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

Jeff Baugher: on 8/9/13 at 3:45am UTC, wrote Hi Jacek, Unfortunately no, I do not have access. I will go through...

Jeff Baugher: on 8/9/13 at 3:43am UTC, wrote Jayakar, I am not sure I understood your post. Jeff

Jayakar Joseph: on 8/8/13 at 6:56am UTC, wrote Dear Baugher, Your perspectives on universe is indicative more in favour...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 20:35pm UTC, wrote Dear Jeff, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Jacek Safuta: on 8/7/13 at 18:51pm UTC, wrote Hi Jeff, Today I have discovered very interesting essay by Carolyn...

Jeff Baugher: on 8/7/13 at 17:36pm UTC, wrote Yuri, Hi, yes I have, sorry took so long. Have replied on your page. ...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:38am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

sridattadev kancharla: on 8/7/13 at 1:18am UTC, wrote Dear Jeff, Please see the universal mathematical truth of zero = I =...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

George Musser: "Imagine you could feed the data of the world into a computer and have it..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe it is wonderful this,so you are going to have a nobel prize in..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: ""I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant." It is not. It is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Georgina Woodward: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


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
October 17, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: A Crazy It From A Misleading Bit: How A Zero-Referenced Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Loses Information And May Be Misleading Mathematical Physics by J P Baugher [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jeff Baugher wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 16:42 GMT
Essay Abstract

Thanks (again) to astronomers, we now can only account for 4% of the mass and energy density that appears to be governing the motions in our Universe. Ernst Mach once wrote "The general experience cannot be constructed from the particular case given to us. We must, on the contrary, wait until such an experience presents itself. Perhaps when our physico-astronomical knowledge has been extended, it will be offered somewhere in the celestial space, where more violent and complicated motions take place than in our environment.", "If, however, we so interpret it that we come into conflict with our experience, our interpretation is simply wrong." and "Also when we speak of the attractions or repulsions of bodies, it is not necessary to think of any hidden causes of the motions produced. We signalize by the term attraction merely an actually existing resemblance between events determined by conditions of motions and the results of our volitional impulses." In this essay, we take Mach's wisdom to heart and re-examine whether one of our foundational assumptions, the modeling of forces as vectors, is mathematically complete and whether we have simply misinterpreted what we choose to see.

Author Bio

J.P. Baugher is a PhD student newly interested in the history of field theory.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:14 GMT
JP,

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


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 11:37 GMT
Jeff,

As of 7-6-13, 7:37 am EST, the rating function for your essay is not available. Sorry I can't help you out right now by rating your essay. NOTE: I have logged in using a PC and a MAC and different browsers but it appears to be a site function issue.

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 18:57 GMT
Manuel,

Thanks for the heads up on the voting. I will email a site admin. Looks like someone went through and voted a "1" for the essays that came after mine but didn't vote for a certain section at all. The site malfunction would seem to explain the missed section.

I will be certain to read through yours also.

Thanks

Jeff

Bookmark and Share


Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 21:10 GMT
Jeff,

I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.

My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online competition which assures me that the competition will be back up and running soon. Ironically, the inability of not being able to rate the essays correlates with the TD experimental findings, as presented in my essay, which show how the acts of selection are fundamental to our physical existence.

Anyway, I hope that all entrants will be allocated the same opportunity to have their essay rated when they are posted, and if not possible due to technical difficulties, will have their opportunity adjusted accordingly. Best wishes to you with your entry.

Manuel

PS I will be reviewing and rating your entry after this function has been turned back on.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 03:05 GMT
Sorry Jeff,

I have received word that although it was unfortunate that there was a delay in conducting the ratings, no extensions to the final deadline will be made. I will keep this in mind when I get a chance to review your essay later this week.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 05:19 GMT
Dear Jeff

Unfortunately, your essay is too large for automatic translation capabilities of my computer. Anyway,also wish you success.

And to change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition along with 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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jeff Baugher wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 17:13 GMT
For a one page shortened formulaic description of the contents of this essay, see How to Solve Dark Energy, the Cosmological Constant Problems and Unify General Relativity With Quantum Field Theory in 7 Steps

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 16:44 GMT
Jeff,

Top job. Well done. I entirely agree the concept of vectors is inadequate and have argued the inadequacy of Cartesian systems for modelling motion.

Indeed Einstein referred to 'planes' forming 'bodies', not 'wire frame' inertial systems.

You may be shocked to read mine as I've distinguished between mathematical descriptions and physical entities, falsifying the foundation of predicate logic and calculus A=A. This agrees but goes beyond your thesis, adding two more dimensions and considering 3D volumes as bodies in relative motion! Perhaps you could consider if your mathematical approach could ultimately extend to that?

I'd comment Bill McHarris essay on nonlinear dynamics and chaos to you as more consistently explaining the foundations of mine, and stating;

"Mathematics can state things with certainty; physics cannot." Which concept I think you may agree and which may perhaps help further. I do hope you can also read my essay and comment on the ontology I construct to produce a solution to the EPR paradox.

I have one question. in the crystal, would the wave not represent both an increase and decrease in a 'ground state density? I suggest there can only be a reduction if a surplus is extracted to condense some local particle or planet, rather like a pearl in an oyster?

But very well done for some excellent and quite revolutionary thinking, also nicely explained and presented.

Very best of luck in the contest.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 23:11 GMT
Peter,

Many thanks for the kind words and the review. I will require reading your essay several times in order to ensure I am following your arguments correctly, but a brief review of it certainly gives me the impression that our arguments follow similar paths concerning the EPR paradox.("But many more degrees of freedom may exist in a 4D wavefunction.").

As for the wave in the crystal, it doesn't seem plausible that the wave structure itself would be as simple as a single decrease (as an example Faraday considered EM waves to have two traveling wavefronts to account for birefrigence) but I do think it is a useful mental aid in understanding the difference between the Poisson equation, the perturbations of linearized gravity and what I am proposing. I do think perhaps the surplus would be a path to develop on understanding anti-matter, and it would seem be to be a requirement in what I am proposing but looking to take baby steps.

I will also make a review of Bill McHarris work as you recommended.

Kind Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 17:38 GMT
Jeff,

I suggest perhaps not only the wave as an up + down fluctuation, for energy conservation, but (adding the dimension) as an 'energy density fluctuation.'

I agree with Faraday, and indeed Raman also found such birefringence (and multirefringence) in diffuse media including the atmosphere in his (1930 Nobel winning) work.

On a slightly different tack to you I've found this is a temporal difference as well as one of 'optical axis' of re-emission (Raman scattering), which is refraction, then kinetic reverse refraction is stellar aberration from waves (as I've just written elsewhere, without the aid of ballistics and umbrellas!). The interactions through a diffuse medium are progressive, so the light path appears to curve, but is quantized. (An anticedent of my co-author dubbed this effect 'space-time' but that's been confusing.) That is rather a leap not a baby step (in my last years essay), but it does seem to work consistently.

I do hope you get to read my essay again slowly. Like last years, it can't be 'speed read' or most of the chocolate Easter eggs and Lego bits remain hidden and the significant ontological construction showing it's much needed top scoring value can't be built. On that subject, one thing I do object to is your entirely unacceptable lowly score and position, which I appear able to effect a significant affect on so shall.

Best of luck in the contest. I look forward to any further comments.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 12:07 GMT
Peter,

Sorry it has taken so long to reply. Was on holiday and didn't have reliable wifi connections in the Canary Islands. It does sound like we agree on the energy density fluctuation and will review your past work more in depth. I was able however to print out your essay for the flight back and read it more in depth.

I can bolster your argument and will post to your thread an example of how A=A is not applicable in physical phenomenon, which I completely agree with. In essence, the postulates listed HERE are not necessarily valid for physical phenomenon (renomalization anyone?).

Thank you so much for helping draw some attention to my essay!

Kindest Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 23:27 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 12:58 GMT
Hi SNP,

Thanks for the kind comments. It would be more correct to call it a path to translate between wave functions and particle phenomenon, as well as an understanding of what "metric" field theories actually are. I look forward to looking through your essay also.

Kind Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share


Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 06:37 GMT
snp,

I posted comments on your thread.

Thanks

Jeff

Bookmark and Share


Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 09:35 GMT
snp,

I now see what you mean by producing matter out of information. What I would state is that I can produce pure information and equate that to a wave within a perfect fluid. That wave would be matter, so the answer to your question is yes.

Thanks

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 20:50 GMT
Dear Jeff

1.I see your positive attitude to Ernst Mach and recommend Frank Wilczek article about him

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/%28356%
29Total%20Relativity.pdf

2.I would like also recommend G.Hooft Nobel lecture about limitation of Calculus

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laure
ates/1999/thooft-lecture.pdf

Regards

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 13:01 GMT
Dear Yuri,

Yes, have to say I am a fan of Mach's thinking and skepticism. I was aware of t'Hooft but did not know that his lecture was on the limitations of Calculus, I certainly look forward to reading both of your recommendations.

Kind Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 06:41 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Your idea is very intriguing. Does your Area Calculus then require two dimensions per integral (e.g. 4 dimensions for a double integral)?

I did not quite follow how you went from the geometric arguments to the dynamical part, and unfortunately I am utterly unfamiliar with Nordstroem's theory (you might want to consider writing an expository paper on it at some point) but I hope that there will be some topologists/differential geometers/general relativists/astrophysicists looking at your paper.

Finally, let me suggest that the final three sentences would seem to be more impactful at the beginning of the paper.

All the best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 13:32 GMT
Hi Armin,

No, it simply requires two functions per integral (Nordstroem's Theory only used the single function of the Newtonian Potential). I would have to be careful about how I phrased my answer to your question. In the theory I am proposing a flat metric (-1,1,1,1) translates to a zero area 4 dimensional integral (no Action) and thus "dimensions" disappear. Dimensions require "curvature" to exist so without a wavefunction to curve "space-time" there also are no equations of motions. Not sure if that answered your question though, heh.

It would be nice to have some published feedback, but unfortunately asking professional scientists to risk their standing and be willing to review basic calculus and metric theories is an extremely tall order. The symbolic form of the field equations would look so similar as to be confusing to a geometer who has baaed their life's work on manifold theory, but I am somewhat young and still hopeful.

I have to write another paper on going from the motion of a particle into that of a wave function. It will probably have to be in a contest such as this that allows for fundamental questions.

I will be certain to put that statement at the front in subsequent papers.

Kind Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share


Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 04:16 GMT
Armin,

I will be working on a future paper that I can hopefully enter into another contest comparing and contrasting GR, Nordstroem's Theory and my modification. I did post another paper to Vixra but it was before I found out about Nordstroem's previous theory. I will use some of that material as a jumping off point. Also within it is how to modify the tensor for a perfect fluid, Here.

Thanks

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 08:31 GMT
Hi dear Jeff,

I have acquainted with your interesting work that written in attractive form.

However I am definitely pessimistically that you will get some big successes on this way. If we will thinking pragmatically then first we need take into attention that there are a lot of theoretical investigations devoted to gravity problem. Those mostly are ,,working,, satisfactorily (parallel with Einstein's GR).

And practically there no way to define experimentally which one is better, that will enough to recognise it as better than GR. I mean you can spent a lot of time in vain (sorry for such advice, but it is what I think)

If you want listen my opinion on this matter then I will tell you something strange (from first view!) Just try read my work in which I try to say what goes on in the physics. After for you will become easy to perceive what I can tell you on gravity problem (if you find interest on this matter!) Essay

Sincerely,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 14:02 GMT
Hi George,

Thank you for reading and considering my essay. Which other theories work satisfactorily along with GR (I take it you mean on scale of a solar system hence the LambdaCDM model)? I do know that there are other scalar-tensor models but am not aware any of these are helpful.

I would have to disagree with you on knowing which one was "better". There are couple of sayings that I tend to like, "Cosmologists are often wrong, but never in doubt" and "You have a beautiful, elegant theory. Too bad it is wrong". When push comes to shove, it will come down to whether I can develop a computer model that more accurately predicts celestial movements better than what is currently available. I may never be able to get published in a "respectable" journal, but from my perspective all the theories within them are founded upon some fundamental mistakes that are finally peaking into to paradoxes that cannot be rectified without a paradigm change. I see no choice but to solve these issues outside the mainstream and believe that we live in the best time period to do so. That FQXi exists (and realizing that major funding is coming from The John Templeton Foundation, a man who apparently was at least unafraid to ask "What if what I believe to be true is not?", I think that there definitely is hope.

I look forward to reading your essay.

Kind Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 09:04 GMT
Dear Jeff,

I agree with Armin that the most important sentences occured at the end of your essay, particularly: "We conclude that everything is up for review including our most basic assumptions.". It echoes my last year's fqxi paper entitled "Fix Physics!" by getting rid of outdated notions - like a fixed speed of light and the point photon.

I only partially understood your suggestions to reform our basic notions of area and calculus, but could see where you were going with it : to explain a repulsive force and therefore Inflation. Another interesting part of your paper dealt with Nordstroem's gravitational theory that I was not aware of. I am now reading the fascinating paper you referenced by Norton a paragraph in it struck me where the question of density or internal energy of an object was rejected as being relevant to gravity.

In my 2005 work-in-progress Beautiful Universe Theory also found here I posit a universal lattice (like the diamond you started out your essay with!) made up of a crystal like arrangement of rotating magnetic nodes. These repulse each other (++ and --) but also rotate so that (X-) attraction causes them to clump together to form matter, or simply rotate to transfer dipolar angular momentum that we call e/m radiation. Gravity is enacted by a change in density in the field surrounding matter (again like your wave in the diamond) I also called for a special maths, a discrete calculus.

As they say Ars Longa Vita Brevis (Art - and Science - is vast, but life is short) I am over seventy now and I doubt I can prove my theory fully, but you are starting out, so the best of luck to you!

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jeff Baugher wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 14:31 GMT
Vladimir,

Many thanks for the review, I look forward to checking out your research. Interested to see whether you think of these nodes the same way as Maxwell's curl works.

If you are interested in Nordstroem's theories I highly recommend starting at "2.2 The Lorentz Model of a Field Equation" in PATHWAYS OUT OF CLASSICAL PHYSICS

originally located within

The Genesis of General Relativity. It is my intention to consult this as a helpful guide as I modify Nordstroem's theory using Area Calculus.

Thanks for the well wishes, perhaps we can all together correct some things while you are still around to enjoy the show!

Kind Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 03:33 GMT
Thank you Jeff

Maxwell's Curl? Hmm I am afraid I think visually and mechanically, and the mathematical formulation only confuses me...but from the name 'curl' I would say it sounds like it has to do with angular momentum. In fact in Fig. 4 of my essay I showed Maxwell's aether drawing rotating 'gears' with arrows showing how the e/m energy is transmitted.

I will study Nordstoem's theory, and look forward to your reworking it using Area Calculus. Thank you for your well wishes for longevity to witness the necessary and inevitable end of physics as they know it!

BTW if you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes. Good luck with your work.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 18:35 GMT
Hello Jeff,

Your essay caught my eye and I browsed through very briefly. You may wish to check out my essay and rate as you think because it is all about what you said, "We conclude that everything is up for review including our most basic assumptions. Without a mathematical language that includes the information of area, we may not be able to describe our Universe". I will also be asking you if there is a lower limit to dx. Meanwhile...

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there…

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 19:44 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

For your question to whether there is a lower limit to dx, I would have to reply that there must be limits from empirical observations.

My answers to your questions would be

1-0-1-maybe

I hadn't considered whether it might be possible to model all matter as units of the presence or absence of Planck Lengths but it is an intriguing question. Thanks for the new path of thought.

I will check out your essay also.

Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Franklin Hu wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 05:18 GMT
Relevancy: 1

I didn't find the topic to have anything to do with "information" so I didn't see the relevancy to the topic. I can kinda see that calculus is used to produce information.

