FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

When considering the question of what is possible to learn in Physics, we are grappling with issues of what is known, what is unknown, and what is knowable. To an extent, this involves weeding out meaningless or misleading questions and nurturing those questions which will lead us to a greater understanding of what is happening in the universe. But often such a determination rests on finding a broad enough framework to accommodate known factors emerging from different disciplines. It is my belief that it is overly simplistic to seek ideas that reconcile Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in the form of a Quantum Gravity Theory, if what we really require is a broader framework. This paper offers thoughts on what shape that framework must have, and how we can pin down the details of its structure. Ultimately; this reveals something about the limits of what is knowable by studying Physics, and what we can learn from Science in general.

Author Bio

Jonathan J. Dickau has worked as a recording engineer the past 12 years, recording Folk legend Pete Seeger numerous times, including the Grammy winning "At 89." Previously, he held numerous technical and engineering positions, earning the titles Director of Engineering and VP/Development before leaving the corporate milieu. Although having only an A.S. degree, he continues to follow the leading edge in Physics and Cosmology. He has had a number of papers published in peer-reviewed Journals, presented his work at last September's Crisis in Cosmology Conference, and will present at the Frontiers of Fundamental Physics Conference, this November.

Download Essay PDF File

report post as inappropriate

Greetings to All,

It is my pleasure to be a part of this year's essay contest. The theme of this essay is largely based on articles I wrote more than 10 years ago, but with some of what I've learned or has been discovered since that time added in. The January 1999 issue of Scientific American proclaimed "New observations have smashed the old view of our universe" and asked the question...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

You say, "If we simply ask 'How can we reconcile Quantum theory with Relativity?' we may find ourselves disappointed." General Relativity has c=c,G=G, h=0. Quantum Field Theory has c=c,G=0, h=h. Write predictive theory in which c=c,G=G, h=h. It's not a big deal, conceptually. Who bells the cat?

you say, "Quantum theory comes out of unifying matter and energy" E=mc^2. That's Special...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks Uncle Al,

Glad you could take the time to read the essay and comment.

Your first comment appears to be saying you would focus on the fact that for General Relativity Planck's constant is assumed negligible, while for QFT it's gravity which is inconsequential (roughly the same as saying G = 0). An interesting point. But while it's easy to write c=c, G=G, h=h, and say it's...

view entire post

Thanks Uncle Al,

Glad you could take the time to read the essay and comment.

Your first comment appears to be saying you would focus on the fact that for General Relativity Planck's constant is assumed negligible, while for QFT it's gravity which is inconsequential (roughly the same as saying G = 0). An interesting point. But while it's easy to write c=c, G=G, h=h, and say it's done, making an answer to the problem out of that construction is considerably more difficult. One might also be prompted to ask 'in what context are other constant's assumed zero for convenience?' It seems the problem is really about renormalization, in that case.

Your second comment gives me reason to pause, but it would seem you are making my point for me. Yes; it's true that E=mc² is widely associated with Relativity, but it's a powerful little equation. It also describes the conversion rates between matter and energy. Of course; there is an elaborate subtraction process, where only a small amount of a particle's mass is converted into energy during fusion, for example. But it seems pretty clear that what is lost on the matter side shows up as energy, as per Einstein's equation. A balance is maintained and there is equivalence.

Third; it's absolutely true that Electroweak theory is chiral, as it would have to be to describe what we observe. In my view, this chirality ultimately arises from the asymmetry of time. Let me be clear that I do not rule out the possibility that Sean Carroll's theory of time that flows both ways, or Alex Mayer's view that there are an infinite number of arrows of time, which are orthogonal to all three directions in space. I take such ideas very seriously. My research with the Mandelbrot Set seems to point to a similar result. It is easy to find regions of the set to zoom in on which appear perfectly symmetrical, and yet when one zooms out a few times it is obvious that the structure it is a part of is highly asymmetrical.

The comment about the weakness of gravity seems again to be about renormalization. I didn't use the term in my essay but gave quite a few examples of ways to approach that.

Of course; the Chemistry of living beings is also chiral, which begs the question 'Is there a connection to the chirality of the universe?' Your last comments in that block are interesting. Enantiomers are stereoisomers which are structurally distinct, so they can't be superposed. A maximally enantiomorphic distribution would then be formed of distinctly chiral species that can transform into each other readily. If this were extended to collections of atomic matter, I don't see how it would violate the Equivalence principle, but it's obvious that living beings are chemically chiral, so that has to come from somewhere.

As for Euclid; he still has a place. If one makes smaller triangles, which are inscribed on a sphere, there is almost no difference from Euclid's flat ones, just as any manifold (no matter how highly curved) will have local neighborhoods that appear flat. But when one makes the 3 corners farther apart, and if one allows that a geodesic on a spherically curved surface will be an arc instead of an actual line, you end up with fat triangles. Oh well.

All the Best

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Mr. Dickau,

Thank you for an interesting, thought provoking essay.

Regarding your comments on the nature of time, may I suggest that the answer to the question "is time real or not?" teeters precariously on one's precise definitions of the words "time" and "real." In his book 'The Trouble With Physics,' Lee Smolin wrote, "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the origin of physics." (page 256)

I believe that Smolin is precisely correct in this assessment, and I've offered some thoughts on exactly where and how the problem arose in an essay which may be found here.

Some additional ramifications of the ideas presented in that essay may be found in an essay which appears elsewhere among the submissions to this year's FQXi competition. I would respectfully suggest that it might be worth your while to read these essays prior to championing the idea that time is real at the upcoming Frontiers of Fundamental Physics conference, inasmuch as I believe that the essays offer a somewhat different and worthwhile perspective on the topic. And it should go without saying that I'd of course welcome your comments on them.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello all,

Although I myself am not a Physicist, I have found Jonathan's work to be brilliant, as it has given me insight into many areas concerning my own research that have taken my own work in new directions which are proving fruitfulindeed.. I believe that as science progresses in the study of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, his ideas may lead us down the path to unification, in ways we can't possibly imagine. The idea of connecting relativity to quantum mechanics described in this essay may well prove to be the correct path, and could lead us to a truly unified physics.

Michael J. Veach

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks J.C.N Smith,

I appreciate your comments about my essay, and on Time, and have read your linked essay (not your contest essay yet). Your concept of a moment in time as corresponding to the configuration of the universe in a single instant makes perfect sense of things, in the present context. This links up with the implied hanging question from Uncle Al's comment "When would we set c=0?" How this relates to the origin of the universe, or what happens when the universe is larger than a 'Hubble Bubble' is unclear.

I liked the Feynman quote, and it echoes Mayer's and Minkowski's comments on the unity of space-time, but also makes my point. As he said "time becomes space." Your essay's comments on Wheeler-Dewitt are insightful. You might enjoy reading Fotini Markpoulou's paper on Planck-scale Models at arXiv: gr-qc/0210086. She complains of WDW being a view from outside the universe, and offers a contrasting approach based on numerous local observers. Some insights may be found into your 'snapshot of the universe' idea there too.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks Michael J. Veach,

Supportive remarks from someone familiar with my work are always welcome. My primary effort here (in this contest) is to foster understanding, and to encourage people to think about some of the fundamentals of Physics in ways that haven't been thought of before, or would not otherwise be explored.

Your comments are appreciated.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Mr. Dickau,

Thank you for the reference to the Markopoulou paper, which I agree is highly germane. I've been extremely interested in developments in what Smolin referred to as "relational quantum theory" in 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.' (pp. 46-48) These are very exciting times. Is it possible that we're finally almost "there"? While I don't pretend to be able to follow all the math involved in Markopoulou's paper, I like the fact that the scheme she's describing is background independent and offers hope for being experimentally testable. I *very* much like the slogan proposed by Smolin, "One universe, seen by many observers, rather than many universes, seen by one mythical observer outside the universe." (P. 48, TRTQG)

Cheers

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello again J.C.N.,

I like the Smolin quote a lot, and it sort of sums up what was said in the Markopoulou paper. In reference to your Time essay, I had the thought that in the Mersini-Houghton paper I cite (arXiv: 0809.3623), she alters WDW by including a back-reaction term, so there is no longer a zero on the right side, to turn it into a Master Equation. This puts a very different spin on things.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

References ERRATUM AND ADDENDA

I found an incorrect reference in my essay.

The paper by Laura Mersini-Houghton is actually found at arXiv: 0809.3623

Birth of the Universe from the Multiverse

Plus; I would like to offer these links to referenced content.

The paper by Jeremy Avigad can be found on the author's web-site

Classical and Constructive Logic

A summary of the new paradigm in entropy (dispersal of energy) by Frank Lambert can be found on his Entropy Site

Entropy is not "disorder"

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

Very interesting reading as a review with some pertinent suggestions about tackling the development of new ideas in physics. I do have a few brief comments and a question:

(1) You seem to be doing a lot of skirting around the original question "What is possible in physics?" in your philosophical essay, bringing in connections to a tremendous number of related viewpoints and conjectures. The comments and suggestions are all interesting, but mostly non-specific. My biased point of view is: Give me something I can test in the lab, or at least give me enough specifics so that I can work out the consequences beyond what you already have presented for some phenomenon that I choose.

(2) However, your main points seem to be: (i) "we still have a lot to learn"; and (ii) find connecting pieces between GTR and QM instead of attempting to reconcile them; (iii) what we do not yet know is still playing its role behind the scenes. All these points are certainly useful.

(3) Would you please make a few comments wrt entropy being the spreading and sharing of energy in a gravitational environment such as matter collecting into a star?

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello Frank,

Thanks for the comments. I've always thought that a bunch of different theories, all pointing to a particular result, tend to strengthen the proposition under consideration. Others feel that only a singular theory, which excludes the possibility of all others, can ultimately be 'right' or is worthy of consideration. My essay is founded on the belief that their approach may...

view entire post

Hello Frank,

Thanks for the comments. I've always thought that a bunch of different theories, all pointing to a particular result, tend to strengthen the proposition under consideration. Others feel that only a singular theory, which excludes the possibility of all others, can ultimately be 'right' or is worthy of consideration. My essay is founded on the belief that their approach may actually exclude or obscure what those people are seeking. The actual solution may be a broader framework, rather than a simplistic answer, after all.

Looking at (3) I have to take a bit for the set-up of the problem. For matter coming from a given patch of space, at a distance from the star, the gravitational well acts like a kind of funnel with parabolic sides - that compresses a given volume as it approaches. Now it doesn't quite squeeze things down to zero, however, but down to what's called the Gravitational Radius - the Schwartzschild radius of a Black Hole of similar mass (~3km for our Sun).

Anyway; if we make a simplifying assumption we are talking about a volume of gas, then we get a simple thermodynamic equation PV=nRT where n is a given number of moles in our sample. As the volume contained in a given patch decreases when approaching the star, the pressure and temperature go up, owing to this funnel effect. Additionally, there is significant radiation coming from the star, various forms of which will heat our sample by adding energy to it. The intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the star.

Now for chunks of solid matter, the effect of compression is less pronounced, or is delayed until they start bouncing into each other. On the other hand, their opacity means they will capture and absorb more of the radiant energy from the star, which will be converted to heat. To keep it somewhat simple, I won't talk about radiation pressure from the star or the electromagnetic effects on a plasma. In space; most matter is either solid or gas, because liquids tend to just sublimate in a vacuum. So our set up is done.

When we consider how energy is spread and shared in this system to gain insight into entropy, we need to examine where energy is concentrated or how it gets concentrated, and what mechanisms allow energy to be dispersed or exchanged. To consider all the contributions to this process, we need to look at it both ballistically and quantum-mechanically or molecularly.

It's obvious that the hottest thing in this system is the star, but the matter within a patch of space has an ambient temperature (something above absolute zero) at the time we start our observations. What happens then?

The temperature of our sample volume goes up, as does the pressure. If the temperature is less in the surroundings, it will tend to radiate energy in the infrared. If the pressure is less in the surrounding volumes, it will tend to spread or mix into that space. Within the volume there is a constant exchange, as the bits of solid and molecules of gas will collide, and exchange photons through radiation. But then there's the really cool piece, as the microstates of the system are defined by the different places a molecule could be (within that volume), and the energetic states it might be in.

The key here is that, even though our sample volume gets compressed into a smaller space, the opportunities for energy exchange actually increase. Plus; it will radiate more, as well as pushing out at its surroundings more (trying to spread physically), because we are increasing the temperature and pressure - as compared to the ambient at the start. On the Quantum Mechanical side, each molecule has access to more opportunities to interact, which translates into more accessible microstates. That is; there is an increase in entropy throughout the process.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan,

Spurred by your comment on my essay thread, I figured I would give your paper a close reading and share whatever thoughts I have about it.

First, I congratulate you on steering clear of two temptations to which many other contestants seem to have fallen victim: (1) your paper isn't a total math-out, and (2) never once do you mention consciousness! Also, you have good...

view entire post

Hi Jonathan,

Spurred by your comment on my essay thread, I figured I would give your paper a close reading and share whatever thoughts I have about it.

First, I congratulate you on steering clear of two temptations to which many other contestants seem to have fallen victim: (1) your paper isn't a total math-out, and (2) never once do you mention consciousness! Also, you have good command of the language, another quantity in short supply.

The heart of your paper seems to be questioning the assumptions made by many in the physics community about the relationship between math and physics. I applaud this questioning spirit and share your suspicions that a certain breed of physicist (the one that I somewhat incautiously, and now infamously, labeled "gauge theory chauvinists") has fallen victim to the map/territory confusion you describe early in your paper. This seems to be a common theme emerging from a plurality of other submissions to this contest, most notably Lev Goldfarb's excellent paper.

Unfortunately, our views on time are oppositely polarized; I think that time, while "real" in any practical sense, is a nonfundamental, emergent property of the two underlying quantities that I view as "more real": numbers and behavior. My paper argues that behavior should be thought of as a substance in its own right, and that if we insist on asking what THAT substance is made of, we get "the set of natural numbers" as the answer. For any single object, there exists a perspective from which it appears instead as a behavioral pattern among lower-level objects; and for any behavioral pattern among a set of objects, there exists a perspective (or will exist a perspective, once coalescence takes place) from which it appears as a single object.

Of your proposed quantity equivalences, I found matter-space to be the most intriguing. It reminded me of the quantity discussed in my paper called "ontological inertia."

A minor factual question: early in your paper you assert that vacuum zero-point energy and dark energy are the same thing. My understanding had been that those were actually two separate types of energy, and although neither is understood well, dark energy is at least slightly better understood than vacuum zero-point energy. Please correct me where I am mistaken.

Thanks for a thought-provoking paper, and good luck.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks Owen,

I think that perhaps we are closer to agreement than you think, on the Time issue. I was only saying that Time is more primal than Matter, Energy, or Space. I regard Information as a sort of Fifth Element, which is at a higher level of abstraction from any of the manifested quantities that are the basis of Physics. Information and processing are formative of qualities which...

view entire post

Thanks Owen,

I think that perhaps we are closer to agreement than you think, on the Time issue. I was only saying that Time is more primal than Matter, Energy, or Space. I regard Information as a sort of Fifth Element, which is at a higher level of abstraction from any of the manifested quantities that are the basis of Physics. Information and processing are formative of qualities which can become physical quantities. So there is room for number and behavior, as precursors of Time, if these are seen as symbols for information and the manipulation thereof.

In terms of mathematical abstractions, however, my constructivist views force me to ask what relevant insights are necessary for the development of other advances in Mathematics. Constructivism teaches that we must posit only what can be constructed, or show how it can arise as part of the set-up to a problem. The idea is to root out as many hidden assumptions as possible, and create or construct what is desired to prove - from first principles.

So; I might be inclined to point out that the rudiments of Geometry are needed to formulate Topology, which gives us topological distinctions or boundaries. Only when you have objects with boundaries can you formulate set theory, which gives us collections of objects and a sense of number. But from that set of tools one can get a sense of size, distance, and proportion - out of which Arithmetic can be formulated. Then the behavior of functions relates to procedures by which quantities can be measured, compared, and manipulated.

As to the question about Dark Energy. Yes; there are those who feel that Vacuum Energy and Dark Energy are entirely separate things. But in both cases, we are talking about otherwise empty space possessing an intrinsic energy of its own. Most cosmologists agree that Dark Energy is related to the Vacuum Energy Density, but they are at a loss to explain why - if it is an expression of VE - the Lambda or Dark Energy component of the universe's expansion is so small.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

very well written essay - i like it very much. it's creative, clever, intelligent, well balanced and optimistic. And it is easy and good to read.

Well, i also assume it to be important to not only search for differences in science via particle accelerators etc., but also to search for mutualities at the "top" as well as at the bottom level. That's what you propose and i think it is worth to examine your new way of gaining more insights into the interconnectedness of the pieces (of the whole picture that we actually have in front of us).

Very inspiring, thanks for it!!

All the best,

Stefan Weckbach

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

P.S. I will vote your essay later, because here i haven't access to my voting-code!!

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

P.P.S.: I couldn't open your paper at quantumbionet.org - could you upload the paper at fqxi.org?

Greetings

Stefan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello Stefan, et al.

Of course! My paper from Quantum Biosystems "How Can Complexity Arise from Minimal Spaces and Systems?" has been attached here.

I'll also put it on your essay forum page.

Jonathan

attachments: QBS11pg3143.pdf

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan J. Dickau,

Like you, I often begin with Korzybski's "the map is not the territory." It is in this sense that David Mermin recently wrote about the habit that physicists have of mistaking their abstractions for reality. This cannot be ignored when one considers a consciousness field, because there is no way that the abstraction can actually possess awareness plus volition,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Bravo!

I thank you Edwin Eugene for an insightful analysis and response. You make many good points. And it is thoughtful of you to frame your response as a comparison of your theoretical framework to the criteria I set forth in my essay. I can only commend you.

It may still be a while, before I gain a sufficient understanding of your work, so that I can make a fair assessment. You have answered my challenge, and dealt with every issue I raise in my paper, but I am one who must understand the conceptual basis for an idea fully, before I adopt it as my guide to further exploration.

Still; I would have to say your ideas have a lot to recommend themselves, and your input and insight are appreciated.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan. Your essay raises some interesting and needed points.

Kindly consider, and reply to, the following:

1) If we could demonstrate a balancing of scale whereby gravity and electromagnetism/light are repulsive and attractive (on balance), then that would be a big step forward in physics.

2) Balance and completeness go hand-in-hand, in theory and in life.

3)...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan. Your essay might be in agreement with the following post. Is it?

Consider the nuclear strong force and gravitation in light of the following:

The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general. I agree with the geometrical approach -- the mathematically proven...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello Frank,

I see there is another post here, since I last looked. I have gone to your essay page, left a brief comment, and downloaded your essay. But I will check out some of your questions here before I read it, and comment once I have thought about answers.

All the best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Jonathan,

A word of appreciation for your essay and for your comments. I first became aware of you when you successfully "translated" Darryl Jay Leiter's use of "color" and thereby made sense of his essay. You clearly work at something until you understand it.

I've posted to Stefan Weckbach's essay (and replicated some on my page) and invite you to read there as follow-on to our last communication. Stefan has some interesting things to say also.

I hope that you apply the same effort and determination to understanding my essay that you did for Darryl Jay Leiter. Selfish of me, but there it is...

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello again Frank,

Now for a point by point response (first installment). I think I may still need to say more to Edwin too, but I have no insights to offer right now.

1. - A 'balancing of scale' could refer to many things. You may be speaking of what's called renormalization, where the strengths of the forces are equalized. You could also be speaking of a situation where...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thank you Edwin Eugene!

I am taking a bit more time, figuring out your thesis. I have taken some time already today, to review and reply to your comments - which were a response to my thoughts on your essay (on that forum page). I think there is a lot of agreement, about several important points, but there seem to be some incompatibilities to our views. It would seem we can both learn from the comparison, however, and I am going to see it through (reading and comparing notes), until I do have a genuine understanding.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Jonathan,

Thanks for investing the effort. I left a note on Stefan Weckbach's page for you, and also recommend Terry Padden's essay and the comments I just left there.

All the best to you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello again Frank,

I just re-read your second post above and it made a bit more sense of something you were saying in the earlier post. Your statement at the end "How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea." is right on. Perhaps the key, as you say, is to recognize that there is both an attractive and repulsive component at work - which changes the effective action at different levels of scale. This makes unification simpler.

We end up 1) Balancing/unifying scale and 2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravitationally and electromagnetically. (Think wave/particle).

Both Laurent Nottale and Alex Mayer have elements of that idea in their theories. Nottale uses a more strictly geometric approach, where Mayer's approach combines geometry and wave mechanics. Either way, it explains how the same driving force can have a very different action or expression at different levels of scale.

Connes' approach also bears some resemblance to what you suggest using noncommutative geometry to effect a re-normalization of the forces.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi dear Mr Jonathan J. Dickau ,

A very interesting essay ,logic and pragmatic in fact .The sciences need that .

I agree with you about the problem of perception of the reality .Some extrapolations are not necessary .The reality is simple in its universal dynamic .

You speak too about the evolution .I liked a lot the taxonomy ,in fact I class all .That's why I invented the Theory of Spherisation like a building in time and space .The fact to go towards this ultim sphere for me is a beautiful hope ,physically speaking .

With humility of course the theory of theories is this one ,rotating quantum spheres which builds spheres in a sphere ,thus the spherisation in a whole and universal point of vue .

I liked in your essay the complemenatrity with fundamentals and physicals theories where a kind of superimposings acts to harmonize our axioms .

Indeed all fundamenatls theories are linked ,fortunally ,there a balance is necessary to make the difference with math imaginaries and reals of physics.

Even the concept of infinity ,zero and negative must be adapted with the pure physicality and its thermodynamics .

Many theories are falses but some are trues ,a fundamental theory evolves and is complementary in fact ,simply.

If the confusion appears with the complexification and imaginaries thus it becomes very difficult for a pragmatic extrapolation .

Congratulations and good luck

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello to all,

I just wanted to thank everyone who has expressed their appreciation for my ideas by making kindly ratings of my essay. I was looking mainly to foster understanding and to have some great on-line discussions. I am humbled by the work of many who have submitted essays here, and appreciative of the fact that your respect for my work leaves me with high ratings at this moment. You all have my gratitude.

It is my intent to read as many of the other contestant's essays as I have time for. I have three half-done now, and as many more on my immediate reading list. I have found all that I read to be fascinating. Not all the authors have left me convinced of the correctness of their theory, but all have brought me fresh perspective - even into many topics I think I know. I am pleased to see that my insights have been helpful to the understanding of others, too.

I genuinely wish to understand where each of you writing here is coming from, so that I can give your work a fair review. I have held off on making my own ratings of you, in some cases, until my opinions are settled.

It is a privilege to be highly regarded in such an esteemed group of learned souls. I wish all of you the best of luck, especially as it advances the boundaries of Science.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Greetings Steve,

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. The 'rotating quantum spheres' idea sounds interesting, and I would suppose it appears in your essay - which I will have to look up. As I have said elsewhere on the forums, I think it would be possible to build a fundamental theory from the measurement protocol - observe, explore, compare - by which one can triangulate the dimensionality of ones surroundings. Since any viewpoint is centric, there is an arc of observation which - if completed - is a circle or a sphere. Now some theorists have the idea that the universe is 2-d near the Planck scale. So maybe circles have a deeper meaning than we imagine.

But the idea of spheres within spheres can arise from the same construction. This relates to the question "what is the definition of dimensionality?" In my view, the key is to have enough points of reference (objects or points of view) to make a clear determination of what the dimension of the space inhabited really is. Now where a solid sphere is close packed with no overlap, one imagines that because of their fuzziness quantum spheres could overlap and merge somewhat. This actually happens in a BEC.

So; this makes Bose-Einstein condensation a physical realization of your concept. Quantum spheres (ultracold atoms) in a sphere (a BEC 'Superatom'). Does this relate to what you were saying?

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Jonathan,

I've responded to your last comments on my page. Thanks for the comments and congratulations on your position.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks .

Any paper ,nada hihih ,any essay ,any contest and you know ,even my universities I stoped them in geology,medecine and agronomy ,in fact I am too much isolated like I said in others threads ,

in fact all the days I add something ,a theory evolves and optimise itself by complemenatrity and good superimposing.

Furthermore I must stabilize me and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

You mention Laurent Nottale and the possiblity of a geometrical approach towards a GUT/ TOE. Have you read my essay or Len Malinowski's ideas? I see that you have also corresponded with Steve Dufourny, and Steve has about a thousand page mega-thesis on Spherical GUT (he did not enter the contest - English is his fourth language behind French, Dutch and Spanish - I offered to proof-read for him, but he didn't take me up on it). My own essay is based on lattices which could be formed from close-packing spheres (or circles or multi-dimensional spheres - different branes require different applications). There are similarities between my K12' lattice and Mohamed El Naschie's E-Infinity - the biggest difference may be fractals. Perhaps fractals are the connection between a finite model such as my K12' lattice and the infinite Universe.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

how to harmonize various force /fields is the main job left in Physics, as gravity appears to play a central role and still defies unification with the other three fields. Perhaps we have still to know what part gravity played in the early universe as the other fields evolved sequentially, as per the demands of nature. The mysteries of dark matter/energy appear to contain such data that we are unable to decipher today. Precise and accurate cosmological data around 1/2 billion years old universe holds the key. Also, the nature of primordial matter originally created has given rise to both the visible and dark components. There has to be changing field strengths at the start of the universe, in place of the constants relative strengths we observe today for the four different fields. The non-baryonic dark matter is a frozen form of primordial matter while the visible matter is the derived form of the same. Lack of free quarks in the visible universe indicates that the dark matter may be just that got frozen with changing field strengths and sequential emergence of strong nuclear, electromegnetic and weak nuclear force. The gravity played a mysterious background role as the first field to emerge at the birth of the universe.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi all ,

Dear Ray ,

yes indeed ,this theory is going to make me crazzy ,already I am it ...

At this moment Ray ,I must stabilise my economic situation ,it's difficult .

I have asked for a credit ,to create a society ,I wait ,it's not a big sum ,just 100 000 euros ,I have a house with my mother ,its value is about 140 000 euros ,my debts are about 50 000 ,thus normally...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan (part 1),

I very much enjoyed reading your essay, which is one of the best in the whole set. I would like to provide some feedback based on Quantum Field Mechanics (QFM) - see my essay, which confirms many of your thoughts and provides refinements with respect to statement made by the people you quoted. More details of QFM can be found in my essay (which took a number of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan (part 2),

Page 6: Alex Mayer's quote: "Nor was he of the opinion that Physics flows from Math, as he actively champions the opposite view. However; he appears convinced that the underlying geometry is the story, or a very large part of it."

Indeed: nature should drive theory. The "underlying geometry" is not present in QFM, but interacting (structureless) protofields...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Checking in,

Thank you Edwin, Steve, Ray, Narendra, and Ben. I appreciate your interest in my essay and in this conversation. It looks from a glance like I have lots of cool stuff to respond to. I shall review your comments shortly, and comment myself when I can.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan-

A small correction to my first posting: "In fact, dt corresponds to the average of the random internal motion of a massive particle." must be: In fact, dx corresponds to the average of the random internal motion of a massive particle.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello again,

I appreciate the high praise in your comment, Ben. Since your comments were detailed and lengthy, it may take a while to respond to all. I may get to that tomorrow. I downloaded your essay, however.

Thank you for your enthusiastic response and comments Steve. I'll hunt down some good BEC links, or send you to a paper of mine that has them.

I haven't read your essay yet, Ray, but I have downloaded it. I also took a brief look at Len M's site, which looks interesting. Fractals are a connection to many things, and a special interest of mine. I spoke on 'Fractals and the Cosmos' last month, for the local astronomical association.

I agree with your comment Narendra. If we understood the way the role of gravity changes from the early universe to today, we would have a much better grasp on its true nature. Changing field strengths from then to now could account for the weakness of gravity, compared to the other forces, as they are observed today. I'll give a more detailed answer to your comments when there is time. And I'll try to read your essay soon.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

I tend to agree with the overall thrust of your paper. There are a few departures, but they are comparatively minor given the philosphical nature of your essay.

My sense about whether time exist or the role of mathematics is that science is not about telling us about the existential nature of things. Science does not tell us whether time exists, but rather that we can demark time with clocks or other cyclical systems and use this information. Much the same holds for space and more complicated aspects of space. We can't really cast about trying to ask whether these exist, and this extends to fields as well. Physics does not tell us whether lines of electric force really exist which radiate from a charge. However, the measurable aspects of physics behave very much as if these lines of force are present. So these are mathematical systems we use to model or understand nature. Yet we can't address the question of whether they do exist.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

PS, this post was by me, where I forgot to enter my name.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thank you Lawrence,

I appreciate your taking time to read my essay and comment. It is exactly as you say. Trying to cast about for time and space, or fields - as though they were objects - tends to lead one in circles. They are useful abstractions which help us to demark observable quantities that are real, and measurable, however. I think our concepts of such things must remain a bit flexible, as nature will utilize whatever degrees of freedom it can find, to generate observable form. It's the utilization of dimensions by entities that behave like objects or fields, which determines the dimensionality of space, for a given system or level of scale.

In a way, time, space, and fields have no well-defined meaning, apart from the relationship they have to each other, and the behavior of the objects they contain, influence, or represent. So I guess I'm saying I agree with you.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Exactly. We of course use mathematical structures to model the physical universe. We have space, time, spacetime, compactified dimensions, and so forth in physical theories. This then predict certain things which we can meausure, such as maybe a particle spectra. Yet these constructions tell us nothing about their existential aspects. That would be in effect a sort of "pulling by one's bootstraps" sort of process, or maybe related to Godel's theorem.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

This is a very clearly written essay and I like the idea of looking at different possiblities for unification. The one I would put most faith in is space-matter unification.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Greetings,

Thank you Phil, for your kind remarks. It is great that one of my inspirations has found value in the product thereof.

Thank you Lawrence, again. I'm glad we can be in agreement.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello again Ben,

I will be reviewing your comments above shortly, and may have a remark or two to share. Thanks again for the interest and food for thought.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

You are welcome .

You say

agree with your comment Narendra. If we understood the way the role of gravity changes from the early universe to today, we would have a much better grasp on its true nature.

It's logic what the gravity changes due to the incrasing of mass by weak polarisations near main centers.Thus in time the mass ,the gravity increases simply due to the evolution .The gravity is an evolutive system of complexification in spheres systems .

The early universe thus had less mass and our future will have more important mass .It's there I imagine the space which becomes mass ,I imagine this space like quantum entangled spheres without rotation,they have a code of becoming near central spheres like a star or a planet .The light has the ultim code and activates the system of gravitation .The space thus decreases ,but the lattices space increases and the mass increases too .

It's just a thought about the gravity and the mass .We polarise all the time ,all evolves and increases its mass in fact .If all is linked in the evolution thus we can calculate some system even our brain aged of 13.7 billions years like all .It's the same with our brain we polarise ,if we can extrapolate the evolutive step of the brain thus we can extrapolate the maximum mass whre begins eternity of the physicality probably .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan.

In reply to my prior posts, you said:

"I just re-read your second post above and it made a bit more sense of something you were saying in the earlier post. Your statement at the end "How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea." is right on. Perhaps the key, as you say, is to recognize that there is both an...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello again Jonathan. Kindly consider the importance, as well, of the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks. Frank

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thank you Frank,

You make some intriguing points. The key to what you said in the longer post above seems to be that we need to integrate the visible and the invisible. You suggest that we examine the possibility of both visible and invisible space, in a similar way to how we approach light and dark matter. There is certainly a shift of emphasis, during dreams, such that the function of the visual sense may be inverted from its role in the waking state, as you suggest. But I'm not sure I get the connection.

Are you saying that we attune to the invisible, during dreams, in a similar way to the way we tune in to the visible universe, in the waking state? I suppose that a body must respond to that aspect of the universe every bit as much as the visible part, and our sensory apparatus might need time to process that. Perhaps that happens during dreams. That insight would certainly make some of your ideas make better sense.

I just hope you know that part of the the theoretical framework you have have adopted with Kaluza-Klein was a brilliant step forward when first proposed, but has been superseded for mostly good reasons. If there was some essential insight they missed, which would adapt their framework to be more nearly conformal with what we observe, you have not made that clear.

But I thank you for giving me a reason to dream, and to take dreams a bit more seriously. I have enjoyed our conversation greatly, even if it offers only a small chance to significantly advance Science.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Jonathan,

I like the way you clearly outlined the differences between QM and Relativity.

Both QM and Relativity are so entrenched that no professional physicist questions their correctness (except of course physicists who participate in FQXi contests:). It is only the disparity between QM and Relativity that is questioned and it is generally felt that something is missing.

From my viewpoint both QM and Relativity need a little restructuring:

1. Mass not only "curves" space time it causes it.

2. Quantum Mechanics has observables of space and time, however the observables of velocity and energy are not observable they are calculated.

Consider this as food for thought.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Don ,

It's a beautiful food of thought .

Personally,I think only what Mass curves space ,only that ,and this curvature complexificates due to the increasing of mass correlated with the evolution pointof vue .The space time needs relativity I think ,we can't interpret the time like that I think .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks Don,

I think you are right, that both relativity theory and quantum mechanics will need to be re-thought somewhat, rather than simply making one fit with the other. My essay basically points out that the two ends of the spectrum for each need to be handled differently, for this to take place.

I also basically agree with the comment on Mass causing (or delineating) space. In a way, by stretching space, it causes it to be extended. I think this conceptual link is missed too often. That's sort of implied in my essay too. As Phil said above, the Matter-Space unification is relevant. And it's often overlooked.

The comment about QM observables is also relevant to this discussion.

Thanks for reading the essay, and commenting here in the forum.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

To all my readers,

I'll be away from my computer, for the most part, this coming week. I will check in when I can, but may not get the chance. I will reply to any comments left here as soon as I am able. Please be patient as I value your interest in my essay and your commentary.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan.

The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling (of the body) while dreaming/sleeping is very relevant. The completion and balancing that dreams/sleep give to the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light is consistent with the 90 degree angle of the two experiences/states (waking and dreaming). (Gravity is fairly constant at/near the surface of the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan Dickau,

I have responded to your last comment on my essay page.

But I see interesting comments continuing here so that I will respond here as well.

For example, in response to Frank Martin DiMeglio you state: "I just hope you know that part of the theoretical framework you have have adopted with Kaluza-Klein was a brilliant step forward when first proposed, but...

view entire post

Dear Jonathan Dickau,

I have responded to your last comment on my essay page.

But I see interesting comments continuing here so that I will respond here as well.

For example, in response to Frank Martin DiMeglio you state: "I just hope you know that part of the theoretical framework you have have adopted with Kaluza-Klein was a brilliant step forward when first proposed, but has been superseded for mostly good reasons."

I would like to point out that, according to Lee Smolin, "Kaluza-Klein applied Einstein's relativity to a 5-dimensional world and found electromagnetism." such that "the charge of the electron is related to the radius of the little circle" in this dimension. In my theory of the gravito-magnetic field, the self-interacting vortex in the field shrinks until the limit of curvature is reached, an event that brings charge and the electromagnetic field into existence. Thus the field would seem to be equivalent to another dimension. But note the following: the Kaluza-Klein dimension is too symmetric, whereas my field solution breaks symmetry as required for nature

Smolin has also remarked: "A property of an extra dimension -- the radius of the extra circle in Kaluza-Klein theory -- can be interpreted as a field varying over the other dimensions." So my construction is, apparently, not fanciful, but feasible. And the field has been shown by Martin Tajmar to exist (and by ongoing NASA experiments.)

So Kaluza-Klein linked the charge of the electron to the radius of the circle in the fifth dimension, whereas my theory links the charge of the electron to the radius of the circle at which the shrinking vortex reaches the limit of curvature of spacetime, just as a black hole is the point at which the gravitational field reaches the limit of curvature of spacetime. But the major difference is that my theory agrees with the reality of broken chiral symmetry, whereas Kaluza-Klein does not.

I've said elsewhere, but I'll repeat here, since it's becoming harder and harder to keep up with all comments in this forum, that my approach to consciousness is based on the interpretation of a real field, initially proposed by Maxwell on the basis of symmetry, and later investigated by Heaviside, Lorentz, and Einstein. They all missed a critical fact, that the field interacts with its own mass-energy and eventually dropped the field as physically insignificant. My recent interpretation of this field as the "carrier of consciousness" and Tajmar's measurement of unexpected strength of field, should bring the field back to the forefront of physics. Further, I would point out that the field has physical significance at the particle level of physics, as explained above, where, for all practical purposes, the consciousness aspects can be ignored. But at the biological, and apparently cosmological levels of reality, the consciousness aspects are paramount.

Thanks for bringing up Kaluza-Klein and thus providing me with such a clean entry point for this comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan

You wrote: Perhaps the greatest challenge of all is the matter of distinguishing facts and the knowledge of facts from conjectures, theories, or concepts we label as natural law. Alfred Korzybski, father of General Semantics, said “The word is not the thing” and “the map is not the territory.” For Physics, we can add to this “The equation is not the phenomenon we are using Math to model.” Instead; an equation is a convenient

abstraction, or shorthand for the understanding represented by our model or theory, and not the physical reality itself. It is a mathematical model – no more.

Yes, this the case with space-time and gravity waves. Both are only math models (maps) and do not have correspondence in physical world (territory). With waking up the observer in physics he/she becomes aware of what is model and what is physical reality.

yours Amrit

about that subject you can read more here in my essay !Awakening of the Observer in Physics" or in my articles on vixra - quantum physics

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Jonathan,

you responded well but i still await a detailed response as also a visit by you at my essay on this forum. It seems many of us are finding shortage of time but there is no lack of space. Let us ponder why. Time spent on courtesies can be saved perhaps!

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks Edwin Eugene,

It is appreciated that the reference to Kaluza-Klein gave you the opportunity to point out how the field arose from Physics considerations, and was only later connected to the subject of Consciousness. It's pretty cool actually. The explanation above of the derivation of key concepts gives me a good bit more clarity. That the field interacts with its own mass-energy is a crucial point to grasp, to understand your construction. The fact that this field does have a physical significance, after all, is interesting.

I thank you for the post above, as it makes certain things fall into place. I only have a few minutes available, right now, but I'll look at your response to my last comment on your page next.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks again Frank,

I feel you are correct that too many feel that they can analyze things to death, differentiating finer and finer levels of detail in reductionist form, where what we need now is to integrate information. The conference I'm attending this week is sure to fill me with fresh insights into your ideas, as there is an emphasis here on subjective learning. I feel this is essential to include in the process of searching for answers in all the sciences. How best to accomplish this is still a bit unclear. Physics is perhaps the most objective, and this is essential, but a lot of theoretical Physics does seem as though it is mainly the stuff of dreams.

Thanks for clarifying for me where your emphasis differs from that of Kaluza and Klein. I wish that was more explicit in your essay, as I feel that some people must be getting to that point (where you mention their work) and feeling that you have missed something. But your comments make it clear that they are missing something important too (or instead). I'll have more to say later this week, or on the weekend. My time on the library's machine today is about finished.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thank you also Steve,

Your comments have been helpful, and are appreciated.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan. Thank you for your reply. Two statements of Einstein come to mind, and one by J.C. Maxwell:

"It is the theory which decides what we can observe..."

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

James Clerk Maxwell – "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."

Schroedinger was...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan. In addition to my last post, closely consider the following post as well, if you would. You will love the proof contained herein regarding the importance of time.

I have demonstrated the equivalency of extension in time and space at a three to one ratio in keeping with the following (below). I have shown that the integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

I just finished reading your essay for the second time. It was still interesting.

Energy-time could be tied into the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which relates Entropy and Time. Entropy measures how much Energy is or isn't useable.

You related Matter-Time to the life trajectory of a particle. Similarly, Matter-Time could be tied into Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis (LNH) and the Gravity-brane. Dirac's LNH says that the age of the Universe (relative to typical atomic transitions) and the inverse Gravitational Coupling (relative to the inverse Electromagnetic Fine Structure) are both ~10⁴⁰. I think this large number arises from properties of the Gravity-brane, and thus some of hyperspace's matter content.

You quoted Alex B. Mayer as saying "the nuclear strong force and gravitation are the identical phenomena (spacetime geometry in the context of wave mechanics) operating at different length scales." It is no coincidence that String Theory first started as an approach towards a theory of the Strong Nuclear force, and later became an approach towards the theory of Gravity. Lawrence Crowell's next paper utilizes these similarities.

You also talked about Philip Gibbs' "Theory of All Theories" as being the sum total of all possible models. Mohamed El Naschie defined "E-Infinity" as the sum of all one and two Stein spaces. My K12' is closely related to his E-Infinity. The difference is one degree of freedom that could be some Grand Higgs that breaks the original symmetries.

You have a good paper, and you deserve to be one of the winners. Good Luck!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan:

I have faith in your ability to advance the understanding. You say:

"the wave-like aspect of things is preserved and becomes a part of physical reality, rather than being supplanted by the particle-like aspect.

However; even the massless carriers of energy known as photons must be quantized or made particle-like, in order to exist in physical reality. This is a...

view entire post

Hi Jonathan:

I have faith in your ability to advance the understanding. You say:

"the wave-like aspect of things is preserved and becomes a part of physical reality, rather than being supplanted by the particle-like aspect.

However; even the massless carriers of energy known as photons must be quantized or made particle-like, in order to exist in physical reality. This is a reminder that matter, energy, space, and time, must coexist for reality to be as it is."

Time is ultimately dependent upon the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, thought, and space -- so yes, time is central. Distance in/from space is related to the size of space(s) -- this makes the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light possible. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. Dreams are sensory experience/physics; and, as such, they are a gold mine for physical ideas. My ideas, when coupled with yours, give excellent and very broad/organizing perspective to the thinkers and physicists on here.

Consider the blackness of outer space (and blindingly bright, white stars). Now consider the invisibility/transparency of the eye (and of the daytime space/sky as well) in relation to the clear visibility of the body and Earth.

Visibility and brightness are central to unifying and advancing our understanding of sensory experience/physics in general. Invisible, visible, particle, and wave UNITED is critical.

How a larger space is made smaller, AND how a smaller space is made larger is also key. -- Hot/cold need to be (and are) then balanced as well.

How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is the central and most valuable physical idea. (I have proven this in my essay.) Do you see how this concept, this post, your essay, and my essay cover/include: space, time, matter, energy, wave/particle, balancing/varying scale, repulsive/attractive, and visible/invisible when taken together?

Understand how all of this (and dreams) contribute(s) to the integrated extensiveness of being, time, thought, space, and experience in general.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello again Jonathan.

In reply to the further info. you wanted on invisible/visible, I offer the following. You said that you liked the idea of linking the telescoping/narrowing of vision in dreams and telescopic/astronomical obs.

You will like this:

The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light merges and includes invisibility and visibility as a requirement...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan, remember you wrote to me:

"I just re-read your second post above and it made a bit more sense of something you were saying in the earlier post. Your statement at the end "How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea." is right on. Perhaps the key, as you say, is to recognize that there is both an attractive and repulsive component at work - which changes the effective action at different levels of scale. This makes unification simpler."

"We end up 1) Balancing/unifying scale and 2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravitationally and electromagnetically. (Think wave/particle)."

When you consider the extremes of electromagnetic energy/space (e.g., photons and the [relatively disintegrated] Sun) as they relate to extremes of scale, invisibility AND relatively disintegrated come to mind. Comparatively, look at the [relatively integrated] Earth and the clear/transparent/invisible sky. Disintegrated and integrated go hand-in-hand (along with particle/wave) in conjunction with balancing and uniting invisible/visible AND scale. That is huge, is it not? See how this connects with space manifesting as electromagnetic/gravitational energy?

Thanks Jonathan.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

I forgot an obvious one - Energy-Time is related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation and Planck's constant, which may be our "resolution" scale of reality.

Thank you for your positive comments and references.

Good Luck in the contest!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello again All,

I am back home today, and have read several essays while away. I shall field any comments with due haste until week's end, at least, so that questions are answered which can facilitate understanding. I especially value the interaction with the other authors, as we are all in the same boat here. It has been a privilege to have this conversation with you. But comments from others are welcome too!

Thanks again Ray, for your thoughtful comments and appreciation of my essay. The response is most welcome, and I am thankful and honored that a deep thinker like yourself finds that much value in my words. I guess that the 10 years of mulling the ideas over and 18-20 re-writes of the essay have paid off. I took what I thought was an inordinate amount of time with editing this paper, but at some point I had to let it go. I'm glad the end product is interesting and/or helpful to folks like yourself.

You will find a few comments on your essay, back on that forum page.

Thanks again Frank, for your voluminous comments. They too are appreciated. You raise many valid points, but it will take a little while for me to understand what some of your points are. Ergo; I shall re-read what's posted above, and make more comments later.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Come on Jonathan. How about this idea?

Time is ultimately dependent upon the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, space, and thought.

Please consider the aspect of space then, in keeping with the above. This is consistent with your idea(s) on time, or is it?

Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Greetings Frank,

OK then. I'll start with your last comment first, then work backward toward a broader understanding. The 'integrated extensiveness of being, experience, space, and thought' all relate to time. One could say that time is the source of 'the extensiveness of being,' in that only when time has an extent can the other attributes exist. The existence of time does not appear...

view entire post

Greetings Frank,

OK then. I'll start with your last comment first, then work backward toward a broader understanding. The 'integrated extensiveness of being, experience, space, and thought' all relate to time. One could say that time is the source of 'the extensiveness of being,' in that only when time has an extent can the other attributes exist. The existence of time does not appear to be dependent on experience, per se, although the perception of time is certainly experiential. It may be helpful to introduce the concept of observability here, as this is the core issue. Paul Kwiat did some experiments at Los Alamos a number of years back, on 'Interaction-Free Measurements' of quantum mechanical systems. One fact that emerged is that even the possibility for measurement or observation has the potential to influence the outcome - or change the face of the system being observed. Even so, they were able to make some determinations effectively without interactions, a percentage of the time.

Some confusion may arise, when considering thought experiments like "Schrödinger's Cat," because macroscopic objects and observers do not partake of quantum superposition as a unit. While photons, particles, atoms, and small molecules may exist in a superposed state - and fairly large collections can be a coherent unit in a BEC - larger aggregates of Quantum entities behave like their Classical counterparts. So while things are in an indeterminate state until they are 'observed' in the quantum-mechanical world, this doesn't mean we can assume Mr. Schrödinger's poor cat is both alive and dead until we look into the box. There is no physical basis for the existence of an alive-dead superposition for cats, and decoherence theory and quantum measurement experiments clearly show that a cat will display mainly classical attributes. The idea that astronomical observations are - in many ways - a participatory process, however, does hold water.

So in examining the idea you propose I don't want to throw out any useful generalizations, but I don't want to misapply them, by trying to artificially over-extend their range of usability. In fact, this is something my essay specifically urges that we avoid. In the quantum-mechanical context, observation can be any sort of microscale interaction, and this doesn't require a macroscopic observer to be present. So while both time and space can be said to emerge from the 'integrated extensiveness of being,' it is another matter to elucidate how experience and thought enter the picture. While it is certain that they are a part of the story, and that they shape the face of Physics (or at least our understanding thereof), it is not certain how experience and thought relate to underlying causes of events in physical reality.

To an extent, these concepts have a realization in ideas like "Digital Physics" or "It from Bit" - and in the emerging Science of Quantum Information Physics - however, it is observability and computability we would speak of in this context. The subjective experience of what is happening is different from what is observable, and how a mind can think of things is different from what is computable. There is, however, a connection or link between the cognitive process and the creative process, as both involve levels of abstraction which are employed to model or shape form. If there is a way that this relates back to your comments, it is thus.

The extensiveness of being could refer to the ability of dimensions and qualities to be extended, so that they have a particular value or extent, and become quantities. If we further generalize the ideal of experience to be the capacity to observe, then a connection with observability is possible. Likewise, if we generalize thought to be the capacity to think - and we link this with computation - a cogent derivation of quantities like time and space can be propounded. I coined the phrase "It computes, therefore it is" in imitation of Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am." A more precise translation of Descartes might be "Thinking therefore Being" which seems to fit well with what you are saying, but may not qualify for being called physical law. At the very least; it remains to be shown that this is, or even could be, the case.

Does this answer satisfy you, or relate intelligently your message to the essay question? That's really the issue here, you know. We are not in denial about the importance of subjective realms, but people in these forums are trying to relate any comments back to what may aid the evolution of Physics as a Science, and allow our greater understanding of the Universe or Cosmos. Neither I nor the other essay writers are trying to belittle your views, Frank, but sometimes trying to derive how your commentary advances Physics is difficult. I have made an earnest attempt to give you my best insights, as to how some of your ideas might benefit Physics' progress, and I hope they will suffice.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

I found arxiv articles by Baez and Barrett from 1999 and 2001 (both attached). Both of these articles tie in the 4-simplex, which is the key to E8 pentality symmetry. I want to better understand the fifth vertex of the 4-simplex because this seems to be the origin of tachyons. The older article has 4 j's, but not 10 j's. I would be interested in similar articles.

Thank You!

Ray Munroe

attachments: 1_9903060v1.pdf, 1_0101107v2.pdf

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan Dickau,

I have responded on my page to a comment from Narendra Nath. It is an extended comment and one that you may find interesting. Thank you for your comments and exchanges in this forum. I have enjoyed all of them immensely, especially your last communication with me.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello again Ray,

Ah yes. Or should I say whoops? A quick review of my file collection reveals that while the Baez-Barret paper on integrability (arXiv:gr-qc/0101107) is foundational to that work (and to CDT I imagine), the paper on (asymptotics of) the 10j symbols is by Baez, Christensen, and Egan arXiv:gr-qc/0208010. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I must have labeled the Baez-Barrett...

view entire post

Hello again Ray,

Ah yes. Or should I say whoops? A quick review of my file collection reveals that while the Baez-Barret paper on integrability (arXiv:gr-qc/0101107) is foundational to that work (and to CDT I imagine), the paper on (asymptotics of) the 10j symbols is by Baez, Christensen, and Egan arXiv:gr-qc/0208010. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I must have labeled the Baez-Barrett paper as essential reading for understanding the asymptotics of 10j symbols paper. I take an ambling course sometimes, in getting to an understanding about a subject of interest.

Hopefully it will aid your understanding. I have a lot more papers I selected, when I was trying to understand the basis for CDT - and I'll look through them. I am still curious about how things will shake out, given the Fermi results. It was the addition of a causal constraint (where the timelines of adjacent simplices have to match) that made the CDT formula work in the first place, so if this violation of Lorentz symmetry near the Planck scale is ruled out - it is not a workable model. I still have the distinct impression that the notion of time has a very different meaning on that level of scale, compared to what we see on the macroscopic level, but I guess it remains to be seen just what that is.

I do not believe that time is linear and unchanging at the microscale. I have imagined that it is more like breezes down there, and becomes like a steady wind for object-sized or cosmic events. I tend to feel that there is an illusion of time's constancy, that arises from the steady motion of the planet through the cosmos, but that is largely intuitive as I have no clear reasoning to explain why that should be. Perhaps it is related to decoherence, or if Darryl Leiter is correct to the way particle-particle interactions are colored by their mutual measurement of each other. I wonder if MC-QED still flies, in light of the Fermi results. I imagine it might.

But I digress. Thanks again for your interest in this thread - I'll pass on any further references that seem relevant.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks Edwin Eugene,

I shall examine your comments to Narendra (on your forum) shortly. I thank you for your continued interest and good will.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan. Previously, you had replied to me as folllows:

Your statement at the end "How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea." is right on. Perhaps the key, as you say, is to recognize that there is both an attractive and repulsive component at work - which changes the effective action at different levels of scale. This...

view entire post

Hi Jonathan. Previously, you had replied to me as folllows:

Your statement at the end "How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea." is right on. Perhaps the key, as you say, is to recognize that there is both an attractive and repulsive component at work - which changes the effective action at different levels of scale. This makes unification simpler."

"We end up 1) Balancing/unifying scale and 2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravitationally and electromagnetically. (Think wave/particle)."

My reply to you is: Electromagnetic space (e.g., photons and the Sun) is both larger and smaller than ordinary or typical space(s)/objects (such as the Earth). When space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy (as it does in dreams), scale is then balanced; and space is particle/wave, invisible/visible, and larger/smaller. Accordingly, space is both repulsive and attractive as well. Witness the variable size/distance of space in dreams. Energy is constant, brightness is adjusted perfectly, and vision/visibility is very well adjusted/discernible. Note that the space is integrated and yet disintegrated as well. Is it hard to see how my ideas apply to physics? Not hardly. This is way too much to just pass over Jonathan. Dreams make sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general more like thought. Couple this with the fact that the ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience, and it is readily apparent that the known mathematical union of Einstein's gravity and Maxwell's electromagnetism/light in a fourth spatial dimension requires dreams. (Note that thoughts are relatively shifting and variable, so dream vision is also relatively shifting and variable.) This is why I deserve the Nobel Prize in Physics.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks Frank,

I appreciate your efforts to respond to my comments. Unfortunately; there are a few points that still don't make sense for me. And I feel you haven't really addressed the additional comments and questions in my response. You may have a brilliant idea, but you haven't proved it to me yet, and it seems like that would take some work. I'm not on the Nobel committee, but it's unlikely I'd recommend you for the prize just yet. Sorry, those are the facts.

But I wish you luck building bridges to your ideas that will support others besides yourself. As I said on your forum page, even if your idea is brilliant, you still have to explain it well - if you want to get your point across. And that is a worthy challenge for anyone championing a breakthrough or visionary concept.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

To Ray and others who like geometry,

I just wanted to point out that the idea presented in my essay has a geometrical basis in tetrahedral geometry too. If matter, energy, space, and time are the vertices of a tetrahedron, then space-time and matter-energy are edges that are separated by other edges, and rotated by 90 degrees from each other. They never touch, and their relationship to each other is established by the remaining links.

Pretty cool, huh?

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

I see your point. Rather than calling the tetrahedral vertices (red, green, blue, white), we could call them (matter, energy, space, time). The vectors that connect these vertices define an SO(3,1)xSO(3,1) 12-plet of operators including: matter-anti-energy, matter-anti-space, matter-anti-time, energy-anti-matter, energy-anti-space, energy-anti-time, space-anti-matter, space-anti-energy, space-anti-time, time-anti-matter, time-anti-energy, and time-anti-space. The edges would be exactly your six fundamental combinations: matter-energy, matter-space, matter-time, energy-space, energy-time, space-time.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

"the map is not the territory."

Maybe, I am wrong when I try to illustrate this as follows and go on claiming that some very basics of physics possibly deserve correction?

models of past processes ----- predicted or planned future processes (abstract)

real processes ---------- Now

I would like to point out that physics so far ignores that models must never be equated with reality. Future processes cannot be observed.

Do you agree?

Regards,

Eckard, 527

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello Eckard,

Yes; you are absolutely right. It goes to the very core or basis, when one examines the hidden assumptions. It is basic or foundational in Physics to consider the issue of when it is reasonable to work from a model, and when one has crossed the line and mistaken the model for reality. To an extent; the program or method of Science is ruled by meta-programs, which are a basic reality of how we think. But if we can recognize when we are using abstraction as a tool, and how many levels of abstraction we have in play, it is a useful way to gain understanding.

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I shall attempt to do the same for you, in the brief time left.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks Ray,

Exactly so.

Good Luck,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks to the Community of essay authors and Institute members,

I appreciate the gracious support and kind treatment of my essay.

I wish you could all be in the winners circle!

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

I am not sure about Ray's interpretation of this with anti-energy and so forth. The polytopes hold spinors or quaternions (or quivers thereof) and these root space just defines the eigen-spinors.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks Lawrence,

I think I agree. Ray's exuberance and your cautionary remarks are noted. Best not to assert more than is appropriate, but it is nice to expand on the possibilities offered by the framework.

I'm glad my comment got a response from both of you, as your remarks are helpful to my understanding. And the contrast between them is useful too.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan and Lawrence,

Please refer to Tables 7 and 10 of the (as yet unpublished) paper posted below. If it is proper to define the tetrahedral vertices as (matter, energy, space, time) rather than (red, green, blue, white), then the vectors I defined above fall out of the mathematics quite naturally. The wierd part here is that some of these quantities look like vectors (space and matter?), and some look like scalars (time and energy). Do they really belong to the same tetrahedron or not? Perhaps they belong to a tetrahedron that has collapsed (into the C₃ and C'₈ of Figure 3 and Table 5). After all, most of my K12' lattice has collapsed due to broken symmetries.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

attachments: 1_A_Case_Study_3.3.pdf

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

(1) Congratulations on achieving a high score from the community. Hope you win big money.

(2) If it's a broader framework that you seek, then I wish to point out that B. Kostant in an homage to E. Cartan in 1984 pointed out how the 3 binary polyhedral groups have an amazing connection to group theory in all orders and to all the rest of mathematics. This initial discrete group framework is therefore all inclusive to a great extent!

(3) Therefore, if one wants to discover the rules of the Universe and the limits to physics, I would think that these groups are a good starting place in the quest for that knowledge.

(4) By the way, these are the 3 groups I use for the lepton families, with their 4-D extensions for the quarks. Only the appearance of the b' quark will reveal how good or bad this starting point has been!

Frank Potter

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thank You Frank Potter,

It is good to place high in a field of such able contenders, but for me the best part of it has to be that it greatly increases the chances I will make some lasting contribution, which advances Physics or Science in general. I am decidedly more a philosopher than some of the able scientists who wrote essays for this contest, and my essay is considerably less technical than many, but it does offer some insights which might otherwise be overlooked. Being a generalist or synthesist rather than a specialist, I can focus on how similar patterns arise in a variety of contexts, and sometimes I get to see the 'big picture' which would be missed by others. I guess that's valued here.

Point #2 is way cool, and will have to be examined in great detail. Probably again and again, until all the detail is assimilated. I will examine Kostant's work as soon as I can.

I think using group theory of the 3 binary polyhedral groups as a window into the universal order is likely to be an interesting journey of discovery for me. But the b' quark may not appear. However, if it does - you will have predicted it as arising from the beauty of the Math. And that's pretty cool.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks again Ray,

I skimmed through your longer paper, and it looks very interesting. I'm sure it will take a little while to digest. It looks like Lawrence was technically correct in his comment above, as you were speaking in your comment about the reference (to matter, energy, space, and time) as extended to the dual tetrahedron (3-simplex) you spoke of in that paper. Way cool analogy though.

I am enjoying this discussion greatly. And I'll look forward to seeing how the different TOEs compare after processing the info in your paper.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

I think you misunderstood me. Consider a tetrahedron with four different colored "quarks" at the vertices: (red, green, blue, white). We may change the colors of these quarks with translation vectors (or rotation matrices). Suppose we wanted to change a red quark into a green quark. We would need to operate on that red quark with a green-anti-red gluon (translation vector). The anti-red part of the gluon color eliminates the red quark color, and then the green part of the gluon color gives the quark a net green color. This combination of color-anti-color distinguishes this gluon from the reverse translation of red-anti-green, which would convert a green quark into a red quark.

The tetrahedral symmetry group has 24 component symmetries that may correspond to an SU(5) Georgi-Glashow GUT. Weird stuff like green-anti-red happens at this tetrahedron level, not at the nested dual tetrahedron level. If you add in the nested dual tetrahedron of anti-quarks with anti-colors: (cyan=anti-red, magenta=anti-green, yellow=anti-blue, anti-white) then you assemble a cube, which has an octahedral symmetry. The octahedral symmetry group has 48 component symmetries that may correspond to an SU(7) GUT - twice as complicated as the tetrahedral group.

Realistically, this is more complicated than your model needs. You only need the six edges of the tetrahedron to make your point.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello once more,

OK Ray! It looks like you were right all along. I guess skimming your paper after reading your comment and Lawrence's cautionary remark was not quite enough to discern the subtleties involved. Yes; one tetrahedron should be enough and contains all the symmetries you spoke of. My problem is distraction with other things, at this point.

There's a lot of weirdness here now, as my Dad is in the hospital since Thursday with pneumonia, and I'm trying to take care of extra stuff (making sure his important matters don't fall through the cracks). At this juncture I'm still preparing for FFP10 (for which I depart on the 21st), but I may have to stay home if things get worse. Obviously; I'm hoping everything will be OK by then.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

I understand. We all have busy lives. My wife was in the hospital for three nights last month with Lupus-related pleurisy (also lungs, but not contagious),and our daughter had the flu last week. It really hasn't even gotten cold here in Florida yet. Take care of your dad and yourself. I hope all goes better for you.

Sincerely,

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello ,

dear friends ,here is a very good solution for the health in this global system and its parametrs of mutation .

The plants have many properties to fight naturaly ,you buy in a good shop ,a little of salvia officinalis ,a little of Rosmarinus officinalis ,a little of thymus officinalis .The aim is simple ,1 blade of each ,in infusion(2 min in boiling water) ,3/day after eating during 3 weeks .(it is antiseptic ,antibiotic,antispasmodic,diuretic,bactericid ,fongicid,hormonal balance...)

It is a very good natural solution.You add that with an add of oligo elements and mineral salts to dynamize your intrinsic system .With propolis,and honney ,more pollen ,it is very good for the health .For the propolis it is better to buy the natural state ,thus like a masticating matter .Of course more fruits and vegetables ,better without cooking ,they are more essentials .

Take care

Steve

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thank you Steve,

I appreciate the well wishes and the apothecary recommendations. I do know that sometimes nature's remedies are the best. Also balancing sugars and minerals is good. I'll pass the recommendations on, if I get the chance.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thank you Ray,

I appreciate the understanding about my Dad's health concerns, and info on your recent life challenges. I hope that the complications of your mundane existence will still allow you to continue your pursuit of answers in Science.

My Dad came home yesterday, and I have just enough time to finish preparing for my trip to Australia for FFP10. Things are often crazy around here, but it's good to have friends on this forum who share my concerns and hope we can all make some good progress in Physics. At least the folks visiting this page all appear to know some changes and progress are needed, for us to address the questions that remain to be answered.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Jonathan,

I'm glad for you and your dad. Good luck in Australia!

Life can be mundane at times. That isn't always a bad thing. Physics is my hobby, not my job. I find inspiration at the strangest times and places. But one good weekend of ideas - some scribbles on a napkin or scrap of paper - can often best an entire month of dedicated work.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks so much Ray,

I appreciate the thoughtfulness and look forward to an interesting journey.

Having mundane affairs to balance out the extraordinary can be liberating sometimes, as it gives you something familiar and/or stable to help keep an even keel. But I've been putting off the extraordinary for too long. However, the wild and crazy world of theoretical Physics is a very demanding pursuit. Not for the weak of heart, nor the feeble wit. Even knowing the answers is not enough, when the real trick is to be able to represent your best ideas in a good light. Perhaps the practice I've had here on the forum pages, talking about my own and others' essays, will serve me well in Perth.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan,

Nice essay. Regarding your relativity comments, I will say this: I don't think Einstein or Minkowski got it right. If you are interested in what the evidence says about relativity and time, please read:

http://www.sciencewithoutfiction.com/uploads/timemech1a.pdf

Take care,

Chris

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan. The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Jonathan, how would your essay account for/counter/address/or dismiss the following:

Reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to what is the integrated extensiveness of being, thought, and experience. Consider this carefully in relation to both astronomical/telescopic observations and dream experience. Consider that dreams and telescopic/astronomical...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan, the following should help with your reply to/understanding of my two prior posts.

The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

Also, the theoretical/actual basis...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Chris Kennedy,

Having problems to look again at your pdf file, I am not sure whether or not I got it correctly at the first glance. If I recall correctly, you pointed to a discrepancy between measured and predicted GPS data. Did you take into consideration that acceleration up to c is impossible, and that the velocity is already different to a gradually changing extent during positive as well as negative acceleration? If I recall correctly, you did not even formulate a belonging integration. Right?

I also recall, you criticize that special as well as general theory of relativity do consider something. Then you argues that both together do consider it twice. Right?

Did you check my argument that worldlines for future time are uncertain predictions?

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello to All,

I just got back from FFP10 (where I had limited opportunity to access the internet) this morning, and probably will need to adjust my internal clock before I can really process the new comments. I appreciate the input, however, Chris, Frank Martin, and Eckard - and I will try to comment or answer as soon as the jet-lag is diminished.

I have lots of fresh insights after the conference. It brought to light an amazing amount of info on new developments in fundamental Physics. As it turns out, I think some of what I learned actually pertains to the new comments. But I'd like to answer when I'm a bit more clear headed, and my stomach is fully settled. The plane was buffeted with heavy and erratic winds from Greenland all down the East coast.

But I do value the attention given, and I will return the favor as soon as I reasonably can.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello again,

I'm still decompressing, but wanted to share that the 10th Frontiers of Fundamental and Computational Physics was an outstanding event - and a wonderful experience for me. If I wanted to put myself in a place where I could experience exponential growth, and take a quantum leap, I went to the right place. And Perth is beautiful this time of year. I am thinking it might be a great place to further my studies, but I certainly accomplished that goal last week. And several people were presenting work that pushes the envelope, or shows how that envelope is being seriously stretched. There was a fair variety of Theoretical and Experimental, of more Mathematical or Empirical and more conceptual or philosophical work, and most everything in between. It was one of those conferences where it's hard not to find something you like.

Next year's conference, FFP11, will be in Paris - in July. But FFP10 was definitely a winner for me, both for all the educational content and for the gorgeous garden-like UWA campus and Summer-like weather of late Spring. It was fairly well planned out too, but with split sessions and fascinating people who wanted to talk there were several occasions I missed a part of someone's talk that greatly interested me. However there were promises to keep in touch and send papers later, so I'll likely get most of that content. But the parts I did catch opened up the top of my head in serious ways.

I will get to responding to comments soon, but I wanted to share this enthusiasm before mundane concerns set in. It's not just getting to meet and speak with Nobel Prize winners, but the infectious enthusiasm of some presenters to learn, to share what they have learned, and to extend the boundaries of Science. I found it heartwarming to be among people who strongly valued learning for its own sake - as that is how I feel too - and I'm grateful I got to be there for the entire event. I hope all of you will consider attending next year's event. If FFP10 is any indicator, FFP11 will be extraordinary.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi all ,

Dear Jonathan,

Hope your father is better .It is important to have a father ,I lost mine at the age of 19 .It was very difficult and the year after I have had a coma .The life is difficut sometimes ,very difficult but I think strongly what behind the darkest mountain ,there is a ray of light .....fortunally .

About the event ,you speak about it with a so beautiful perception .That gives the envy to go for the next event in july .The fact to unite interesting scientists is essential to arrive to some interestings exponentials of the human development .

Thanks to share it with us .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks Steve,

I appreciate the warm remarks. Yes I am privileged that I got to go to Perth, and that I still have a father. Of course, that means things that must be taken care of, but so let it be. As to plans for Paris, and FFP11; yes I would urge you to come. FFP10 was wonderful, so the series has some good momentum, and being in Europe may have it draw a fair number of talented people (like yourself).

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thanks to you dear Jonathan ,

I am honored by your words .You know ,I am very touched because here in Belgium ,I am not taken seriously .I Have contacted the FNRS ,but I have no answer to create this sciences center and to have a team to improve and publish my theory .

I am frustrated and inutile .At the age of 23 ,I have created an enterprize in horticulture ,and it was a catastrophic result .I say me ,it is incredible here in Belgium ,very bizare .Even a stock of multiplicated plants have been destroyed with the winter ,I was probably a problem for the imports of plants .If my country doen't move a little ,I will be in the reason of go in an other place .

I thank you still ,I need indeed a little of recongnition(I say that in transparence and humility ,I am not understood everywhere you know ,even it is rare ,even I am crazzy for others,I am not better than an other ,I just want simply put into practice my models and applications with the others ).I d like share ,learn ,improve .....I will come to this event in July ,thanks for your invitation.

Take care

Steve

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan. Think of how genius, dreams, memory, and art are possible. Now think of this in keeping with this enormously important fact:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense.

Emotion, thought, feeling, and sensory experience are all fundamentally interactive. Dreams add to (or improve upon) what is the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought. Dreams conceptually/actually unify gravity and electromagnetism/light. It is that simple.

Note the transparent space/sky around the larger and red [setting] sun.

(Telescopic/astronomical observations make the objects larger, or they could not be seen at all.) Importantly, isn't the increased transparency/invisibility of space, in relation to the blackness of night/outer space, the requirement of seeing farther?

LARGER OBJECTS, IN A RELATIVELY SMALLER SPACE -- COMPARABLE TO THE EARTH -- WOULD HAVE HIGHER GRAVITY, WOULD THEY NOT -- CONSIDERING THAT THE INVISIBILITY/TRANSPARENCY OF [THE SPACE] IS INCREASED?

Of huge importance, isn't the increasing transparency/invisibility of space the reason for the redshift?

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan. Greetings. Kindly consider the following in keeping with my prior post.

Do you not agree that telescopic/astronomical observations are "activating" -- similar to dreams -- what would otherwise be the waking/ordinary visual experience of the stars?

See my essay please. Thanks.

Can you leave your final comments/assessment of my essay at my essay page please?

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

To Frank Martin,

I want you to know that I do grasp some of what you are saying but it is a stretch to relate it back to Physics. One thing you seem to be pointing out indirectly is that beliefs are feelings of certainty about something we postulate is real. In dreams (and in trance-like states) our sense of disbelief, or our belief in the impossibility of certain things, is diminished or absent. Therefore dreams do present us with a way to advance what is possible for us to create or realize, because of this delimiting effect.

I will read again if I have time, but there are other folks who want me to review their papers too, so I cannot guarantee more than an extra glance.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Sensory experience (including visual sensory experience) is physics Jonathan. I think that you know that. Dreams unify and balance gravity and electromagnetism/light. That is physics Jonathan.

I have offered a true theory of everything on here. None of you even come close to this. Did you know that I proved that the Common Chimpanzee is in between (in the middle of) our dream and waking experiences (in and with time as well) with regard to what is the integrated extensiveness of their being and experience (again, including life expectancy). See my prior posts at FQXi. Again, I deserve to win this contest. You clearly do not grasp how important my essay and ideas are. I am basically and fundamentally (to a significant extent) offering a new theory of everything.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Jonathan, I will make it very easy for you. The following is EXTREMELY important.

Do you understand the GIGANTIC significance of the following three statements taken together?:

1) The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

2) Dreams involve a fundamental integration AND...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Jonathan. My essay is a new understanding of physics as it applies to experience (including the understanding) in general. In follow-up to my prior post, do you know that I have explained why the Common Chimpanzees live two-thirds as long as we do (in captivity, of course)? Please see my prior posts at FQXi.

My ideas are so far in advance of anything that has ever been seen that they are not getting the attention that they rightfully deserve.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan. After I finished writing this, I thought that you would like it.

See what I wrote about time?

Representations of thought as sensory experience are basically beautiful, powerful, and/or captivating -- this is the connection with art, TV, truth, physics, and power. To the extent that the truth mirrors the integrated extensiveness of nature/the natural, these ideas are held to be more beautiful/desirable -- although they can be shocking. The deepest truths require the greatest/deepest strength. Dreams represent thought as sensory experience IN GENERAL -- so this may be held to be an experience of excessive or extreme genius, thereby (in this meaniningful sense) making dream experience generally less desirable than waking experience.

The highest thoughts of genius and the best theory of physics necessarily involve/pertain to past/present/future extensiveness of experience.

This is a fact of great significance.

Since astronomical/telescopic observations are already, to a significant extent, an interactive creation of thought, the ability to comprehend them is necessarily diminished; for it is in the description of what is the integrated and natural extensiveness of experience (past, present, and future) that our greatest, most beautiful, and daring theories are found.

Television may be seen as an accelerated experience of art. TV is a creation of generalized thought. TV is even more similar to thought than in the case of dream vision/experience. This is why the visual images in TV become even more shifting and variable than those of the dream. (Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable).

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan. The following is relevant to an improved/unified understanding of reality/experience. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Frank

The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general. The world requires and involves man. Each and every one of us has entirely different experiences. It is not a matter of "consciousness". It is a matter of understanding the fundamentally interactive nature of being and experience (including thought) in and with time -- as this all relates to, and is inseparable from, physics/sensory experience.

The integrated extensiveness of thought is inseparable from the integrated [and natural] extensiveness of experience IN GENERAL. The limits of physics will never be properly understood apart from this fact:

The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Ironically, those who think that thinking is detached from what you erroneously deem to be "exterior experience" are more detached from reality (that is, from the integrated extensiveness of thought, experience, and feeling).

And there is nothing to the following, huh?: "a sense of oneness, being one with the music, a dry light (Francis Bacon), etc., etc.? Clearly, true superiority of thought is linked/attributed to our ability to model/describe/reconfigure sensory experience FROM WITHIN. How do you think that memory and genius are possible?

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Greetings,

Apologies to Chris as I began to read, but did not finish the linked paper he suggested. I shall take that up when there is more time.

For Frank Martin; I have time for only a brief comment now, but your last comments were sufficiently lucid to leave me with something coherent to respond to. Some of your other comments will remain unaddressed.

When you say "the fundamentally interactive nature of being and experience (including thought) in and with time" this relates to the quantum-mechanical measurement problem in Physics. But your usage seems also to imply you advocate a process-oriented view of reality, where experience and time have the nature of an evolving process. And your earlier statement suggests you feel time is non-linear, where are individual timelines of experience are threads in the larger fabric. Your insights offer some pretty cool possibilities to explore or examine.

Have you heard about the research by Paul Kwiat and colleagues, on 'Interaction-Free Measurement'? They found that even the possibility for measurement was enough to change the outcome of some experiments, but were able to 'stretch the envelope' somewhat by obtaining useful information a percentage of the time, without interrupting quantum coherency.

When you say "The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience." this addresses an issue more germane to Cognitive Science, but certainly a factor in how humans practice Physics. The ability to integrate input from various senses, in order to form an impression of the world, is indeed important in cultivating a transformational capability in our quality of thought - in any field of endeavor. In many ways, the kind of abstract thinking demanded by theoretical Physics is an extension of the cross-linking of sensory information in the associative cortex, to create an integrated experience of life.

The sad part of this story is that young people growing up in developed nations are showing less of this kind of neurological development. Rather than more shades of grey, green, and blue, studies show that today's young people distinguish fewer - which some researchers attribute to the barrage of intense stimuli they receive. Likewise; there seems to be a trend toward less integration of thought from different senses, in modern children growing up in a technological society, as compared to those from more 'primitive' cultures. Joseph Chilton Pearce believes that this may be because engaging the natural world encourages the integration of sensory data in ways that engaging with technology does not.

We have to reverse this trend, if the 'integrated extensiveness of being and experience' is our key to advancing progress in Physics. My essay does assert that there needs to be more integration of thoughts from different kinds of exploration and observation, rather than less. So; in that regard, we are of like mind. I think we may differ on the cognitive state of chimpanzees (which you referenced in earlier comments), so there is some disagreement to speak of, but I won't go there.

Oh well; perhaps this is a longer thought, after all. But hopefully one that addresses your last comment.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan. Thanks for your reply. I am a little pressed for time, but I will be back to you with more soon.

The following points are consistent with the fact that dreams make thought more like sensory experience IN GENERAL:

1) The quantum-mechanical nature of thought/experience is evident in dreams.

2) Particle/wave is evident in dreams.

3) How space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy is evident in dream experience. (This is why you like the application of this idea to experience IN GENERAL.)

I would like you to carefully consider that astrononomical/telescopic observations are "activating" what is seen/observed -- this bears an important similarity to dream experience, which is also constantly active. (As you know, the stars are basically unmoving relative to the unaided eye.)

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan. I will have more to say in reply to you.

You said: "....this addresses an issue more germane to Cognitive Science, but certainly a factor in how humans practice Physics. The ability to integrate input from various senses, in order to form an impression of the world, is indeed important in cultivating a transformational capability in our quality of thought...."

The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Jonathan, you said that you liked what I said about the "telescoping"/narrowing of vision in dreams and in astronomical/telescopic observations. What do you think of the following please? Thanks. Frank

The increased invisibility/transparency of space is a requirement of these astronomical/telescopic observations. Importantly, there is a "telescoping"/narrowing of vision in dreams too....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

The notion of how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is not only applicable to dreams, but it is also applicable to "dark matter" (and astronomical/telescopic observations). The physics of what is seen/sensory experience is also necessarily a theory of vision. In going from Newton's theory of gravity to Einstein's GR, there is an evident transitioning involving electromagnetism/light.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Jonathan, regarding the physics/sensory experience of the dream, it is a combination of scale (and of night and day vision in keeping with this).

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

The 'integrated extensiveness of being and experience' is our key to advancing progress in Physics, in part because the very integrated extensiveness of our thought/thinking/description(s) depends upon this as well.

I will check out the research by Paul Kwiat and colleagues, on 'Interaction-Free Measurement' -- and thank you!

The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. -- this operates in conjuntion with this....'integrated extensiveness of being and experience' -- this includes dreams, of course. Dreams are the genius/physical/sensory experience UNION of thought, gravity, and electromagnetism/light that is indicated by the mathematical union of GR and Maxwell theory of light.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

A fortune is made by "Outsmarting" experience -- as you know, money is made by changing experience from what is natural. I have proven that this very ability necessarily derives from dreams/the unconscious. The lesson is that the outsmarting of experience is to be done unintentionally (and in dreams). Importantly, this is connected with/inseparable from what is and should be ulitimately possible in physics. The genius of the dream is also reflected in/by the mathematical union of GR and Maxwell's theory of light/electromagnetism.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Here you go Jonathan. Thank you so much for being concerned with the big/biggest picture in physics. I await your thoughts/comments. This is GIGANTIC.

The most elemental/fundamental/deepest way (or manner) in which human thought is [comprehensively and consistently] enmeshed and interactive with physical (and this includes sensory, of course!)experience is the source of our deepest genius and of the deepest and broadest conclusions/unifications that are revealed (and possible) in physics.

This above is in keeping with the FACT that the ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Electromagnetric space (e.g., photons and the Sun) is both larger and smaller than ordinary or typical space (such as the Earth). When space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy, scale is then balanced, space is particle/wave, invisible/visible, and larger/smaller. Accordingly, space is both repulsive and attractive as well.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thank You All!

It has been a pleasure participating in this contest and discussion.

Though the panelists did not see fit to place my essay among the winners, I am thankful that the community of FQXi members and essay authors chose to place me near the top of the rankings, so that I could be considered as a finalist.

If I am eligible for next year's contest, I'll be back with another essay. In the meanwhile, I will visit this page from time to time, and perhaps post a comment or answer some questions. Unanswered questions above still deserve an answer, so I'll weigh in if I think of one. I'll probably get around to addressing some of the issues you raise too, Frank Martin, but only what I feel is germane to this topic. I appreciate your persistence (for the most part), but unfortunately haven't had better answers or more time.

To everyone else; thanks again!

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread