some in my essay. As the point of new theory is to resolve issues it is by that it must be judged. Have you evaluated any yet? I do see it as perhaps offering a valuable route around the problem of ether in peoples minds. It is ignored that the Higgs field is essentially of the same category!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 14:07 GMT
Good morning Peter,

Yesterday night, I replied thanking you for kind words and encouragement it gives me to devote time to PicoPhysics. May be I missed Submit button.

You are right; any model that assumes us at the centre of anything is retrograde. In PicoPhysics world, any model that thinks in terms of center of universe is retrograde itself. Galileo moved center from earth to near...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 10:49 GMT
Vijay

I agree there is a cut off, probably more on the lines of the Yukawa potential, rather than infinity. My model provides a physical presence and mechanism, coupling and diffraction at the plasma shock, to form boundaries preventing infinite effects. These are kinetic so unite SR and GR via QM. This is all built into the kinetic model in my essay, unfortunately too complex for a cursury read to extract it seems.

Your essay was original and gave fascinating new viewpoint with some pertinent observations. I note it is languishing and will apply the score boost it deserves. I hope you may also score mine in the same way.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 16:36 GMT
Thanks Peter,

I read about Yukawa potential (in Wikipedia) that introduces an exponential decay term that creates a cut off. PicoPhysics has no opinion on the same.

In view of PicoPhysics (infinite - maths part) a reality that is measured with a number of third infinite order, can not be spanned by another reality that is linear. (This is also the reason for space to have 3-dimensions.)

This essay may be languishing - since I don't belong to the community organizing this competition. I am thankful to them, for the plate form they provided to me to air my views on nature.

I am satisfied that I have been able to understand nature based on a single statement 'Space Contains Matter'. 5-Dimensional universe can be seen as a corollary of the same. By the way, in PicoPhysics even the 3-dimensions of space are proved as corollary to unary law 'Space contains matter'. So are manu other concepts that are taken as facts from human intuition are established starting teh logic from Unary law 'Space Contains Matter'.

(I have re-worded the Unary law from Space Contains Energy' since I wrote this essay).

Thanks and best regards,

Vijay Gupta

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 08:29 GMT
Hi Vijay,

"Just few comments from a PicoPhysicst.

1. Preferred system of reference (PSR): Preferred system of reference has always been there and will continue to exist. It is the reference system realtive to which the observer is at rest. In most of our arguments we also believe the observer is at origin that enables use of different co-ordinate systems and easy interpretation of mathematical formulations."

OK, I'll go along with that.

"2. Ether was a very different concept so was earth at center of universe."

The aether is the light bearing aether. That means it incorporates all of the characteristics that light needs to exist. All this other stuff about the sun being the center of the universe is just

"3. There are many more assumptions that come to mind which are at core of mechanics - whether Newtonian or relativistic. First and foremost of them being the assumption of uniformity of space.

In the essay 5-Dimensional Universe we describe the universe as 5-dimensional with time dimension mapped in drift direction. This not only provides constancy of speed of light as well as seen as a proof for uniformity of space."

I'll agree to 4D (3D + time); but where is this 5th dimension?

"Thus time and one of the dimensions (in the drift direction) have conformal mapping and thus measures to same number. The ratio is unity - giving speed of light a character of universal constant.

If we try to meditate on means available to measure distance and time independently, we will find that is not possible without bringing into picture constancy of speed of light."

I've noticed that too. What do you think it means?

report post as inappropriate

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 13:37 GMT
Thanks annonymous,

My view on Ether

Arguments on ether may begin with carryover of Pre-Newtonian concept of space as extension of matter. Cartesian physics considered everything extended to be corporeal, thus rejecting the idea of empty space. Observation of interference and diffraction of light made some theoretician to relate light with sound. In parallel to this, conservation of...

view entire post

Sreenath B N. wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 17:24 GMT
Dear Vijay Gupta,

You,I feel,have tried to explain whole of physics on entirely unknown concepts and descriptions.It,ofcourse,reflects original way of thinking. But,for me,it appears that it would have been nice if you had demonstrated your ideas quatitavely and shown as to how they are related to the existing theories.