Interesting: 2

I was hoping to find something about attractive/repelling forces are created by the vectors you describe, but this is just too mathematically dense to correspond to something you can visualize. In order to be of general interest, you loose all the regular folks like myself who read Scientific American with all the math. After reading your intro and conclusion, I'm still not sure what your points were. Sorry... I want to know what the other 96% is made out of and I didn't get that from your essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 05:35 GMT
Franklin,

The instructions for this contest state:

Possible topics or sub-questions include, but are not limited to:

What IS information? What is its relation to "Reality"?

So I am not sure whether you were confused about the topic of the contest or topic of my essay. "Area" is information. Zero Area=Zero Information=Zero Energy

I will try next time to graphically illustrate how changing areas correspond to changing volumes and into changes in density and pressure of the vacuum modeled as a fluid.

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
Dear Baugher,

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


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 08:54 GMT
Thank you Jeff,

I answered to your post in my forum.

And give me time please. I need read your work one more time.

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Jeff,

In your essay you have made very valiant effort to revive Gunnar Nordstrom's gravitational theory on the basis of your newly invented Area Calculus (metric field theory) and you have succeeded in predicting at least gravitational redshift and you hope to predict gravitational lensing by developing this theory. Regarding accelerating expansion, you are saying that “in essence, the late appearance of an accelerating expansion would be due to the inherent quantization of energy levels, which are quantized reductions in vacuum energy density”. I want to know what you precisely you mean by that. By information you mean matter and dimensions and it is stored as integrals and also that by the processing of information you mean derivatives and these derivatives are forces and energy; thereby you have given geometric meaning to matter, dimensions, forces and energy, like in general relativity. You have rightly said that our current models can only account for about 4% of our own kind of energy density in the universe and so everything is up for review including our most basic assumptions. Finally you have concluded that “Without a mathematical language that includes the information of area, we may not be able to describe our Universe”. That is without information (Bit) it is not possible for us to describe the universe, that is, reality (It) through the language of mind, that is, mathematics. Thus the union of all three (It, Bit and mind) is essential for our knowledge to exist. This is also the conclusion I have come to in my essay. So, please, go through my essay and express your comments on my essay in my thread. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

The thoughts you have put up in your essay are logically consistent and you got to develop them further so as to engross all problems pertaining to current day cosmology. Figures in the essay make it easy to comprehend your ideas.

Wish you best of luck in your endeavor,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 15:30 GMT
Sreenath,

Many thanks for the kind comments. It is extremely gratifying to see that someone understands the main points of an essay, regardless of whether they agree with them yet or not. You have very well summarized my work into the context of your own, which allows me to understand yours even better. I do agree with the majority of your essay except of course "From the recent success of the theory of GR, in explaining all the known facts connected to gravitation to the predicted accuracy, we can safely say that if any discrepancy is seen between the theory and observation, the observed fact is not related to gravitation (i.e. non-gravitational) and if it is purely gravitational then it must comply with the value predicted by GR." I hope that perhaps Nordstroem's theory and Area Calculus might give you pause now in that confidence. I will post my comments on your wonderful essay on your page soon.

Kind Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 05:37 GMT
Hi Dear Jeff,

I have read and good rated your work. From your answer (in my forum) I saw you are a little bit sad with my advice about your efforts on gravity problem. Sorry my friend, maybe I have say not like that which I want actually you perceive. Dealt is you are fully right when you says ,,need to change the paradigm of investigation,,. I want tell you only - it is really need change and very deeply - i.e. by forgetting the formal-mathematical reasons (temporarily!)and by trying to solve the problem using the LOGIC only. It looks now very strange what I am saying (because of our education!) But, it really works (just believe me!)

Best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 16:25 GMT
Hello Jeff -

I was impressed by your very thorough revision of metric field theory - and I agree with you that it is stunning to find we are ignorant of 96% of the universe!

Yes, the math must be reconsidered - and indeed all of our assumptions too.

In my essay, I've taken a non-mathematical approach - though the math will have to be developed - and I've described in physical terms a paradigm that accounts for the Cosmos as a confluence of energy vortices.

This might seem a little irrelevant to what you are saying, but if we are to review everything, we need to consider that our key central assumption is that inorganic reality is fundamental - while life and cognition are merely chemical. There are many interesting insights to be gained from considering life and cognition as fundamental - not least of which is the manner in which they appear correlated with inorganic reality.

I'm particularly interested in the point of view of mathematicians, since my paradigm must be expressed in mathematical language one day.

I have read and rated your work, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best of luck in the contest,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 21:18 GMT
John,

Many thanks for the kind comments. I have replied within your own thread on your imaginative essay. I hope that once I write another essay on a re-evaluation of the stress-energy tensor I get an imaginative writer such as your self to probe any points I may have not considered.

Kind Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 16:52 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Thanks for your kind comments and appreciate rating my essay highly. I am too going to rate your essay much more favorably.

Regarding your query " Since technology has allowed us to view further into space, would you call this an enlargement of the Biosphere since we now can absorb Information from previously undetectable sources?"; it is not due to the enlargement of the biosphere but it is due to the enlargement of our vision (knowledge) of our 'mind'. Similarly, to your another query, "Would you state that the evolutionary process of gathering data becomes more fine tuned as Life attempts to reconcile discontinuous Bits in Information of It(GR and QM)?"; again it is due to 'the evolution of the knowledge of mind' rather than due to Life.

If you have further queries, please, inform me.

Best of luck in the essay contest

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 03:39 GMT
Hello Jeff

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Good Luck,

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 16:47 GMT
Mr. Baugher,

I thought your essay was extremely well written. I was a little apprehensive because it started with an impossible abstract perfect diamond, however, your theorizing about the consequence of information waves seemed sound enough to me.

I do hope that you do not think me impertinent. I am a crusty old realist and as I have carefully explained in my essay BITTERS, everything in the real Universe is unique, once.

As you know, each snowflake is unique, once, and that means that each real molecule of each real snowflake must be unique, once. The whole real Universe is unique, once.

Which brings me to the consideration of your essay’s graphics. They are not unique. They are computer generated perfect squares and perfect circle and perfect columns of perfect number and alphabetic symbols, and while they are pretty to look at, they are unusual, unrealistic, and unnecessary for explaining reality.

I wish you well in the competition,

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 21:24 GMT
Dear Dr Baugher,

I found your essay very interesting. I like the use of area calculus and Figure 18, the graphical analogy of difference between “attraction” and “reduced repulsion" was excellent. It reminds me of my simplex based theory that partly unifies the four forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony, with regard to my attraction/repulsion approach.

I think your essay oozes enthusiasm for our chances to find answers to what the remaining 96% of Universe.

If you get chance please take a look at my essay, which isn't my unification theory, but looks at information exchange.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 02:26 GMT
Antony,

Thank you very much for the kind comments. I spend quite a bit of time thinking about the easiest way to break down the differences between the predictions of GR and this modified Nordstroem's theory, so it is very pleasing when something clicks with someone else.

I would love to see your work bloom into an interesting research field, but unfortunately the modification to Nordstroem's theory in my essay would seem to do away with Black Holes as nothing more than a formulaic artifact arrived at through conceptual errors present within differential topology. It would be interesting to be proven wrong, but it seems to be the most logical option.

Regards,

jeff

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Indeed we can utilise the Fibonacci sequence away from a black Holes too. Further, the essay hinges at singularities perhaps being avoided, but simply a mathematical trick.

My main theory revealed the sequence and 3-dimensional space as what we ought to observe in our universe, with an extra dimension of time.

The main theory partly unified the four forces and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony.

There are other more important points in my essay than the black hole, it explains the arrow of time with regard to dimensionality.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 13:49 GMT
Typo - hints not "hinges" :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 07:38 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Its really a good essay, and you have stated rightly that our present range of vision is comprise up to 4% only and 96% is remain unexplored: as per present astro-physical estimates.

That is why in my essay I use the term to express further broader aspect of nature "digital limitation of digitized observers like us".

