CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
From “Absurd” to “Elegant” Universe by Avtar Singh
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Avtar Singh wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 11:27 GMT
Essay AbstractThe “Absurd Universe” as described by Michael Turner [1] represents the consensus characterization of the predictions of the most widely accepted physics and cosmology theories marred by their unresolved contradictions, inconsistencies, and paradoxes. This paper provides a new fundamental understanding of the Cosmological Constant and relativistic universe expansion as an extension to the widely accepted linear Hubble expansion. The current paradoxes and inconsistencies are shown to be artifacts of the missing (hidden) physics of the well-known phenomenon of spontaneous decay. A new Gravity Nullification Model for Universe Expansion (GNMUE) is proposed that integrates the missing physics of the spontaneous mass-energy conversion into a simplified form of general relativity. The model predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies and other data. The model provides answers to key fundamental questions and resolves paradoxes among general relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. It also bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories via revealing relativistic understanding of the inner workings of quantum mechanics. The impact of the new understanding on widely-accepted fundamental assumptions is discussed and a new wholesome perspective on reality is provided.
Author BioDr. Avtar Singh is the author of the book - “The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality”. He obtained his Doctor of Science and Master of Science degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. He has been involved in research and development in science, engineering, and cosmology over the past 30 years. He has published more than fifty technical papers and two monographs. He received the ‘Best Paper Award’ of the American Nuclear Society and several technical excellence awards in nuclear, defense, and space industries.
Download Essay PDF File
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 06:57 GMT
Dear Dr. Singh,
I have read your paper and have three questions about your theory:
1. How does the mechanism you explain in your paper-the spontaneous conversion of matter into energy that propels the remaining matter outward-fit in with the known fact that when matter is annihilated it produces radiation?
2. What observable effects does your theory produce at the scale of our solar system? In other words, what experiment can be done to test for a phenomenon that is not yet anticipated, as opposed to one that people already know about, like dark energy?
3. It appears to me that your theory predicts a violation of the cosmological principle because the average matter density for regions far away from us (and the galaxies they contain) would have to progressively decrease. As far as I know, no such effect has been observed. Any comments?
Sincerely,
Armin
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 17:49 GMT
Dear Armin:
Thanks for reading my paper and thoughtful questions. The following are answers to your questions:
1. The mechanism of spontaneous mass-energy conversion fits really well with the emitted Luminous Radiant Energy (LRE) as mathematically described in Chapter 5, equation 5-50 (attached), in my book [15]. The LRE is equal to the total gravitational energy minus the rotational kinetic energy in the overall GNMUE model. This model of radiated energy is vindicated by the close predictions by GNMUE of the observed visible size of a galaxy by GNMUE as depicted in Figure 5-22 attached below.
2. The spontaneous (instantaneous) mass-energy conversion is already evident in the well-studied and experimented phenomena such as wave-particle behavior, non-locality, entanglement etc. wherein mass-energy equivalence (E=mC2) or complementarity is exhibited. The conversion discussed here is does not occur over time but reflects simultaneous duality of behavior already seen in quantum experiments. No new experiments are needed since these phenomena are already well-established via past experiments. GNM simply fills in the missing mathematical description for the already established physical phenomena. Dark energy on the other hand is still unknown and mathematically indescribable phenomenon that remains a puzzle for cosmology theories. GNMUE resolve this puzzle as well.
3. As seen in figure 8 of the paper, mass increases with size up to about 10 billion light-years. Hence, mass is being created (rather than dilated) in this region, which helps reduce the rate of decrease in density with size. As shown in attached figure 5-5 from ref. [15], the predicted density ratio (actual to critical density) is higher than 1 during this region wherein the mass is being created until it reaches a maximum. After that the mass density decreases below the critical density as the mass begins to decrease at higher sizes. You are correct in noticing that in the current cosmological theories, the average matter density is assumed (without any observational evidence) to be constant at critical density for a flat universe, which is predicted only at the maximum mass in GNMUE.
Sincerely,
Avtar
attachments:
Figures_for_Armin_Questions.pdf
C. Michael Turner replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 12:51 GMT
Here is what is missing. At the backward extrapolation of the motions of the universe, the mass, energy and space were all one in matter and through the decay of mass and energy creating the monopole gravitational wave, space itself and each piece of mass and energy still decay from potential to kinetic energy via decay into space itself, the monopole gravitational wave. The laws of physics continue ti be generated locally as mass and energy continuously give off the gravitational wave. Concerning other mysteries, an action has been completely overlooked, when two or more gravitational waves collide they create an action of wavefront formation, constructive wave interference but there is a reaction to wavefront formation, that reaction is gravitation, aligning waves inturn align the sources that generate the waves. Time space and gravity are actions of this process of mass and energy becoming space, the aether, the gravitational wavefront.
Sincerely,
C. Michael Turner
report post as inappropriate
C. Michael Turner replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 15:13 GMT
Dear Avtar,
All unknown actions can be revealed by two assumptions
1). All mass and energy decay into the monopole gravitational wave. See 1993 Nobel Prize in physics
2). The Huygens Principle is the Huygens law. The Reaction to wavefront formation is the same as gravitation.
Two hidden processes, create the actions of time, space, dark energy(F=MxA) and dark matter(space itself constructively interfering), among others such as black hole evaporation.
Sincerely
C. Michael Turner
report post as inappropriate
Sridattadev wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 15:57 GMT
Dear Dr.Singh,
I am glad to see a beautiful essay submitted by you on resolving the cosmological constant and relevant issues persisting in the scientific world.
Who am I? I am a cosmological variant, i is the cosmological constant.
Singularity is not just a relative infinity, it is absolute equality and hence the whole. To the one who realizes the truth there is nothing else but singularity.
Wisdom is more important that imagination is more important than knowledge,
for all that we know is just an imagination chosen wisely.
Please see the article that I have posted here in the contest
Conscience is the cosmological constant.Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT
Dear Sridattadev:
Thanks for reading my paper and comments. I will read your paper.
Regards
Avtar
Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 23:03 GMT
Hi Mr Singh,
It is interesting.Congratulations.
But you know the expansion is just a step.My model tells us that we have an expansion, so a maximum volume, and so we have after a critical density, a contraction ...towards the perfect equilibrium between quantum and cosmological spheres.
The cosmological constant is relevant that said.
ps I invite you to insert my equations about the light and the mass.
E=m(c³o³s³)and mcosV=const.
ps2 intersting tool for the taxonomy of our evolutive space time ....we can see the polarity m/hv ....
Regards and good luck for this contest.
post approved
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT
Dr. Singh,
In my essay, I simplistically deal with Armin's (above) question regarding the discovery of the Earth's magnetic field and other interactions trapping anti-matter in the atmosphere. What is your perspective on this?
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 20:41 GMT
Dear Jim:
I enjoyed reading your paper. Thanks for reading my paper and asking a question. The following is a response to your question:
Anti-particles: One of the fundamental assumptions made by quantum mechanics and quantum cosmology is that the net mass-energy of the universe is zero (Please note that there is no sound and credible basis for this assumption). The artifact of this assumption leads to the presumed existence of anti-matter to cancel out the net positive matter energy in the universe. The existence of still allusive anti-particles in the same amount as the real matter is yet to be observed to prove the correctness of quantum predictions of anti-matter. GNMUE predicts spontaneous annihilation (as well as creation) of matter (mass-energy conversion) without invoking the unverifiable assumption of anti-matter.