Anyway,wishing you good luck in the essay contest.If you have time go through my essay too (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1543--Sreenath B N.).

Best regards,

Sreenath.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 15:07 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

PicoPhysics has been developed as a thought process to integrate my knowledge about physics into a single postulate. The postulate is called Unary Law of PicoPhysics. It simply states that 'Space contains Matter'.

You are right - quantitative match is required. We do the same by correlating and reducing the number of universal constants. For example Gravitational Constant and Hubbles constant are related to each other.

Though I donot yet have complete quantitative match with scientific facts, I have a fairly developed logic to integrate most of the established physics into this single Unary law - SPACE CONTAINS MATTER.

Thanks and best regards,

Vijay Gupta

James Putnam wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 22:25 GMT
Vijay Mohan Gupta,

I would like to see relativists debate some of the content of your essay. I have not found any use for Einstein's, or his supporter's, visual aids. They are not needed to explain or account for relativity type effects nor for deriving the correct equations necessary for properly modeling those effects. Now, that is my opinion. I think though that your approach has more opportunity to draw serious debate. I hope it happens. Your arguments deserve to be evaluated.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 22:36 GMT
My apologies Vijay. I posted that message in the wrong forum. Please disregard it. I will repost it in Robt Curtis Youngs' forum. I have your essay open and was reading it at this time and ended up posting incorrectly.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 23:21 GMT
Dear Vijay Mohan Gupta,

"The most powerful abstraction is found in mathematics - Georg Cantor's set theory. It extended natural numbers to transfinite numbers. With this a rational and logical world is built around numbers as objects in themselves."

This appears to be a learning opportunity. I see that you proceed to explain it. I look forward to understanding how numbers become objects. :)

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 17:48 GMT
Dear Vijay,

Ok I think I understand that when you say: "... With this a rational and logical world is built around numbers as objects in themselves." you actually don't mean that numbers are objects themselves, but, rather are symbols for counting objects. The objects are those things that justifiably deserve units of measurement. That is normal enough if I correctly interpret your meaning. I presume from what I have read that you do not assign units to numbers as if the numbers alone really are objects.

The units you refer to always belong, in the sense of counting, to some sometimes unidentified but recognized in a general physical sense to be objects. I further presume that those unmentioned objects are empirically verified physical objects when physics is discussed.

I have avoided using many of the mathematical terms mentioned in your essay. one reason is that I am not a mathematician and prefer to not be tested as one, and, perhaps justifiably be taken out to the woodshed. The other more important reason is that I am interest mainly in how your perception of object relates to the objects of empirical physics. I do not say theoretical physics because then I invite into discussion the unempirical properties invented for its needs. An example of this would be 'space-time'.

Your opinion even as a correcting one is welcomed. Thank you.

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT
Dear James,

In PicoPhysics, we are concerned with all aspect of nature including human intuition and experiences. We classify the observation steps into 7 categories and measurement into two - comparative and associative measurements. To understand the PicoPhysics logic that assigns 3-dimensions to space, the measurement process deployed is associative; with space (A reality) being associated with Knergy (another reality) as per Unary law.

This is added here for the purpose of record and those who may be inquisitive to understand the origin of all 5-dimensions of nature.

The three of the dimensions attributed to space are proved to be Euclidean separately.

Vijay Gupta

Author Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 15:00 GMT
Dear James,

It is heartening to note that you read my article in fair details. I experience lot of problems with language and choice of words. As you rightly noted, in PicoPhysics we are attempting to understand the nature a fresh.

We donot have words with suitable meaning in contemporary language. I tried to minimize the same, by explaining the power words in the beginning like Host...

view entire post

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:21 GMT
Hello dear Vijay. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:43 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate