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

Henry Lindner: on 7/29/13 at 11:33am UTC, wrote Peter, Thank you for reading my paper and for your comments. Do have a...

Zoran Mijatovic: on 7/29/13 at 2:07am UTC, wrote Hello Henry, I enjoyed reading your essay, and your history lesson on the...

Peter Jackson: on 7/28/13 at 21:09pm UTC, wrote Henry, Excellent essay, particularly the incisive analysis at it's heart....

Sreenath N: on 7/23/13 at 2:09am UTC, wrote Dear Henry, I like your fundamental approach to solve the current problems...

Henry Lindner: on 7/16/13 at 10:19am UTC, wrote Jim, You did a good job of skewering the idea that the human mind has any...

James Hoover: on 7/14/13 at 22:36pm UTC, wrote Henry, Interesting read.Space seems to be where the action is, the...

Henry Lindner: on 7/10/13 at 10:21am UTC, wrote Sorry, here are the corrected links Beyond Consciousness to Cosmos:...

Henry Lindner: on 7/10/13 at 10:14am UTC, wrote Updated links to my papers online: This is an in-depth exploration of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""But what do scientists hope quantum computers will be good for,..." in What Will Quantum...

Zeeya Merali: "Over the past couple of months there’s been renewed interest, and quite..." in What Will Quantum...

Jason Wolfe: "If I could write an unconventional model of reality, it would come with a..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "the fuzzy spheres are very relevant in fact ,they are non commutative, I..." in Alternative Models of...

Jason Wolfe: "You should consider that wave functions describe the possible position and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.


FQXi FORUM
November 21, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: From Bit to It, From the Observer’s Information to Space Theory by Henry H. Lindner [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Henry H. Lindner wrote on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 16:37 GMT
Essay Abstract

It, the Cosmos, is a physical system evolving by its own mechanisms, producing hierarchically organized levels of complexity. It produced us; we are It become self-conscious. To understand It and ourselves we must theorize about its fundamental substance(s) and processes. Instead, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics limit us to the mathematical modeling of our observations and measurements. They replace It with bit, with the observers’ information. The facts require us to relate all fundamental phenomena to Cosmic space. Space is a substance: the source of electromagnetism, gravity, inertia and all particles. Space is must be quantized, composed of physical “bits”, explaining the efficacy of our mathematics. Space is the missing link between mathematics and physics, consciousness and Cosmos, information and causality, bit and It.

Author Bio

I am a practicing physician specializing in hormone restoration. I have had an intense interest in philosophy and the sciences since my late teens. While writing an outline of Cosmic evolution, it occurred to me that gravity was most simply explained if Newton's inertial space was itself accelerating towards Earth. I was surprised to find that this idea explained gravity's "relativistic" effects too. This theory forced me to review the history of physics and of the ideas that led to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 06:03 GMT
Henry

“Albert Einstein imposed an observer-based program upon physics”

That is because he thought it was, and the interpretations think it is. Bu the irony is, it is not. Asserting frames of reference and observers is irrelevant if there is no light for them to be able to see with! There is no observational light in Einstein. Just a constant, which happens, for fairly obvious reasons, to be the theoretical speed of light, and is used as the reference for calibrating duration and distance. Nobody sees with an independent ray of light, and they certainly do not see with lightening!

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Henry H. Lindner replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 13:51 GMT
Paul,

You describe the treatment of light in Relativity--where absolute c is just a law to use in a measurement-prediction model. But Einstein also introduced the "lightquantum" which became the photon. QED, you might say, contains observational light, but only in the form of wave-like probabilities emanating from a source and useful for predicting where we'll detect light-matter interactions. I would say that neither Relativity nor QED contain any ideas corresponding to actual, physical, Cosmic light--what it is and how it does what it does.

Henry

Bookmark and Share



Jacek Safuta wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 10:53 GMT
Hi Henry,

In general I agree with your idea where you claim that 'Electrons, hadrons, muons, neutrinos, etc. are not self-existent particles in a void but various persistent patterns of motion(s) in and of space. Electromagnetic and gravitational fields are different distortions and motions in and of regions of space.' It means that spacetime (I’ll explain later why not space) is a fabric...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Henry H. Lindner replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 14:15 GMT
Jacek,

Consider the origins of space-time as I have discussed them. It is just an observer-based measurement model--the measured intervals between events--with the observer's rods and clocks. How-why can you argue that it can be considered a Cosmic substance? It's just measurements.