The annihilation of matter is nothing but simply spontaneous (without any external force or stimulus) and instantaneous conversion of mass-energy allowed by the mass-energy equivalence principle. GNM model in my paper derives the missing physics and governing equation for this mechanism using relativity theory. The model is shown to predict annihilation or dilation as well as creation of matter without any anti-matter, which is simply an artifact of the missing understanding of the inner workings of quantum mechanics. GNM reveals this inner understanding and resolves many of the puzzles of QM including the artifact anti-matter, dark, matter, and dark energy etc.
Sincerely,
Avtar Singh
Sridattadev replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 13:42 GMT
Dear Jim and Dr. Singh,
Conscience or soul is at the root of spontaniety (both creation (birth) and anhilation (death)).
Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 08:24 GMT
Dear Avtar
You have worked hard on your ideas and presented them in a highly technical way that I could not always follow, particularly because the reasoning behind many of your claims are in outside references. Even so I find myself agreeing with some but not all of the statements. I doubt that mass decay is responsible for the expansion of the universe, but you have reasoned it out and I am only guessing.
The links between cosmology and Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have elicited many fascinating ideas and yours is another interesting approach.
I wish you the best of luck.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir:
Thanks for reading my paper and thoughtful comments.
It is not mass only that is responsible for the expansion, but the wholesome mass-energy-space-time continuum constitutes the various relativistic states of the apparent and so-called expansion of the universe. What is missed out in the current theories is a wholesome relativistic conservation of this continuum. This omission is the root cause of the existing paradoxes and inconsistencies leading to the prediction of an “Absurd” universe.
Sincerely,
Avtar
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:05 GMT
Interesting holistic approach!
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 19:54 GMT
Avtar,
I'm delighted to have now read your well written essay, and found an extraordinary degree of commonality, as you suspected, though also significant divergence.
I particularly agree with some areas which i didn't really cover here, except with some oblique references in my end notes, i.e.;
"The actual mass increases with increasing size of the universe until a maximum mass is reached at about 10 billion light-years, beyond which, mass decreases again with size."
I have estimated this at a little more time, perhaps some 15-18Gyr, but with a scale invariant process applicable to galaxies over some 6Gyr. This implies recycling at 11-12Gyr. Does your model fully constrain a longer period for the Universe?
I have different and I feel more mechanistic resolutions of some of the same and many different effects you refer to. I suspect and hope we may be mutually informed and converge. Do you think so?
Best of luck
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear Peter:
Thanks for reading my paper and thoughtful comments. I have read your interesting and delightful essay and agree with you that our papers address common concepts and themes.
However, I did not see any explicit predictive calculations of cosmic observations such as mass evolution, Hubble expansion, nor did I see any comparison against actual data in your paper. So, it is hard for me to comment on the basis of your numbers – 15-18Gyr or recycling at 11-12 Gyr. My model does not predict any recycling but predicts a quasi-static universe with only inferred relativistic expansion that matches the observations of the so-called accelerated expansion based on Supernova data.
I do not have any constraints at all on time period or size of the universe; it is an open-end universe with no beginning or ending. My paper includes only a few mechanistic details due to 9 pages size restriction. A complete model with much more mechanistic details and equations is described in my book - ref. [15].
Regards
Avtar
Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 12:25 GMT
Avtar
Red shift emerges as a dark energy function, so expansion is reducing, apart from locally at one end of the 'axis' of the CMBR anisotropy where it seems an 'active universal nucleus' may be accreting and emitting, in the same way as an AGN.
Yes, the 9 page limit prevented discussion, but I touched on it in the end notes. The main paper on recycling model is still in review, but an early coceptial webarchived paper on some elements is here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016
The cycle is clearly calculable temporally by the great peak of AGN and quasar activity at ~z=1.7, (~6bn yrs) previously screened by the stellar locus. From the secular evolution pattern that emerges we can estimate the Milky Way as in ~middle age. (The estimated age of the sun supports this).
Some stellar mass remains in the oblate spheroidal dark matter halo from the previous iteration, so just the odd rare far older star is implied. The 14 hypervelicity stellar ejections on the toroid axis are also then explained, along with far too many other phenomena to go through here, but do look up my recent post to Hutchinson's essay blog on falsification.
Recycling is purely a phase of the eternal universe. It is very 'green'!. The evidence is all there and clear once we know what to look for. A solution to the re-ionization problem also emerges with all the other rationalisations.
The model is not yet perfect or complete by any means. We must all be prepared to evolve our ideas for sure. do you agree?
Best wishes.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 05:01 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh
you ask me to comment on your essay. It is based on a combination of Newtonian gravitational theory (equation (5)) and special relativity, combined with assumptions about particle decay. It nicely develops consequences of those assumptions. However I happen to believe the General Relativity Theory is a better theory of gravity than Newtonian theory, and this is supported by solar system tests such as observations of the perihelion of Mercury and gravitational lensing observations, as well as by the necessity of the use of GR corrections in GPS devices. Effects in your theory such as the lack of black holes follow from the use of an incorrect theory of gravity (i.e. one not supported by experiment).
Additionally you state as regards the cosmological constant that no such extraneous fudge factor exists in your theory. However there is no cosmological constant in (6) but there is one in (8). How did it get there? It was put in by hand (equation(7)). It did not follow from equations (1)-(6). A further arbitrary fudge takes place between (9) and (10) where you add a new relation between Lambda and H that is not implied by equations (1)-(6). This is later (equation (11)) proclaimed as if it is a deduction from the theory, but it is not, it is an a priori assumption. So your later results do not follow from your initial assumptions, but from these extra assumptions that are unmotivated from any physical basis.
Finally I am unable to see how your model as states in (1)-(6) causes a reformulation of quantum theory, as claimed in section 6. But in any case as stated above, your choice of gravitational theory is Newtonian theory; General relativity is a better fit to the solar system data, which are very well attested, and hence is preferred by the data.
George Ellis
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 22:02 GMT
Dear George:
Thanks a lot for reading my paper and providing thoughtful comments as well as questions. Responses are provided below. I would greatly appreciate your feedback if I have adequately addressed all your questions/comments:
1. I completely agree with your statement – “……. I happen to believe the General Relativity Theory is a better theory of gravity than Newtonian...
view entire post
Dear George:
Thanks a lot for reading my paper and providing thoughtful comments as well as questions. Responses are provided below. I would greatly appreciate your feedback if I have adequately addressed all your questions/comments:
1. I completely agree with your statement – “……. I happen to believe the General Relativity Theory is a better theory of gravity than Newtonian theory, and this is supported by solar system tests such as observations of the perihelion of Mercury and gravitational lensing observations, as well as by the necessity of the use of GR corrections in GPS devices. Effects in your theory such as the lack of black holes follow from the use of an incorrect theory of gravity (i.e. one not supported by experiment). “
However, in spite of the well-known successes of the General Relativity (GR) Theory in all those near-field (solar system) areas you noted above, it has been unable to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe without using a Fudge Factor – Cosmological Constant that still remains unexplained (dark energy) on a mechanistic basis. Similarly, on galactic scale, the observed flat rotational velocities and its unknown source –dark matter remain unexplained by GR. Both these unexplained Dark Energy and Dark Matter presumably constitute 96% of the universe that still remains mysterious and paradoxical. The Gravity Nullification Model based Universe Expansion (GNMUE) theory proposed in my paper provides a solution to these paradoxes via including the missing physics of the spontaneous particle decay. The predictions of the proposed GNMUE theory successfully predict the observed data on galactic rotational velocities (figure 9) as well as the accelerated universe expansion exhibited by supernova data (figure 5), which GR fails to predict without a non-zero Λ. These successful predictions vindicate the GNMUE theory on a universal scale, in spite of the demonstrated correctness of GR at solar scale.
Secondly, the so-called Big bang Singularity is caused by confining the entire mass of the universe in a point like (zero) volume leading to an infinite density. GNMUE demonstrates that the root cause of this singularity is the missing physics of spontaneous mass decay or evaporation that dilates mass as the size decreases and radiates the resulting energy as described in the Hawking’s Radiation mechanism. While I agree that the Newtonian gravity model used as part of the GNMUE is not as sophisticated and detailed (event horizon) as GR, it is sufficient to demonstrate the impact of the physics of the particle decay in eliminating the singularity paralyzing cosmology today.
Thirdly, in “The New Physics, edited by Paul Davies, Cambridge University Press, 1989”, which uses a similar Newtonian mechanics based universe expansion model, it is stated (p. 54) that – “…we will derive the value (critical density) in the context of Newtonian Mechanics, but the answer we will find will agree exactly with the answer implied by Einstein’s general relativity.”
2. Clarification of the Cosmological Constant:
Below is a response to your comments.
The cosmological constant Λ was proposed by Albert Einstein as an extraneous addition to and modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary. Equation (7) in my paper does not represent an extraneous addition to the original GNMUE equation (6) but only a translation or restatement of the particle decay kinetic energy in the form of a pre-defined constant Λ=3H2/C2 (equation 7) to demonstrate the governing mechanistic physics behind Λ. The kinetic energy term is simply replaced by the term (ΛmC2R2/6) to demonstrate their physical equivalence. While Einstein added an extraneous fudge factor term to his GR equation, GNMUE only replaces the equivalent terms keeping the original governing energy equation (6) intact, howsoever in terms of Λ. Hence, equation (10) is simply translation or restatement of the kinetic energy of the particle decay from equation (6) into the coordinate of the constant defined as Λ=3H2/C2. Hence, KE from equation (6) translates (without any extraneous addition of extra fudge term) into equation (7), which then translates into equation (10) following the definition of the constant Λ=3H2/C2.
In summary, equation (10) is a derivative of equation (6) without any extraneous addition or fudge term. The need for Λ is shown to be entirely eliminated via substituting equation (10) into (6), wherein the universe mass m can be described in terms of radius r and H as in the attached pdf version of equation (6-A) without the need for any extraneous cosmological constant Λ.
3. Response to your comment – “Finally I am unable to see how your model as states in (1)-(6) causes a reformulation of quantum theory, as claimed in section 6.”
There is not enough room in the paper but detailed mathematical descriptions of the extended wave-particle model, wave-function collapse, Heisenberg uncertainty, and inner workings of quantum mechanics resolving its paradoxes such as the measurement problem, multiverses, antimatter, quantum gravity etc. are described in Chapter 4 thru 7 (see attached Pdf for Contents of the book). GNM bridges the gap between GR and quantum mechanics explaining the inner working of quantum mechanics in relativistic physics.
Thanking you again for your time to review paper and provide comments. Please let me know if I answered all your questions satisfactorily.
Regards
Avtar Singh
view post as summary
attachments:
Attachmt_to_Resp_1_G_Ellis_Comments_onAS_Paper_73012_R1.pdf
J. C. N. Smith wrote on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Avtar,
Apologies for not reading your very interesting essay and commenting on it much sooner. I have been too easily overwhelmed by an embarrassment of riches in terms of having so many interesting essays to read and to attempt to understand, insofar as possible.
You wrote, "Science today is at the crossroads searching for resolutions to some serious paradoxes and puzzles paralyzing its leading theories. The mission of science to achieve a unified theory is founded on the basic premise that there exists a single universe and one set of universal laws that the theory would reveal to explain the observed universe. This mission is marred by the uncertainty and confusion of the multiverse that presumes parallel universes with their own varying sets of laws."
For whatever it is worth, I am in total agreement with you on these points. There is abundant evidence that physics and cosmology have reached a point which Thomas S. Kuhn described in his book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' as a "crisis." This FQXi essay competition is an excellent example and illustration of exactly this point. If Kuhn is correct and if previous experience is borne out, we eventually will emerge from this period of intellectual turmoil and ferment with some good new ideas and a new consensus.
With regard to parallel universes with their own varying sets of laws, is this not simply a re-defining, for the sake of convenience, of the term "universe"? If these hypothetical parallel universes are things we can contemplate, then they certainly are part of our one, comprehensive intellectual universe.
Regarding detailed comments on the specific technical details of your essay, Avtar, I regret to say that I am not sufficiently well versed in the technical nuances and subtleties of these topics to comment meaningfully. Far better for both of us if I leave such comments on technical specifics to those whose expertise far exceeds my own, of whom there are many.
Regardless, good luck in the your future work and good luck in the essay competition.
jcns
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear JCNS:
Thanks for reading and commenting on my paper.
You have asked - "With regard to parallel universes with their own varying sets of laws, is this not simply a re-defining, for the sake of convenience, of the term "universe"?"
Parallel universes are brainchildren of quantum mechanics and they represent standalone and un-connected universes separate from our universe. This is simply an unverifiable and entirely theoretical postulate that offers a last-resort explanation for many observed weird quantum phenomena.
In my paper, I offer an explanation for the parallel universes that represent simply various different relativistic states of the mass-energy-space-time continuum of one universe.
Regards
Avtar
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 02:41 GMT
Hello Avtar, my friend;
It is good to see you in this contest, and to read your excellent essay. I thought it was well set out, but I would likely only give you a B plus or A minus letter grade. Having heard your talk at CCC2; I can understand the basis for some of the comments above by folks who failed to understand - and tell you what could have been highlighted more greatly, though. Your whole argument hinges on the following point, which needed to be stated with more force early in the paper.
While some quantum particles and large black holes may have an incredibly long lifetime, and it's an easy simplification to assume that this is essentially infinite, those are not the facts. Almost all real-world particles are seen to decay, and even a proton presumably has a definite half-life - so it is only a matter of when, and not if it will decay. Nor will every black hole that forms be a huge monster in the middle of a vast feeding ground - which would keep it around for a long time. Therefore, many of them will decay.
So there is always some conversion of mass into energy, and this affects the ratio of matter to energy in the universe - which influences its expansion rate. This is the crux of your argument, from what I can tell or remember.
I enjoyed our conversation at the banquet dinner for CCC2, and I look forward to some interesting idea exchange here too. I wish you luck in the contest.
all the best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 02:49 GMT
A further comment -
A crucial piece of your argument is that whenever bits of matter or black holes do convert from mass-bearing matter to energy, this makes some of the total mass in the universe go away! And in its place there is more background energy.
This is the mechanism by which its Gravity is Nullified.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 22:16 GMT
Hi Jonathan:
Thanks for reading my paper and helpful comments. I will make sure in future versions of the paper to emphasize strongly the key argument about matter-energy conversion as you suggested.
I also enjoyed talking to you and others at the CCC2 and would welcome any further constructive comments to enhance the message delivery to others.
Regards
Avtar
Ernst Fischer wrote on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 19:18 GMT
Dear Avtar,
Your model of the universe at first sight solves one problem of the so called standard model, the infinite energy contained in the Big Bang. But I think it only shifts the infinity problem.
Even if your quantity M0 is finite, it is contained in a volume of size zero in the beginning, no matter if you call it potential energy or something else. Besides the approximation of kinetic energy by a purely radial motion is an oversimplification. To describe the universe as a sphere in the classical sense with a radius changing with time does by no means agree with our experience. The curvature radius of space, as proposed by Einstein, was perpendicular to every of the three spatial directions.
In spite of my criticism I hope that your essay will stimulate further discussion. It can help to get a better understanding of the question of energy content of the universe.
Best regards,
Ernst
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 16:03 GMT
Dear Earnst:
Thanks for reading my paper and offering thoughtful comments. Below is a response to your comments:
Comment: “Even if your quantity M0 is finite, it is contained in a volume of size zero in the beginning, no matter if you call it potential energy or something else. “
Response:
In the limit as the volume goes to zero, mass m also goes to zero converting to radiant energy radiated to space via fully evaporating the mass. Hence, there is no singularity in the limit to zero volume.
Comment: “Besides the approximation of kinetic energy by a purely radial motion is an oversimplification. To describe the universe as a sphere in the classical sense with a radius changing with time does by no means agree with our experience. The curvature radius of space, as proposed by Einstein, was perpendicular to every of the three spatial directions.”
Response:
As your paper shows, spherical symmetric gravitational collapse is used to show a final equilibrium state of finite density. In my paper, the spherical radial expansion is shown to predict the observed far-field supernova expansion; hence what is the basis for your statement that it “does by no means agree with our experience.” Further, Einstein’s general relativity theory fails to predict the observed accelerated expansion without a non-zero cosmological constant fudge factor. Also, it fails to predict the observed flat radial velocities of stars in galaxies without dark matter. Hence, general relativity is not the proper benchmark for deciding the galactic or universe expansion geometrics. GNMUE, on the other hand, predicts both fairly successfully. Hence, leaving all prejudices for the general relativity, GNMUE better predicts the observed experience data for the universe as well as galactic expansion without the unverifiable assumptions of dark matter or dark energy.
Regards
Avtar
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 00:11 GMT
Dear Avtar
i would be grateful if you read my posts to Philip Gibbs essay
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 17:16 GMT
Dear Yuri:
I read your post and responded as a new post to Phil Gibbs essay. Please respond to my post.
Thanks
Avtar
James Putnam wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 02:15 GMT
Dr. Avtar Singh
Copying a quote that I believe was attributed to you in Vesselin Petkov's blog:
"We have unambiguous experimental evidence that gravity is not a force - falling bodies DO NOT RESIST their (apparent) acceleration, which proves that no gravitational force is accelerating them downwards; a force would exist only if the bodies resisted their fall (the force would be needed to overcome that resistance).
I don't recall reading this in your essay or postings. Did you say this and if so, what unambiguous evidence? Objects don't fall at infinite speed, so, I wonder about the meaning of the quote. If it was not your words, then please disregard this. Thank you.
James
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT
Dear James:
No, the above statement is not mine but in Vesselin's paper.
I do not agree with this statement as discussed in my blogs under Vesselin's posing. I am including them here for your convenience:
----
Hi Vesselin:
I enjoyed reading your paper and agree with your conclusion: “…quantum gravity as quantization of gravitational interaction is Impossible..”
However, I do not completely agree with your reason that gravity is not an interactive force just because general relativity says so. Since general relativity has failed to predict 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe and has been paralyzed with the Big Bang singularity, it can hardly be acclaimed as a universal theory and it would be not only be premature but also incorrect to declare the Newtonian interaction as non-existent. Also, I have demonstrated in my posted paper - “
From Absurd to Elegant Universe”, that integrating the missing physics of spontaneous decay of particles with Newtonian gravitational energy plus specific relativity, the ills of general relativity can be cured and observed expansion of the universe and galaxies as well as quantum/classical behaviors can be predicted without any singularities. This approach also resolves quantum mysteries and explains inner workings of quantum mechanics eliminating the need for quantum gravity.
I would greatly appreciate your comments on my posted paper -“
From Absurd to Elegant Universe”.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
--------
Hi Vesselin:
Thank you for your comments.
If you read my paper, you will know that my model has been vindicated by several sets of data from quantum to galactic to cosmic scale observations. Hence, you cannot prejudge it to be wrong just based on the isolated example of falling bodies. Then again, you are discounting all the numerous well-known data that supports Newtonian gravity model including the solar system motion.
Moreover, if there was no resistance to motion provided by mass inertia, the experienced acceleration of falling bodies would be infinite (due to zero mass inertia) and not limited to a constant gravitational acceleration.
I would welcome your reading and commenting on my paper.
Regards and best of Luck
Avtar
---------
Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 19:50 GMT
Dr. Singh,
Thank you for the kind comments on my paper.
I am not intimately familiar with some of the subjects within your paper (although I did notice some formulaic similarities), and so your first equation (1) threw me for a loop. I was very much under the impression that a particle at rest in it's own inertial frame had a rest mass of m
0 such that it has no momentum as you note. I was not aware that there was any theory which allowed for a portion of this rest mass to be changed (as by your mass delta or TE) within that rest frame, even through a conversion to energy. I am sure that this is just a product of my lack of understanding Hawking radiation. Can you recommend some references for me to catch up? Perhaps a certain section of Reference 8?
Regards,
Jeff Baugher
report post as inappropriate
Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 20:46 GMT
Dr. Singh,
I think I am understanding the basic premise of your essay, which is an intriguing concept but leaves me with some questions for you.
It seems your hypothesis for dark energy (accelerating expansion) is that mass in the universe is spontaneously being converted into kinetic energy of the remaining mass. While I can see the attraction of accounting for extra kinetic energy from a known source (baryonic mass) instead of vacuum energy, I don't understand how this would cause the kinetic energy of remaining mass clumps to increase. I note that in Einstein's dentition of GR, all energy (even kinetic) curves spacetime, so the local curvature should not be affected by the transformation to TE.
As the mass is being converted, why would the accelerating expansion increase? Since empirical evidence shows that the positive acceleration started uniformly across the universe (and so should not be causally connected from one point to another), it would seem that there must be something intrinsic to physics at each point which would cause the mass to start converting to kinetic energy. If so, any idea what would cause this?
In addition, can you state how you view your Fig.2 in relation to the cosmological principle and to the scarcity of baryonic matter? Doesn't equation (5) depict mass as a point?
I do note that this contest and forum is for exploring fundamental ideas so please take my questions as being from ignorance of your concept and not from a position of criticism. Perhaps my questions will cause others to re-examine their own preconceived concepts.
Last but not least, many of the essays in this contest are philosophical or vague, meaning they are difficult to form any convincing counter opinion for a third party. Even if I am initially unsure of your hypothesis, your boldness in laying out a specific mathematical argument from well known equations should be something we all aspire to.
Regards,
Jeff Baugher
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 16:22 GMT
Hi Jeff:
Thanks for reading and commenting on my paper. The following are responses to your questions:
Your Question 1: “….. I don't understand how this would cause the kinetic energy of remaining mass clumps to increase. I note that in Einstein's dentition of GR, all energy (even kinetic) curves spacetime, so the local curvature should not be affected by the transformation to...
view entire post
Hi Jeff:
Thanks for reading and commenting on my paper. The following are responses to your questions:
Your Question 1: “….. I don't understand how this would cause the kinetic energy of remaining mass clumps to increase. I note that in Einstein's dentition of GR, all energy (even kinetic) curves spacetime, so the local curvature should not be affected by the transformation to TE.”
Answer: To understand this concept, imagine a photon being emitted from a stationary atom. Before emission, the photon rest mass is M0=E/C2. Soon after its emission from rest, it accelerates to attain a speed close to the speed of light via converting or losing its mass. Since, there is no external force accelerating the photon to the speed of light, its gain in kinetic energy comes from the conversion of its rest mass to KE. GR lacks or is deficient in this physics, hence it suffers from the singularity at r=0 and is unable to predict the dark energy required for the observed accelerated expansion. GR needs a fudge factor – nonzero Cosmological Constant to mock this missing physics and this fudging was the Einstein’s Biggest Blunder. GNMUE model in my paper provides this missing physics from GR and QM. Integrating the missing physics resolves their singularities and paradoxes.
Your Question 2: “…As the mass is being converted, why would the accelerating expansion increase?”
Answer: I clarify and explain this in my paper (see Figure 3):
“It is important to point out that GNM based RUE provides a relativistic expansion model of the universe, while the LHM represents an empirical fit to the observed Hubble expansion data from the near field galaxies. When compared to the recent far-field Supernova data, LHM leads to the apparent conclusion that the universe expansion is accelerating. However, such a conclusion is merely an artifact of the over-extrapolation (V>C) of the linear expansion assumed by the LHM in the distant universe. It is shown later in the paper that the observed non-linear expansion from the far-field data is naturally predicted by the RUE vindicating the fact that the universe expansion in the far field is relativistic and not linear as predicted by LHM.”
Your Question 3: “…can you state how you view your Fig.2 in relation to the cosmological principle and to the scarcity of baryonic matter? Doesn't equation (5) depict mass as a point?”
Answer: I am attaching a complete derivation of equation (5) as a pdf file below. It assumes that mass is spherically distributed over the entire universe. The scarcity of baryonic matter is evidenced by its conversion to the equivalent KE which is misinterpreted as Dark Energy because of its unknown source in the standard cosmology. Dark matter is another such mis-concept prevalent in modern cosmology that is shown to be the artifact of the missing physics.
Finally thanks for picking up and realizing the deeper theme of my paper to present to the forum not just a philosophy or list of what is wrong but actually offer a real physical/mathematical solution to what is missing and paralyzing physics and cosmology today. I hope there are more scientists on this forum that could think universally and see outside of their current boxes of GR, QM, or prevailing incomplete theories.
As I show in my paper, many of the current standard cosmology assumptions and mis-concepts (big-bang, cosmic time, inflation, nucleo-synthesis, dark matter, dark, energy, particles/strings, anti-matter, multiverses, multi-dimensions etc.) aren’t even needed when the missing physics is properly considered. It is tragic that the physics/cosmology community and world are wasting so much of their talent, time, and money pursuing only unneeded assumptions or non-physical mathematical concepts (particles/strings) that are not real but only superficial artifacts of the missing fundamental physics. I would welcome your and others’ ideas as to how to raise awareness of the science community to the missing physics rather than beating the dead horse of standard cosmology.
What is ironic and generally lacking in the forum papers is the presentation of a complete approach wherein instead of merely identifying the wrong assumptions, the right assumptions are presented and proven against universal observations to show their correctness. Without such a wholesome approach, this exercise is no more than firing shots in empty air.
Best Regards,
Avtar Singh
view post as summary
attachments:
1_Gravitation_Potential_Derivation__Excerpts_from_my_book.pdf
Paul Reed wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 07:46 GMT
Avtar
As per your post on my blog (2nd August-I have been on holiday), my comments would be as follows:
1 There is no constancy of light speed in GR (1st para Introduction).
2 I doubt if c should be in that famous equation (and many others), this being a function of substituting light speed, incorrectly, in the expression of time (see my post in my 11/7 19.33). Another way of...
view entire post
Avtar
As per your post on my blog (2nd August-I have been on holiday), my comments would be as follows:
1 There is no constancy of light speed in GR (1st para Introduction).
2 I doubt if c should be in that famous equation (and many others), this being a function of substituting light speed, incorrectly, in the expression of time (see my post in my 11/7 19.33). Another way of putting this: why should the speed of light have anything to do with it? (1st para section 2)
3 There can be no such physical effect as time dilation, because the concept of time has no corresponding physical existence. It is purely an extrinsic measuring system which calibrates the rate at which change is occurring. (section 2).
4 Space does not physically exist, it is the corollary of ‘not-space’, ie objects, particles, or whatever term one wants to use. In other words, only that which has physical ‘presence’ exists, and then it is a matter as to which one selects and the prevailing circumstances, as to what ‘constitutes’ space (ie the consequence) in that context. And everything deemed to be physical must have ‘presence’, something cannot be deemed to exist, or have/be a physical effect but then ‘mysteriously’ have no ‘presence’. Another way of putting this is, any detected alteration in ‘space’ is actually an alteration in some thing. The underlying assumption in relativity is that when matter is caused to alter speed it also alters dimension. (section 2).
5 There is no uncertainty in what physically exists, but this is not a function of ‘relativistic effects’. It is how physical reality occurs, ie it must have a definitive and discrete physical existence as at any given point in time. The issue is establishing what constitutes that, and then what it was in any given circumstance (which is highly likely to be impossible, such is the rate at which alteration to a physically existent state occurs). (section 6).
6 Action can only involve physically existent states which are immediately spatially adjacent, as at any given point in time. Physical effects cannot ‘jump’ a circumstance. Then it can only be those physically existent states which immediately preceded the physical state being considered which are the potential source of the alteration, there can be no ‘jumping’ in the sequence. (But again the issue is, given what constitutes a physically existent state, the level of differentiation is too detailed to be detectectable). (section 6)
7 In respect of anything, it can only be in one physically existent state at a time, otherwise existence cannot occur, and then alter. (section 6).
