Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Charles Weber: on 10/31/12 at 23:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Avtar Singh, In portrayals of the Universe astronomers present...

Avtar Singh: on 10/4/12 at 22:15pm UTC, wrote Dear Christian: Thank you very much for your time and thoughtful comments...

Avtar Singh: on 10/4/12 at 22:11pm UTC, wrote Dear Daniel: Thanks for reading my essay and your kind comments. Best...

Christian Corda: on 10/4/12 at 18:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Avtar, In your interesting Essay you mixes the special relativity...

Daniel Burnstein: on 10/4/12 at 18:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Avtar, Thank you for a extremely interesting essay. There are two...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 18:46pm UTC, wrote Dear Avtar, I appreciate your opinion about FQSi as opportunity to advance...

Avtar Singh: on 10/4/12 at 16:10pm UTC, wrote Dear Sergey: Thanks for your detailed explanation about the ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 8:58am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Vesuvius Now, Not an A theorist OR B theorist. I want both series under..." in The Nature of Time

Vesuvius Now: "Woodward, are you an A-theorist or a B-theorist? And a Presentist or an..." in The Nature of Time

Franco Nori: "Non-Hermitian Systems / Open Quantum Systems are not only of fundamental..." in A Summary of Some of our...

John Cox: "Georgi, I don't know." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi john, I've watched a video explaining that the 'pinball' idea of current..." in The Present State of...

Amrit Sorli: "We have only 2 times in the universe: - psychological time that has its..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Lorraine Ford: "The minimum requirement for any mathematical system. Remember? Remember all..." in Consciousness and the...

olivier denis: ""I d like to know more about your general philosophy of this universe, what..." in Alternative Models of...

RECENT ARTICLES

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

FQXi FORUM
December 7, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: From “Absurd” to “Elegant” Universe by Avtar Singh [refresh]

Author Avtar Singh wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 11:27 GMT
Essay Abstract

The “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 Bio

Dr. 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.

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 06:57 GMT
Dear Dr. Singh,

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:

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,

report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT

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:

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,

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.

report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 15:02 GMT

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:

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

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:

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:

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.

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 m0 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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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:

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.

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.

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:

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

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

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Avtar Singh wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 16:10 GMT
Dear Sergey:

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

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:

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