Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

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


Previous Contests

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

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.
read/discusswinners

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

read/discusswinners

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
read/discusswinners

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

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
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Rodney Bartlett: on 10/12/13 at 13:23pm UTC, wrote Developed from my entry on this page is an article I've called "Albert...

Rodney Bartlett: on 8/23/13 at 7:42am UTC, wrote Part 2 of "Accelerating Universal Expansion Helps Verify Unified Field...

Rodney Bartlett: on 8/22/13 at 11:19am UTC, wrote Accelerating Universal Expansion Helps Verify Unified Field Theory (This...

Rodney Bartlett: on 8/9/13 at 6:29am UTC, wrote Thanks for the rating, Jonathan. Let's hope it really does turn out to be...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/8/13 at 3:26am UTC, wrote I enjoyed it Rodney, Rated tonight with lucky seven. All the Best, ...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 21:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Rodney, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Rodney Bartlett: on 8/7/13 at 5:57am UTC, wrote Dear Sridattadev, Many thanks for that email. I fully agree that there is...

sridattadev kancharla: on 8/7/13 at 1:13am UTC, wrote Dear Rodney, Please see the universal mathematical truth of zero = I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 22, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Unified Field, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics Meet String Theory, Parallel Universes, the Mathematical Universe, and TOE by Rodney Bartlett [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Rodney Bartlett wrote on Apr. 26, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

My original entry in FQXi’s “It from Bit or Bit from It” exceeded the length restrictions (by 18,000 characters). So I’ve had to resubmit this shortened version – which I think is less comprehensive, less readable and less likely to win a prize. If you wish to read the original, please go to http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0218 or https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rodney_Bartlett/?ev=pub
_int_doc_dlext. According to Wikipedia’s article “Digital physics”, John Wheeler defined “it” as “every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself”, and “bit” as “an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.” My entry refers to time being nonlinear (I believe this agrees with Einstein’s description of warped time) with ”It” and “Bit” both being absolutely vital. It further refers to human nature taking advantage of this nonlinearity to travel into the distant past (via a 5th-dimensional hyperspace) and making this a participatory universe by using digital physics – the “yes-no” or “on-off” pulses represented by the 1’s and 0’s of bits called BInary digiTS – to create this subuniverse’s local Big Bang. The article "Infinite Universe" by Bob Berman (“Astronomy” – Nov. 2012) states, "The evidence keeps flooding in. It now truly appears that the universe is infinite.” And “… any fraction of infinity is essentially zero. All we can ever hope to study (of the universe) is 0 percent." That would be true if defining infinity as "space that never ends" was the only definition of it. However, I believe there is another definition - infinity equals the total elimination of distance. Describing "It", my entry develops this companion definition of infinity so we can study over 0%.

Author Bio

Independent Researcher with links to vixra.org and researchgate.net

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Rodney Bartlett wrote on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 07:08 GMT
I don't think the abstract on this page adequately describes the topics I wrote about. Therefore, it seems necessary to list the keywords from my article. Actually, I'm feeling nostalgic for my original article, which gives a much better description of "It", so the keywords that tell you what's in my article aren't from FQXi's shortened version. They're from the original, and here they are -...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

George Kirakosyan replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 13:30 GMT
Dear Rodney,

I am shared your ideas in somewhat, that you can convinced from my references in article: I am going to appraise your work because it likely to me.

I hope my work will be interested you.

Best wishes,

George

FQXi Article

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 16:26 GMT
As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my essay, BITTERS, the Universe only deals in absolute. Not only is one real Universe occurring in one real infinite dimension, the Universe has to be eternal. There is no way the Universe could have exploded out of nothing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 05:04 GMT
I found it interesting that we agree on a few points - 1) there is one real universe, 2) the Universe has to be eternal, 3) There is no way the Universe could have exploded out of nothing. My entry does refer to the Big Bang, actually to Big Bangs, but the article is not suggesting these came from nothing. It refers to a nonlinear concept of time where inhabitants of this universe learn about the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Philip Gibbs wrote on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 09:58 GMT
Rodney, Your essay is still very comprehensible even though you cut it short. I also found the length constraint hard to keep to. With the number of essays these contests attract it is necessary to set limits I suppose.

I also still hold to Einstein's view that a mathematical theory is needed at the heart of physics and I think physicists have been continuing to build on his dream of a unified field theory ever since. The nuclear forces are however newer discoveries that must be included. This is not such a problem now that we know they take the form of gauge theories as do the electromagentic and gravitational force

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Rodney Bartlett replied on May. 1, 2013 @ 03:16 GMT
Thanks for saying my essay is "still very comprehensible even though cut short". That means a lot to me ... Dr. Phil :) I see you coped well with the length restraint.

I do agree that Einstein's view on the necessity of mathematics is correct ... to an extent. I've found maths to be essential, but I must confess that the reliance science has on equations seems old-fashioned to me. Scientists are searching for the Theory of Everything (or Unified Field Theory) but believe they can only find it using equations that are based on the idea of separateness. How can a theory of unification be achieved by clinging to the oldfashioned idea that this thing is separate from that thing and 1 + 1 = 2 separate things? This is how maths began thousands of years ago when our ancestors had no concept of anything existing beyond the things we can only see as separate.

As for the explanation of dark energy and dark matter (in my essay before I cut it short), it seemed like a waste of space to include equations. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein have already written the fundamental equations in their theories of gravitation. I didn't want to be repetitious but have simply looked at those theories in a slightly different way that explains problems Newton and Einstein didn't need to deal with (dark energy and dark matter).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 1, 2013 @ 03:21 GMT
I took the time to read what you said about dark energy and dark matter in your original (before you had to shorten it for FQXi's length requirements). I think it's quite brilliant and clearly explains what those things really are, but I think that - and your FQXi essay - will be ignored because you left out equations. Anyway, I have a question. If gravity waves only seem to cancel at the Earth's centre, but are actually magnified and pass through to the other side, why doesn't the water from my shower end up on the bathroom ceiling?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Rodney Bartlett replied on May. 1, 2013 @ 04:04 GMT
EXPLAINING DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER

Thanks for asking that - it's a good question. As for the equations, it seemed like a waste of space to include them. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein have already written the fundamental equations in their theories of gravitation. I didn't want to be repetitious but have simply looked at those theories in a slightly different way that explains...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 14:23 GMT
Rodney, Nature is a fantastic analogue computer, it solves a myriad of simultaneous equations, however I do not think it divides by zero. Keeping that in mind the holy grail of finding a "theory of everything" will look very different to expectations - it is a presumptuous to prescribe what it includes and excludes.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 19:40 GMT
The article "Infinite Universe" by Bob Berman (Astronomy Nov. 2012) .... is behind a paywall. What is his argument?... An infinite universe is not observable from a finite subset.

"infinity equals the total elimination of distance."

Total elimination of distance or space produces .....nothing. So, infinity = nothing???

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Rodney Bartlett replied on May. 15, 2013 @ 03:22 GMT
Thanks for the thought-provoking comments. Everything about Astronomy magazine seems to be behind a paywall. I was receiving emails from them but I got disgusted by their worship of the holy dollar, and cancelled this service. I was tempted to stop buying the magazine but I have to continue because they provide so much valuable information.

As for infinity = nothing, may I refer you to my...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on May. 16, 2013 @ 08:05 GMT
A NEW IDEA INSPIRED BY MY FQXi (FOXY) ENTRY -

Referring to http://vixra.org/abs/1305.0030 -

5th-dimensional hyperspace would be tinier than a subatomic particle, like the dimensions invoked by string theory (about 70% of space consists of dark energy, according to the WMAP and Planck space probes – which is interpreted in this article as 70% of a particle also consisting of dark energy since “space-time itself plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles and the nuclear forces” (see paragraph about Einstein’s 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences). This dark energy can be associated with hyperspace and its binary digits, so a) 70% of a particle is composed of hyperspace, and b) the extra dimension also exists everywhere in empty space. With a single extra dimension of astronomical size, gravity is expected to cause the solar system to collapse (“The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimetre” by N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. Dvali - Physics Letters B - Volume 429, Issues 3–4, 18 June 1998, Pages 263–272, and “Gravity in large extra dimensions” by U.S. Department of Energy - http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2001-10/dbnl-gil05310
2.php). However, collapse never occurs if gravity accounts for repulsion as well as attraction on both subatomic and astronomical scales (accounts for dark energy and familiar concepts of gravity, as well as repelling aspects of the electroweak force such as placing two like magnetic poles together and attracting electroweak/strong force aspects).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Rodney Bartlett wrote on May. 31, 2013 @ 06:25 GMT
I think I read somewhere that Community Evaluations for the current contest end today. To say farewell to Foxy, I'd like to post this article that was inspired by my entry. It's called "GRAVITY AND UNKNOWN SPECTRAL LINES EXPLAIN DARK UNIVERSE AND HIGGS BOSON MASS", and here's the abstract -

The start of this article lies a few years in the past, when I wrote about the Little Ice Age...

view entire post


attachments: GRAVITY_AND_UNKNOWN_SPECTRAL_LINES_EXPLAIN_DARK_UNIVERSE_AND_HIGGS_BOSON_MASS.pdf

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 06:26 GMT
Dear Sir,

How can “any fraction of infinity is essentially zero” or “infinity equals the total elimination of distance” be a valid physical or scientific statement? It is logically not consistent and does not correspond to reality.

Number is a property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no other similars, then it is one. If there are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Rodney Bartlett replied on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 07:06 GMT
It is my honour to answer your post. I deeply respect anyone who is on a sincere search for truth. That's what science should always be about.

I'll start by telling you a couple of things about how my mind works. First, I've had a powerful conviction that we live in a unified field or unification ever since I was a teenager. It's such a strong feeling that I take it for granted that the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 03:57 GMT
Dear Sir,

Reading your post was a pleasure because it was so refreshing and thought provoking. We agree with your first assertion that interconnectedness and interdependence are laws of Nature. Even your sense is not immune from this law, as it is only the instrument used by an observer to observer an observable. But your mistrust of mathematics is misplaced. Mathematics explains only...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Rodney Bartlett

You have a great faith - it really is very valuable. It would great more if you give a concrete conclusion to our topic.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 21:55 GMT
Hello Rodney,

I noticed that you mention above that there is just one real Universe - something which I am very much an advocate of. Also I found your essay extremely comprehensible despite the constraints of the contest. I wish my essay was more concise than it is!

All the best,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 03:45 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 08:03 GMT
Here's the latest article my FQXi entry has led to - "MODERN SCIENCE EMPHASIZES MATHEMATICS. WHAT THE UNIVERSE LOOKS LIKE WHEN LOGIC IS EMPHASIZED (MATHS HAS A VITAL, BUT SECONDARY, ROLE IN THIS ARTICLE)." I posted it on my profile at ResearchGate an hour or two ago

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rodney_Bartlett/?ev=pub
_int_doc_dlext

and it's in the process of replacing an...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 13:37 GMT
I'll take a look,

best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:58 GMT
Rodney,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 17:59 GMT
Hello Rodney,

I wanted to let you know that I passed your posted message on to Zeeya Merali, that I found on the page regarding Steven Kauffmann's paper. He has responded there, and copied your comments to his podcast page, because they appear to be relevant. My thanks also; for some interesting graviton mass links, which I passed on to a colleague Andy Beckwith, who is researching HF gravity waves.

I have not read your essay yet, but it is on my list, and I'll post any comments or questions here. I hope you have not checked out entirely, because a lot of the other authors were latecomers, like myself. I wish you luck in the contest.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 07:06 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

I'm glad I could help you and Andy Beckwith.

No, I haven't checked out entirely. I did for a while, due to the poor reception my entry seems to be getting. It isn't faring any better than my entry from a couple of years ago. And I couldn't see any point in logging in. But I'm really pleased with the response from you and Zeeya Merali - so in the words of Arnold Scharzenegger, I'm b-a-ack! (For today at least - I haven't been able to stop typing all year, and who knows where that typing will take me tomorrow.)

Thanks for reading my essay sometime. I had to chop nearly half of it to meet length-limits for the contest, but I've been told it's still "very comprehensible".

Regards,

Rodney

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 15:23 GMT
Thanks Rodney,

I downloaded the longer version too, but I'll wait to read that later - so as not to get confused. I need to base any decision about the quality of your essay on the short version, so I'll need to cycle back for more info later..

Looks interesting, though.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 08:36 GMT
I posted this little article at vixra.org and researchgate.net, so why not fqxi.org too? I don't have time to search for an appropriate article in the forums on which to comment, so I'll just post the whole article on my own page. OK?

---------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------

Title –

From T Tauri Stars to Coronal Heating via Newton...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Rodney Bartlett replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 05:45 GMT
I'd like to send feedback about "On the dimensionality of spacetime" by Max Tegmark 1997 Class. Quantum Grav. 14 L69 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/14/4/002.

In this letter, he says "In a space with more than three dimensions, there can be no traditional atoms and perhaps no stable structures."

There is a way for space with more than 3 dimensions to be stable. This is revealed in an article...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



WANG Xiong wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 13:32 GMT
Dear Rodney Bartlett,

Thanks for your nice essay, well done, i enjoy reading it and rate it high,

Yes,

to finally understand information we need a TOE, WE need merge all Unified Field, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics Meet String Theory, Parallel Universes, the Mathematical Universe,

and from a different point view, my essay may interest you

Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1906

Hope you enjoy it

Regards,

Xiong

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 04:17 GMT
I'm very glad you enjoyed my essay, Xiong. I enjoyed your interesting essay, too. It nicely leads to the concluding "The trinity: Matter-Energy-Information".

I'm just wondering about this trinity. Could matter-energy-information be compared with the religious trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? I wonder about this because I think science and religion will unite in the future.

I’ve noticed a strange belief in the scientific community – scientists seem to claim they don’t “believe” in anything. I imagine this claim is a refute of religion, mysticism and New Agers. After all, scientists DO believe in atoms, the Earth orbiting the Sun, etc. etc. They should also be extremely careful when they criticise every aspect of religion and mysticism. For example, think of the strange things that could result from the universe being a unified field in which all seemingly separate objects in time and space are actually one thing. That is, all seemingly separate objects in space and time would be products of one mathematical blueprint. This maths could make space-time and everything it contains as flexible as objects in a computer game, thus having the potential to delete distances in space-time and create quantum entanglement/retrocausality on macroscopic scales. Centuries from now, this could render today’s scientific reluctance to believe a quaint symbol of a primitive culture … and expose today’s science as a dinosaur unable to adjust to the modern world of those future centuries. Tomorrow’s world could regard today’s scientists in the same way that the science of 2013 thinks of priests who lived in the Middle Ages.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 09:19 GMT
Dear Rodney,

World contests FQXi - it contests new fundamental ideas, new deep meanings and new concepts. You have great ideas and a wonderful conclusion: «FAITH - an absolute, unshakeable knowledge that you can do anything; even if it's supposed to be impossible. That sounds easy, but I can't do anything I can imagine ... not yet!

I bet you a high rating.

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.»

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

I have only one question: why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

I wish you success,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Rodney Bartlett replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 06:20 GMT
Many thanks for your kind comments, Vladimir. I clicked on both of the extremely interesting links you supplied.

I don't speak Russian but I still enjoyed the link to You Tube because I love music and I also love listening to any foreign language (I don't care if I can't understand the words).

About the paper -

Aristotle's "Infinitum Actu Non Datur" (there is no actual infinity) could mean my concept of electronic infinity or e infinity - which deletes all distances in space and time - is valid. And Kronecker's statement that the usual final natural numbers "were created by the God, but all the rest is a human-being work" could be viewed in a new light where the unified field removes all separateness (by, in this case, removing all distance between God and human beings). This would further validate e infinity. My essay states this removal with these words - "God would be a suprapantheistic union of the universe's spatial, temporal, hyperspatial, material and conscious parts; forming a union with humans in a cosmic unification, and a universal intelligence.

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 11:25 GMT
Dear Rodney,

Thank you very much for your reply and kind words! I read your very interesting research on vixra. Please rate my ideas.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 18:30 GMT
Hello Rodney -

Your examination of the Unified Theory is very interesting to me, since I've implicitly considered it in my essay, too - though I take a very descriptive and structural approach.

Can we ever have enough information to formulate a UF? That is the question troubling physicists ... and the inevitable answer is that we - the human observers - are always acquiring the exact amount needed!

The Cosmos and its organisms are created by gravitation and mathematics, as you say. (I ultimately trace gravitation to a field of energy from which universes arise whenever the 'gravitational-magnetic' force of this field splits up into a sufficient group of 'fundamental forces').

We exist in a system of correlated energy vortices that include the inorganic, organic, and sensory-cognitive realms; we live in a 'Species' Cosmos' - in perpetual correlation with the inorganic cosmos - so that evolution cannot be any more accidental or random than the cosmos itself.

Judging from your words on the subject of God I think you would find this deduction very helpful.

You see God in the way gravitation and mathematics permeates the cosmos. So do I - and what I point out in my essay is that this must fundamentally impact our understanding of evolution, and especially our understanding of the development of the Mind - and especially its role in creating our reality.

I found your treatise engrossing, and have dilated upon my own work like this because of the similarities and complementary concepts existing between us. I have rated your essay, of course, and I look forward to your opinion of mine in the near future.

All the best in the competition,

John.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 14:15 GMT
hello Rodney - I hope you'll have an opportunity to comment on my essay soon; I very much look forward to your feedback.

Best Regards,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Rodney Bartlett replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 04:41 GMT
Hello John,

Apologies for the delay, which is caused by my simply not having enough time. Your essay is very interesting indeed. Why doesn't physics have a universally accepted concept of the relation between the cosmos, particles and energy? I think it's because the relationship between those 3 things comes down to mathematics. In their minds, scientists readily admit that the universe is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 12:07 GMT
Dear Rodney,

Your statement “The bottom line is that Einstein’s Unified Field Theory has apparently been reconciled with the concerns raised by modern science” is true if the particle nature of matter is reviewed as string-segments in that they are the part of the fields while on dynamics.

In relevant to this you may find some inspirations on my work on, string-matter continuum scenario that is an adaptation of string theory with the applicability of monads to integrate with particle scenario.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:01 GMT
Dear Rodney,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Rodney Bartlett wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 04:12 GMT
Being a nonconformist has a good side and a bad side. It's good because it allows your mind to explore ideas that traditional scientists would call crazy (they could learn something from the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr, who once remarked “Your theory is crazy, but it is not crazy enough to be true"). Nonconformity is bad in the sense that modern science journals never take you seriously...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 01:13 GMT
Dear Rodney,

Please see the universal mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity. Theory of everything is that there is absolutely nothing but I.

LOVE,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Rodney Bartlett replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 05:57 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,

Many thanks for that email. I fully agree that there is absolutely nothing but I. Maybe you'd be interested in the phrasing of "nothing but I" using words that FQXi members might prefer (copying and pasting from my previous writings of this year, I'll split my answer into 2 parts) -

1.

There is a scientific explanation that says there is no such thing as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:57 GMT
Dear Rodney,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 03:26 GMT
I enjoyed it Rodney,

Rated tonight with lucky seven.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Rodney Bartlett replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 06:29 GMT
Thanks for the rating, Jonathan. Let's hope it really does turn out to be lucky.

Actually, I feel a bit like a cat called Lucky that I saw on a TV vet program. He ended up being very UNlucky because he died.I don't think my essay did anything with the overall Community ratings (and it did even less with the Public ratings), so it might end up being unlucky and dying too. The Contest page says "The final ranking that determines the prize winners will be determined by a combination of the Community ratings and ratings from expert judges ..." So my entry's only hope seems to be for those "expert judges" (whoever they are) to resurrect the entry.

To change the subject, your surname reminds me of the nickname of a TV personality and judge of television singing contests in this country (Australia). He emigrated from England and his name's Ian "Dicko" Dickson.

Bookmark and Share



Author Rodney Bartlett wrote on Aug. 22, 2013 @ 11:19 GMT
Accelerating Universal Expansion Helps Verify Unified Field Theory

(This is my reply to the question “On varying speed of flow of time over our life” by G. Ustinova of the Russian Academy of Sciences, at...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Rodney Bartlett wrote on Aug. 23, 2013 @ 07:42 GMT
Part 2 of "Accelerating Universal Expansion Helps Verify Unified Field Theory"

(My Reply to G. Ustinova’s Reply)

I'm very happy that you think my answer was interesting and original. I don't know much about fractal catalysis. But I think cognition in living organisms would be extremely sensitive to the universe's fractal geometry. If humans are unified with the cosmos, all the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Rodney Bartlett wrote on Oct. 12, 2013 @ 13:23 GMT
Developed from my entry on this page is an article I've called "Albert Einstein deserves Nobel Prize in Physics 2013“ (http://viXra.org/abs/1310.0073). The inspiration for this article was an article called “Starting Point” by Steve Nadis – Discover Magazine, September 2013. “Starting Point” is about the life and theories of Ukrainian cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin. He’s responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum, and is currently Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University near Boston in the U.S. My article concedes that the idea of quantum fluctuation in a vacuum is valid because those fluctuations can be defined as “the temporary change in the amount of energy at a point in space”. This temporary change can be enabled by the binary digits of 1 and 0 fluctuating between states and thus serving as Virtual Particles. This causes the universe to have its creation not in a quantum vacuum as an exclusively linear concept of time would require, but in a nonlinear aspect of time with the binary digits originating in human computer technology. Ensuing solutions of cosmological puzzles from this proposal refer to the subheadings

“Digital” String Theory;

Poincare + Cosmic Strings, Wormholes And Hologram;

Steady State Universe, Big Bang Subuniverses And DNA’s Double Helix;

Newtonian / Einsteinian Space-Time Warping;

Cosmic Rays, Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic Rays & Today’s Speed Of Light;

Electronic Infinity;

Interstellar And Intergalactic Travel;

c^2 And The Atomic Nucleus;

Dark Energy And Fractal Geometry;

Dark Matter.

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.