8 However, leaving aside these ‘technicalities’, the real question is: physically, what is gravity, mass, energy, etc? Their existence and the relationships between them may or may not be depicted by the equations, but what is the corresponding physical reality which substantiates these concepts? Only by establishing this can we establish what is happening.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Michael James Goodband wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 19:21 GMT
Dear Avtar
In response to your request for a comment on your essay, I would go slightly further than you have indicated in your essay and view the notion of a multiverse as being absurd - effectively giving up on physics and going for all out fantasy. Like George Ellis, I would disagree with your premise of dismissing GR by using a Newtonian gravitational potential. HOWEVER, a significant...
view entire post
Dear Avtar
In response to your request for a comment on your essay, I would go slightly further than you have indicated in your essay and view the notion of a multiverse as being absurd - effectively giving up on physics and going for all out fantasy. Like George Ellis, I would disagree with your premise of dismissing GR by using a Newtonian gravitational potential. HOWEVER, a significant inconsistency in the standard interpretation of the cosmological constant in GR is readily apparent in a supposed 'constant' in a theory defined by the 'relative' - not exactly hidden from sight! The obvious physics question in a theory called Relativity should be to ask, constant relative to what? The answer is the term next to it in Einstein's field equations, namely the metric. In a FRW cosmology, the metric is parameterised by the radial scale factor R of the universe, g(R), which for a closed S3 universe is the radius R in a notional 4th dimension outside of the space that doesn't really exist. The cosmological term L is mathematically required to be constant relative to variations in the metric g(R) *within* the space, which means that it can also be parameterised by the notional 'extra dimensional' parameter R. In fact, interpreting GR as a physics theory and not just as a piece of maths, requires L(R) as it is a cosmological term denoting the global effect of radiation pressure against the physical space (see section 3 of my
paper). This totally changes the game with respect to the failings of a cosmological 'constant' in the standard cosmology, and your equation (11) L(R) =3H2C2 would have the correct radial scaling for a radiation pressure effect which scales as 1/R4.
In GR both mass and energy have gravitational attraction, but the radiation pressure effect at the global level of a closed S3 cosmology would have an expansionary effect that cancels, or nullifies, some of the gravitational attraction of radiation. So I am left wondering just how much of the results of your model are due to using the right sort of radial dependence for the cosmological term L(R). It can also be noted that in a local version of GR, the gravitational coupling constant would also depend upon the radial scale factor of the universe G(R). With 2 of the 3 constants having such a radial dependence, this would seem to imply that the speed of light in a local theory would also has a radial scale factor dependence c(R). In which case, the reliability of observational data interpreted through a GR model of 'constants' is questionable. This might explain a number of the features of the 'absurd universe' and the way to resolve them as being to view GR as a *physical* theory and not as a mathematical map totally bereft of the physical territory it is supposed to be describing.
The 9 page limit and lack of freely accessible reference means that I cannot see how the issues of QT are resolved in your model.
Regards
Michael
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:53 GMT
Dear Michael:
Thanks for your time in reviewing my paper and providing thoughtful comments.
While undoubtedly GR has been proven to be a successful theory for explaining (as George Ellis pointed out) Solar System level observations, the fact remains that it lacks some major physics that paralyzes it with the black hole singularity and two major unexplained paradoxes - dark energy...
view entire post
Dear Michael:
Thanks for your time in reviewing my paper and providing thoughtful comments.
While undoubtedly GR has been proven to be a successful theory for explaining (as George Ellis pointed out) Solar System level observations, the fact remains that it lacks some major physics that paralyzes it with the black hole singularity and two major unexplained paradoxes - dark energy and dark matter. In spite of its flagrant successes against selected set of data, it fails to explain 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe. Hence, I would buy into yours and George’s arguments in favor of GR if this major deficiency of GR is removed which prohibits it from being only a 4% universal theory. My paper demonstrates that while the Newtonian theory alone may not explain the cosmic observations, when combined with the missing physics of spontaneous mass-energy conversion, it does a great job in predicting the observed galactic and universe accelerated expansions without any black hole singularities. Such a wide ranging proof and evidence for the proposed GNMUE model in my paper are hard to ignore merely to hold the GR as a superior theory on its past 4% track record. Obviously, as you have suggested a lot more work has to be done to fix GR to remove its deficiencies to claim it as a superior theory from cosmological point of view.
Secondly, the – “…the right sort of radial dependence for the cosmological term L(R)” comes from the mechanistic physics of the spontaneous decay as described in my paper. I would welcome GR experts to integrate this physics into GR and demonstrate that it can explain the 96% of the missing universe (dark energy and dark matter) without a singularity at R=0. Only then, one could claim the validity of GR from the universal or cosmological point of view. Until then, there is no evidence – “ …. to view GR as a *physical* theory” And also, until then GNMUE is a demonstrated model correctly predicting the observed universal behavior in spite of the fact that it is based on Newtonian gravitational potential.
I am attaching the following two files to provide additional information from references [15] and [18] of my paper to show how GNM resolves the quantum paradoxes and explains its inner working:
[15] A. Singh, The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality, AuthorHouse, 2003. (Chapter 4,6,7 and 8)
[18] A. Singh, Quantum Non-Locality Explained by Theory of Relativity, Physics Essays Vol. 19 No. 1, 2007.
I would greatly appreciate your comments on these references.
Best of Luck & Regards
Avtar Singh
view post as summary
attachments:
QM_Nonlocality_Physics_Essays_Paper_Final_Version_03singh1.pdf,
Book_Manuscript_Chap_467_and_8__9412.pdf
Michael James Goodband replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:56 GMT
Dear Avtar,
Technically dark matter is a particle physics problem, not a GR problem. I note that you have posted on Johann Weiser's essay and so would have seen that Johann claims to have found a non-singular black hole solution by including the distribution of matter that gives rise to the metric. If true that would imply a black hole singularity is not necessarily a real thing. Similarly...
view entire post
Dear Avtar,
Technically dark matter is a particle physics problem, not a GR problem. I note that you have posted on Johann Weiser's essay and so would have seen that Johann claims to have found a non-singular black hole solution by including the distribution of matter that gives rise to the metric. If true that would imply a black hole singularity is not necessarily a real thing. Similarly if there are extra dimensions and GR is extended to describe them, then black holes are also non-singular. That just leaves the remaining problem with GR that you identify - dark energy, and I agree that is a problem.
Dark energy is directly related to what the cosmological 'constant' in GR means, and here the standard presentation is simply wrong - the cosmological term *must* depend upon the radial scale factor of the universe in order for GR to be a *physical* theory (see attachment for a simple toy model that illustrates this). So I agree with your dispute of GR up to the point that the standard presentation of GR with an artificially 'constant' cosmological term does *not* constitute a *physical* theory. This provides the background for my earlier comment that I wonder to what extent your usage of a variable cosmological term is responsible for your results.
From the attachment you will see that a *physical* GR is likely to also possess a gravitational constant and speed of light that depend upon the radial scale factor as well. This scale factor dependence of c is perhaps also captured by your model. There is a further feature of a *physical* GR model that is not emphasised in the standard presentation of GR - the *definition* of energy is *not* constant in a time dependent metric. So in an expanding universe the *definition* of energy within the time dependent metric will be varying. For a model with a constant definition of energy, this changing energy definition effect could possibly be captured by adding an effect that changes the energy terms in the model, which your model does. So I wonder to what extent the results generated by the features of your model are due to approximately including the sort of effects that should be present in *physical* GR.