The gist of my argument is that Einstein did not fully understand the philosophical problems involved...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 15:47 GMT
Dear Henry,

I thought that I have understood your ideas but I was probably wrong. Anyway I will try to clarify a bit.

You say that 'these models still limit physics to observer-based description--of his measurements, his experiences' and about Copernicus that 'our flights into space actually 'proved' that he was right'. Our flights into space are exactly observer-based description...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Henry H. Lindner replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 17:23 GMT
Jacek,

Yes, we know of the world we know only via perception, but most of us believe there is a physical reality that we are perceiving--that the world is not a hallucination. So the question is what is it? How did it produce us? How do our perceptual systems and our instruments interact with it? Relativity and QM were not created to answer those questions. They were products a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 19:29 GMT
Doctor Lindner,

I enjoyed reading your essay. It was very informative, and although I am not e physicist, the clarity of the writing made it quite reasonable enough to understand.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 13:16 GMT
Dear Henry!

Excellent essay, great questions and fundamental ideas. That's right, you need to update the structure of the problem space, then there is understanding of the nature of the information and the "place" her "store". I totally agree with you: «A working theory of space will revive natural philosophy and will inform and enrich all our sciences. We just need to reach beyond bit to It. »

I wish you success, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert Bennett wrote on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
Henry,

An impressive summary of sci hi fi ...scientific history of philosophy.

Replacing 'space' globally with 'aether' would make your essay and mine compliant.

E.g., Aether is a substance: the source of electromagnetism, gravity, inertia and all particles. Aether is quantized, composed of physical bits, explaining the efficacy of our mathematics. Aether is the missing...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Henry H. Lindner replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 06:19 GMT
Robert,

I appreciated your skewering of the simplistic notion that the Cosmos is a computer and everything is "information". It is interesting that your background in software and information processing led you to the idea that space is the substance that encodes and runs "reality".

You can substitute "aether" for space indeed. I think that space is a slightly better term. We...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Robert Bennett replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 03:46 GMT
Henry,

a second reading of your essay...

re: ...we are becoming comfortable with the fact that our species is the result of a natural process of hierarchical Cosmic evolution: ....Logic and mathematics work because the Cosmos is a stable, interacting system that evolves through cause and effect.

R: Scientific realism involves more than just simple cause and effect... the rule...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert Bennett replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Some thoughts, after further review

re: I think space itself moves, its parts move relative to one another.

R: In my view: A flexible and mobile aether...

re: The evidence is consistent with the idea that it flows like a fluid into all inert matter.

Fizeau and Sagnac showed that aether is entrainable... dragged by local matter in motion.

re: Everything...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 22:45 GMT
Dear Henry,

I very much enjoyed your exploration of philosophy and metaphysics leading to the current crisis in physics. Your abstract begins: "It, the Cosmos, is a physical system evolving by its own mechanisms...". That is the basis of my theory. It can be written as an equation and leads to interesting results. It quickly leads to the suggestion that the basic substance is the field...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Henry H. Lindner replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 13:08 GMT
Edwin,

I very much enjoyed your essay too--you added much fuel to my assertion that QM is an ad hoc system of description--fine-tuned to get the numbers right--just like the Ptolemaic system. We have got to get physics out of this observer-dependent hole!

I'm not sure why you singled out gravity. I think that all fundamental physical phenomena are just as real: inertia,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 22:15 GMT
Henry,

I'm glad you enjoyed my essay. As I explained in a comment (Jun. 8, 2013 @ 02:35) on my blog, I did not start with gravity. I started with the realization that awareness must be a field. (It has long been clear to me that mere logic cannot "become aware" -- not as I experience awareness!) And I associate both awareness and volition with consciousness so I asked myself how these...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 01:51 GMT
Henry,

I loved this essay. I have been toiling over these issues pertaining to special relativity over the last couple weeks so what you're writing here hits close to home for me.

So interesting you brought up LET, because in reading about the transition from LET to ESR it just seemed like such an arbitrary and needless transition now that we know that space is not a void in any way shape or form. It is a very medium that demands a reintegration w/ modern theory.

I love Einstein, and he is a deserving genius, I just find it sad to see some of the fighting that goes on over special relativity because quite frankly its a metaphysical argument, not empirical, not 'scientific' as we usually understand it. I see people labeled as 'cranks' and 'idiots who don't understand' because they question these metaphysical dogmas and I see that as a sad state of affairs indeed.

All the best.

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Henry H. Lindner replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 07:17 GMT
John,

Right, the problem with theoretical physics is philosophical; it's about assumptions, meaning, and approach. It is not a scientific problem; it's not a matter of better measurements, equations, or mathematical models. Physicists are schooled, trained to use observer-based Relativity and QM and are not allowed to question them. They are forced to suppress their own curiosity about the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 07:34 GMT
Henry

Physics has a problem because it has failed to understand what it is investigating and how that must occur. The classical concept was correct, just not properly developed to its logical conclusion. The 'new' approach is wrong, because it presumes indefiniteness in reality. There is no relativity in existence, Einstein failed to understand timing ( by following Poincare's simultaneity) and conflated existence and the light based representation thereof. Observation/measurement cannot affect the physical circumstance because that has already occurred. And there is no time in any given reality, because this concerns the turnover rate of realities.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Henry H. Lindner wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 06:33 GMT
For those who are interested, I have been able to make my papers available online.

Beyond Consciousness to Cosmos: Beyond Relativity and Quantum Theory to Cosmic Theory http://henrylindner.net/Writings/Cosmism/Trilogy1.pdf

An in-depth exploration of the philosophical issues and history. Published in Physics Essays,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 14:25 GMT
Henry,

Can you elaborate a bit more on why the constant speed of light is held so sacrosanct in ESR but allowed for in LET? It seems like c was something devised/worked out by Poincare and, later forced to apply in all situations by Einstein to fit his theory and the paradoxes it gave rise to. Correct me if I'm wrong, thanks!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Henry H. Lindner replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:27 GMT
John,

First, what is the best theory? I think that much evidence indicates that light does travel at c in the substance of space. LET says that light travels at c in a single, Euclidean Cosmic frame corresponding to Newton's absolute space. I think that this substance is not a Euclidean solid but flows and is distorted in gravity. The simplest explanation of black holes is that space is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


John C Maguire replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 18:14 GMT
Yes indeed. Thank you. BTW you might find this paper rather interesting as it also builds much of its theory around ether fonts and sinks, even treating electrons and positrons as such entities:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf

Take care.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Henry

Analysis and review of your very deep and broad. It is interesting to read an essay like that.

I also have the same opinion with you: Philosophy is the derived of science , which is indeed the nature and capacities of the mind - it will be raised again, if not is the intellectual will be deterioration. The formulas and mathematical equations will be silly if we did not know themselves are calculated to do for what - it is how .

I appreciate your essay.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Henry H. Lindner wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 10:05 GMT
Hoang,

Thanks for commenting. Your Absolute is what I call "Cosmos"--it is what actually exits, apart from our observations or measurements which are always indirect and self-referential. Your method is the broader, more intellectually complete method of natural philosophy--as opposed to this observer-based ideology I call "Science". Definitions are important. Healthy sciences are branches of philosophy--of our attempt to understand all of reality and guide our actions. Science is a decorticated remnant of philosophy, refusing to use our most powerful intellectual capacity, the ability to theorize about what exists and what causes of all things. Berkeleyen-Machian Science has corrupted theoretical physics and is corrupting our understanding in all fields of study. This is the reason for the steady intellectual decline that we are witnessing in all fields of study.

Henry

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 01:04 GMT
Hi Henry,

Could "producing hierarchically organized levels of complexity" be akin to the Fibonacci Sequence? I enjoyed your essay - if you have chance you might like the "code" aspect of mine.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Henry H. Lindner replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 09:55 GMT
Anthony,

Thanks for reading my essay. My view of Nature is fundamentally physical, as opposed to mathematical. I think that the efficacy of math is limited and rests upon the fact that all things are made up of spatial quanta--space is composed of "cells" and all more complex phenomena are composed of these "bits". These cells are Nature's "integers". The Fibonacci sequence will be found in various aspects of Nature, as will other mathematical relationships. However, the Cosmos doesn't have 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 11 dimensions; dimensions are tools of description. Descartes invented them with his xyz coordinate system. While the evolution of complexity will have aspects that are mathematically-describable, math simply does not explain the Cosmos or its evolution. Just think of how Copernicus and Darwin revolutionized our understanding of the Cosmos with explanatory hypotheses that better explained the facts. Likewise we must also use words, theories, to explain what space is, how it transmits light, mediates gravity, and becomes organized into subatomic particles, how these particles self-organize into atoms, atoms into molecules, into living cells, multicellular organisms, nervous systems, etc. It is best not to base one's approach to physics on these artificially limited, observer-based quantitative models, Relativity and QM, that will end up in the dustbin of history just like the Ptolemaic system and creationist biology.

Henry

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 12:26 GMT
Hi Henry,

I agree that there are not 11 observable dimensions. Also, I agree that nature is physically real which is why I concluded that Bit was just as fundamental as It.

Still when we take very simple measurements we can observe 3-dimensionally and be observed thus. At an event horizon information is limited to certain pathways.

I agree that words are a very useful description of nature too. Also words are far more friendly when it comes to popularising physics to the greater population.

I think Hawking was told to limit the number of Equations in Brief History of Time. I'm glad you highlighted this.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 15:19 GMT
Hi Henry,

A rich historical excursion and presentation. Your section 6 is on all fours with my essay. Instead of using various terms, 'spatial bit', 'cell', I suggest you stick with the term, 'monad' used by the Pythagoreans and which Leibniz says are are the true atoms of Nature—the elements out of which everything is made! Compare this statement with the one you quote, "...Physicists Robert Laughlin and Frank Wilczek have concluded that space is a substance. Wilczek calls space “the grid”, “the primary ingredient of physical reality, from which all else is formed”. You can check out Leibniz monadology here and as my essay deals on monads, you may wish to give some criticism.

Like you, I believe mass, etc are derived attributes and not fundamental but arise from what is originally massless.

And for those who may ask you about 'space-time', ...space we can measure in cubic metres and time we can measure in seconds, ask them the unit of measurement for space-time! I doubt you will get a reasonable answer.

Best of luck,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:29 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


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
Hi Henry,

I thought I should pull your legs a little on these "spatial cells" of yours... before going for a beer.

1. Would they have a shape? If so, do you have a shape in mind?

Having a shape implies consisting 'lines' or 'curves'. Take notice, that lines and curves are geometrically composite things in themselves, i.e. they would also consist of 'spatial cells'. As Euclid, would probably say, their extremities would be spatial cells.

2. What would separate one spatial cell from another? Surely, not another space-like object, which would again comprise of cells?

I am sure with your clinical mind you probably know where I am going! :)

All the best.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Henry H. Lindner replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 16:06 GMT
Akinbo,

I'm inclined to agree with you and Leibniz that it's impossible to talk about their shape for the reasons you mention. They collectively do produce volume, what we call space, but just how they do it is impossible to say at this time. A "cell" may be a certain collection of various kinds of smaller "cells" and this repeated configuration may be sufficient to give rise to the basic physical phenomena and the evolution of complexity.

I don't believe any real, Cosmic space exists apart from these spatial elements. So if they are not in contact, between them is only a void, nothing. Outside them also is a void. If nothing is between two things, then they are, literally, contiguous. The real space we know is this substance and we know nothing of any other space. Mathematical space is just an imaginary coordinate system, an imaginary void.

Henry

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:33 GMT
Henry,

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


Author Henry H. Lindner wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 10:14 GMT
Updated links to my papers online:



This is an in-depth exploration of the philosophical issues and history of modern physics. Published in Physics Essays, 2002 15, 113)

Beyond Newton and Einstein to Flowing Space

Published in Physics Essays, 2012, 25, p.500. A presentation of the Flowing Space theory of gravity

A QED-Based Wave Theory of Light, Electrons, and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Henry H. Lindner wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 10:21 GMT
Sorry, here are the corrected links

Beyond Consciousness to Cosmos: Beyond Relativity and Quantum Theory to Cosmic Theory This is an in-depth exploration of the philosophical issues and history of modern physics. Published in Physics Essays, 2002 15, 113)

Beyond Newton and Einstein to Flowing Space Published in Physics Essays, 2012, 25, p.500. A presentation of the Flowing Space theory of gravity

A QED-Based Wave Theory of Light, Electrons, and their Quantized Interactions Submitted to Physics Essays. Feynman's approach to QED requires a wave-theory of light. The evidence contradicts the idea that light is composed of particles. The false photon theory of light leads to the quantum paradoxes and all the quantum "spookiness".