I have looked at the attachments you gave with regards to QT. The dominant issue is that QT has a weird illusion of non-locality that isn't real - I call it a non-locality of identity that isn't accompanied by non-locality of causation. Standard QT presentation is not always clear on this issue and can give a misleading impression of it. The difficulty of alternative approaches to QT, is capturing this illusion of non-locality without actually capturing real non-locality, and like other such models in this essay contest, yours doesn't quite pull it off. It is extremely difficult and rather subtle, but without a theory will conflict with known experimental results.
Despite your anti-GR stance, I think your model may provide a background basis for constructing an argument in favour of adding the features which would turn GR as it has been presented into *physical* GR.
Michael
view post as summary
attachments:
1_Balloon_world.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:33 GMT
"Space and time are relative entities. There is no absolute time or synchronicity in the universe, which has no absolute beginning, evolution, or ending. The apparent flow of time is a relative reality (an illusion) of the fixed (V
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
I have different opinion
Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch
c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10
G=10^22; G=10^-8; G=10^-28
h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28
alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1
e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:49 GMT
Sorry
correction Big Bang G=10^-12
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT
Appendix 4 Solution of cosmological constant problem
Theory: Cosmological constant is 10^94 g/sm^3
Practice: Cosmological constant is 10^-28 g/sm^3
Planck constant h=10^-28 g x sm^2/sec in 2D space embedding in 3D space
Only right value is experimental value.
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:55 GMT
Yuri:
I respect your opinion. However, you need to demonstrate its physical validity via comparison against cosmic and galactic expansion data. Until then, it is only an opinion. Also, does this opinion resolve the current paradoxes of physics/cosmology, QM, GR, singularities? Please demonstrate how.
Thanks
Avtar
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 02:40 GMT
First of all read please my first essay.Then we can discuss.
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946
report post as inappropriate
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 22:57 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh,
I have carefully read your excellent essay.
I am not a physicist, nor a cosmologist.
I, who conceives my models on the current physics and the accepted cosmological theories, do I revise my way of making, but in which direction?
I see the Universe full of energy which transforms. At the beginning there was at first a space (dark energy), then the dark matter, then the ordinary matter.
The energy is transformed in passing from simple to complex, as I showed it on the model in my essay.
I thank you for any advice you can give me on this, as you are a professional physicist.
See my essay : http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1552
Best regards
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear
Very interesting to see your essay.
Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.
Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:
You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.
Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?
The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?
Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?
You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.
Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?
Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.
Regards !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 20:33 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai:
Thanks for reading my essay and asking thoughtful questions. Below are the answers:
As I describe in my essay, particles are not fundamental entities in the universe but the process of conversion of energy to mass or particle creation from the Zero-point energy state is fundamental process modeled by GNM in my paper. The observed universe and galactic expansion can be explained by this model without consideration of any specific particles or strings. So, whether Higgs boson exists or not is only a mute question that does not need to be answered to have a universal theory. Also, inner workings of QM and all its related paradoxes can also be answered as well as singularities of GR can be eliminated by GNM, and no particles physics is needed other than their creation and dilation process modeled by GNM. Time is also not needed to explain the universe.
I hope the above provides satisfactory answers to your questions and comments.
Best Regards and wishes
Avtar
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:05 GMT
Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.
This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:
Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.
A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.
An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.
Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity
Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.
Thank you and good luck.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 10:07 GMT
Dear Avtar,
Why according to your Gravity Nullification model (GNM) in essay you find (7) and (8) where cosmological constant attached to kinetic energy of universe substance? The question is because I calculated cosmological constant in the paper
The Principle of Least Action in Covariant Theory of Gravitation, and it proportional to density of substance, not to the kinetic energy. Also there is a paper
Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. in which supernova data explained in another way. You give Figure 5 for redshift and relative brightness of supernova. Similar to it in my first book
Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik. at page 291 is Figure 61 for redshift and apparent magnitude for galaxies up to z = 5. It is interesting that GNMUE Eliminates Black Hole or Big Bang Singularity. In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay about it) black holes are not allowed too. What do know about mechanism of transformation of mass in energy in your theory?
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 17:10 GMT
Dear Sergey:
Thanks for reading my essay and asking thoughtful questions. Below are the answers:
1. Why according to your Gravity Nullification model (GNM) in essay you find (7) and (8) where cosmological constant attached to kinetic energy of universe substance?
First of all, the cosmological constant is a fixed universal constant and not a variable. So, it cannot be...
view entire post
Dear Sergey:
Thanks for reading my essay and asking thoughtful questions. Below are the answers:
1. Why according to your Gravity Nullification model (GNM) in essay you find (7) and (8) where cosmological constant attached to kinetic energy of universe substance?
First of all, the cosmological constant is a fixed universal constant and not a variable. So, it cannot be proportional to a variable density of a substance. Secondly, when one compares the Einstein’s cosmological term (left hand side of equation (7)) with the GNMUE (6), the KE term is the equivalent term that also dominates the far-field energy term of the universe expansion. The gravitational energy term dominates only the near-field hence is not associated with the accelerating universe expansion demonstrated by Supernova observations. Hence, eqn (7) or (8) correctly represents the physics of the cosmological constant which was introduced by Einstein only as a fudge factor without any physics describing it in mathematical terms.
2. “Also there is a paper Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. in which supernova data explained in another way.”
GNMUE not only explains the redshift and dark energy, but also provides a complete solution to many of the singularities, paradoxes and inconsistencies of physics – GR and QM. It also explains the inner workings of QM resolving its paradoxes, predicts star velocities and galactic expansion, and provides a timeless solution to the universe expansion. Other possible explanations or theories predict only limited or isolated observations or behavior of the universe expansion and do not provide universal and complete solutions to all what is ailing physics today. For example, some theories only explain the supernova data but no solution to black hole singularities or QM paradoxes such as quantum gravity or quantum time. Most of the papers lack such holistic or universal approach to resolve the overall cosmic conundrum.
3. What do know about mechanism of transformation of mass in energy in your theory?
The easiest and direct way to think about the mass-energy conversion is that it represents the most fundamental process of creation of mass from the Zero-point energy of the so-called vacuum state. Any theory of the universe that does not include this fundamental mechanism of the creation of matter would fail to predict the observed universe since this mechanism is the bridge between the vacuum state and the matter state. Without such a matter-energy conversion model (GNM), the universal behavior cannot be predicted in totality and only partial predictions may be possible without a complete solution. Particles as such are not fundamental, but the process of creation of particles or mass is fundamental to any universe model.
I hope the above provides satisfactory answers to your questions and comments.
Best Regards and wishes
Avtar
view post as summary
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 17:22 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.
Cood luck.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:58 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 16:10 GMT
Dear Sergey:
Thanks for your detailed explanation about the ratings calculations.
My main concern is that ratings lack any objective criteria for evaluation and hence are highly biased towards the current mainstream thinking. Such subjectivity would not help the physics community to progress physics towards identifying the critical missing physics, ending the current deadlock, and...
view entire post
Dear Sergey:
Thanks for your detailed explanation about the ratings calculations.
My main concern is that ratings lack any objective criteria for evaluation and hence are highly biased towards the current mainstream thinking. Such subjectivity would not help the physics community to progress physics towards identifying the critical missing physics, ending the current deadlock, and achieving the final universal theory. I have earlier expressed the “lack of objectivity” concerns to FQXi management as described below:
--- --------- ----------------------
SUBJECT: Objective Criteria for Evaluation & Ratings of FQXi Essays
“Questioning the Foundations - Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?” forum provides a great opportunity to advance the state of physics/cosmology marred by irresolvable paradoxes and inconsistencies. However, in order to maximize the benefit of this valuable forum and contest, we must first define benchmark criteria to determine what is fundamental or basic. Without a uniform and consistent bench mark criteria, no definitive determination of the correctness or wrongness of an assumption can be made.
The challenge faced by any judge or community evaluator of the essays is what objective criteria to use to rate an essay. With so many wide ranging assumptions, physical concepts, phenomena, mathematical treatise, type of tests and validation schemes, rigor and depth of description, and impact as well as consequences of using the wrong/correct assumption etc., it is almost impossible to achieve a fair and consistent evaluation and rating of an essay. In the absence of well-defined evaluation criteria, the ratings and evaluations are expected to be highly subjective and biased towards the prevailing widespread mainstream thinking that has failed physics/cosmology in the first place as evidenced by the fact that 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe remains unexplained by the most widely acclaimed mainstream theories today.
A quick look at the most highly rated papers by FQXi community, it is clear that both the level of interest as well as ratings is greatly biased towards the mainstream theories – QM and GR. There is hardly (with only minor exceptions) any consideration given to the missing fundamental physics that renders the addressed assumptions, questions, and answers irrelevant with regard to the ultimate universal physical reality. Without the proper identification and integration of the missing physics, tweaking or patching up the existing assumptions within the current theories may only be futile and wasted effort leading nowhere. A revolutionary out-of-the-box rather than an evolutionary fixer-upper or patch-up approach to physics/cosmology may be needed to avoid its current stigma and dead end conundrum.
The determination of “Which of our basic assumptions are wrong?” must also provide answers to some fundamental questions that remain unanswered on a consistent basis as of today:
1. Does the essay propose any New missing Physics or only evaluates the wrongness of assumptions within the current theories - QM and GR?
2. Are there credible evidence and arguments provided to prove the wrongness – why the assumption is wrong?
3a. Is there a corrected assumption proposed? and, 3b. mathematically formulated in a proposed New theory or within the framework of current theories – QM or GR?
4. Is the proposed approach or theory validated against the observed universe data?
5. Is the proposed approach or theory simple and efficient mathematical description that is demonstrated to be devoid of any singularities and known paradoxes?
6. Does the proposed approach or theory provide definite and consistent answers the following open questions to resolve the prevailing cosmic conundrum?
• Did the universe have a beginning – the Big Bang? Does it have an ending?
• What is the true nature of time and space? Is the universe expansion accelerating?
• Could the speed of light be exceeded? What is C? Do the universal constants vary with time?
• Are there parallel universes and multi-dimensions beyond ordinary three spaces and one time dimension?
• Is uncertainty or randomness the fundamental property of the universe?
• What is the photon mass?
• Why the cosmological constant is so small as compared to that calculated by quantum mechanics?
• Is there non-locality in the universe?
• What is quantum gravity? Does quantum gravity have an absolute time?
• Is there dark matter or anti-matter? Do black holes exist? Do black holes evaporate –Hawking’s Radiation?
• What governs the creation and dilation of matter?
• What governs the quantum versus classic behavior and the inner workings of quantum mechanics?
• What is the ultimate universal reality? Is it digital or analog or else?
• What is the role of consciousness or free will in the universe? How could this be addressed in scientific theories?
In summary, to enhance the benefit of this forum to the real progress in science, only a wholesome and integrated scientific approach that addresses a set of comprehensive and holistic objective criteria must be screened and presented as the top rated papers or essays.
------ --------
Best of Luck and Regards
Avtar Singh
view post as summary
Sergey G Fedosin replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Avtar,
I appreciate your opinion about FQSi as opportunity to advance the modern state of physics/cosmology, and necessity for FQSi to focus not only at the problem of rating procedure which is not clear, but also take into account Objective Criteria for Evaluation & Ratings of FQXi Essays. I am sure that your Objective Criteria may be useful for FQSi to change their policy. The next step is to pass this information to FQSi. At the moment their e-mails do not work.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:49 GMT
Dear Avtar,
Thank you for a extremely interesting essay.
There are two ways to do physics. The first is to develop and expand known dominant theories. The second is to work from new axioms which may exclude axioms of dominant theories, but which provides new insight that are consistent with observational and experimental data and not necessarily with the current theoretical interpretations of it. I'm happy to see you have chosen the second approach.
There is a saying that what is clearly understood is clear explained. It was certainly refreshing to read an essay that clear, concise and though it presents new intriguing ideas avoids going into unnecessary complications.
I will certainly keep a copy of your essay for reference and further reads.
DLB
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 22:11 GMT
Dear Daniel:
Thanks for reading my essay and your kind comments.
Best Regards
Avtar
Christian Corda wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:49 GMT
Dear Avtar,
In your interesting Essay you mixes the special relativity theory with Newtonian theory of gravitation and conjectures on particles decay. You also discusses interesting consequences of such an approach.
My only objection on your ideas concerns on the issue that, in my view, you cannot explain Equivalence Principle, which is today tested at a level 10^-13, without a metric theory of gravity.
In any case, I enjoyed with your Essay, hence, I am going to give you an high score.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT
Dear Christian:
Thank you very much for your time and thoughtful comments on my essay.
Best Regards
Avtar
Charles Weber wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh,
In portrayals of the Universe astronomers present as if the big bang and expanding galaxies were an established fact. But actually there is no evidence that the we are at the center of the Universe and the galaxies are all moving away from us other than the assumption that the cosmological red shift is a Doppler shift. There is a discussion of other possible causes of the red shift in http://charles_w.tripod.com/red.html . My own view is that the red shift is due to an interaction of the photons with masses passed in space. If light actually is degraded by the ether itself, It should prove impossible to establish the cause by experiment, because the affect would be so tiny.
Astronomers speak of a "young Universe". It was, of course, younger than it is now when distant stars shone. However, there is no chance at all that the Universe was as young as astronomers say when the light from those distant stars was created even if the big bang hypothesis were valid. It took the light over 13 billion years to arrive here, so it is obvious that the atoms emitting it took well over 13 billion years to get out there even given a big bang. It does not make any difference if the atoms traveled out there from a spot near here or the ether is expanding, well over 13 billion years would have had to go by, so by now the Universe could be over 30 billion years old even in the unlikely event that there was a big bang.
You may also find interesting a hypothesis that the characteristics of quasars arise because of refractive lensing by gases near a huge mass inside the quasar of the light from an opposite jet in http://charles_w.tripod.com/quasar.html .
Sincerely, Charles Weber
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.