Implications of Flowing Space Unpublished. An exploration of the new physics implied by the Flowing Space theory of gravity

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 22:36 GMT
Henry,

Interesting read.Space seems to be where the action is, the receptacle of all. While some draw in concepts of consciousness in space and information first, I see humans doing what they do best -- seeing themselves in all that is elemental.

"We can produce a physics of causality — without observers, information,

paradoxes or schisms — a physics that makes sense . A working theory of space

will revive natural philosophy and will inform and enrich all our sciences .

We just need to reach beyond bit to It."

Thanks for a different perspective.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Henry H. Lindner replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 10:19 GMT
Jim,

You did a good job of skewering the idea that the human mind has any role in any physical processes. I have shown just where that foolishness comes from--Bishop Berkeley and the ancient error of spiritualism. Relativity and QM are based upon his theory that nothing exists but human spirit-consciousness, the observer. Our physicists are like children, playing with ideas they do not understand. They are forced to endlessly rationalize this nonsensical observer-based physics, producing the bizarre menagerie of ideas and theories we see today. This is a philosophical problem and can never be resolved by any experiment or demonstration. It requires humans to think.

Henry

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 02:09 GMT
Dear Henry,

I like your fundamental approach to solve the current problems perplexing physics. I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 21:09 GMT
Henry,

Excellent essay, particularly the incisive analysis at it's heart. Also an original proposed resolution, but could have done with better justification. I suspect the space limit caught up! I see your links above I'll try to follow up after the contest.

I hope you'll read mine as it assumes the same analysis and if anything takes an even more physical approach than yours (plus I need the points!). It's also quite radical so I don't think you'll be bored, and would appreciate your comments.

I think yours so should also be higher, perhaps the radical off mainstream ending was too much for many? As an astronomer I am now seeing much evidence for baryonic dark matter so perhaps your apparent dismissal of that option may not have helped.

But for me agreement with content should not be a criteria for scoring.

Very well done, and best of luck,

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Henry H. Lindner replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 11:33 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for reading my paper and for your comments. Do have a look at my papers. Yes, I ran out of space, but my goal was to show the true nature of the current models and how we can begin to start actually theorizing about the physical world. We will, and we must go beyond these observer-based models. No one has ever tried to defend these models against the criticisms I've raised.

The QED paper may be of particular interest to you as it deals with the issues you discuss in your paper. It shows that all "single photon" experiments are based upon a false hypothesis, as you've asserted.

Dark matter particles are the atomistic fix for our inadequate models of gravity--the Newtonian and Einsteinian. There are many problems with any theory of these particles. I'm interested in what evidence you believe exists for actual baryonic dark matter particles--evidence that cannot possibly be explained by spatial mechanisms such as I've proposed. I go into more detail about these mechanisms in the paper "Implications of Flowing Space" linked above, but you should read the paper on the flowing space theory of gravity first to see how well it fits and explains the facts about gravity.

Best wishes,

Henry

Bookmark and Share



Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 02:07 GMT
Hello Henry,

I enjoyed reading your essay, and your history lesson on the relationship between philosophy and physical theory when it comes to taking a position on the nature of space and time, and the sometimes unscientific reasons for taking one position or another. It seems those who are serious about cosmology must take a position, discrete or continuous, and none of the essays read so far, which take a position, have 100% overlap. My position is somewhere between yours and that of Dr. Klingman, and while we all seem to agree that space is "substance", you in particular see it as flowing and disappearing into a gravity well, whereas I see it as being fluid, persistent and the means to the recirculation of energy. I note Rev. Fox's response to your post on his essay, and Edwin's reference to that response in one of his posts, I look forward to reading Earl's response, if he has time. I invite you to comment on my essay (1814) if you have time.

Regards.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.