Thanks for your your presentation.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 07:41 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Its really a good essay, and you have stated rightly that our present range of vision is comprise up to 4% only and 96% is remain unexplored: as per present astro-physical estimates.

That is why in my essay I use the term to express further broader aspect of nature "digital limitation of digitized observers like us".

Thanks for your presentation.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 20:22 GMT
. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 20:31 GMT
Dear Jeff,

I entered the above post wrongly. It was from earlier copy paste...

I entirely agree the concept of vectors is inadequate and have argued the inadequacy of Cartesian systems for modelling motion.

But I got some of my observations…

If can show Missing mass and energy are just calculation errors. If we can show simple arithmetic and Cartesian coordinates are sufficient to show the above things to anyone, will you be able to delete these two from your list? That’s what I did in Dynamic Universe model.

By the way I gave you excellent ratings for your keen command on mathematics.

And

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:17 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:10 GMT
Dear All

Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman.

In the Character of Physical Law, he talked about the two-slit experiment like this “I will summarize, then, by saying that electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, but the probability of arrival of these lumps is determined as the intensity of waves would be. It is this sense that the electron behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. It behaves in two different ways at the same time.

Further on, he advises the readers “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain’, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”

Did he says anything about Wheeler’s “It from Bit” other than what he said above?

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 03:44 GMT
Hi Jeff,

I read with interest your interesting essay about areas and the ways to calculate them via calculus.

It is good to reexamine our modeling tools and models.

Thanks for your essay.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 06:00 GMT
Hi Jeff,

Thank you for a deep look at the foundations of our continuum physics. Making sure our mathematical idealizations are actually relevant to what we use them for is essential.

> We conclude that everything is up for review including our most basic assumptions.

You may enjoy my essay Software Cosmos which applies a computational model to resolve several outstanding cosmological puzzles, including Dark Energy. I won't spoil the story by saying how... but I hope you get a chance to read it and let me know what you think.

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 06:02 GMT
Posting to sign this comment.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 13:39 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Thanks for your reply, I've reciprocated above.

Best wishes in the contest,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:26 GMT
Dear JP,

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 Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 00:31 GMT
Amazigh,

Many thanks for reading as also for taking the time to rate my essay. I have replied to you and placed comments concerning your wonderful essay on your page.

Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Jacek Safuta wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 15:48 GMT
Hi JP,

You have started your essay with this: “There is no “other” material, only the decrease in something we shall have to think of as the vacuum (energy) density.”

That is awesome as I would read one of my publications e.g. on a spin experiment and spacetime deformations:

http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0027

http://vixra.org/
abs/1006.0005

I am not kidding.

Fortunately there is still a chance to rate your essay (as you can expect you deserve the highest rating). There are differences but the concept itself is important. This idea can possibly change the physics. Take a quick also look at Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga’s essay on a geometrization of matter if you have time.

Best regards,

Jacek

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:33 GMT
Jacek,

Copying and pasting my reply from your thread:

I read the two Vixra papers and also your essay. Although there are some minor differences, you are correct in that we certainly are speaking of the same concept. All of these are now how I also have come to view gravity and wave/particles, albeit through a different path:

"The reason of the gravity phenomenon is that the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:34 GMT
The missing LaTex portion is



appears in the preview, but apparently not in the posting.

Bookmark and Share


Author Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:39 GMT
Wow...mumble mumble..

-1,1,1,1

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 22:42 GMT
Jeff

Have you read my essay?

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:36 GMT
Yuri,

Hi, yes I have, sorry took so long. Have replied on your page.

Thanks

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 01:18 GMT
Dear Jeff,

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


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:38 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:35 GMT
Dear Jeff,

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


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 06:56 GMT
Dear Baugher,

Your perspectives on universe is indicative more in favour of string-matter continuum universe, in that lattice of simplex quantizes the infinite universe without any antimatter, while a generic wave mechanics that unify the mechanics of both the acoustic and EM waves, describes the dynamics of the universe.

Thus in particle scenario, the notion of matter-antimatter is causal for the information loses in Zero-Referenced Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 03:43 GMT
Jayakar,

I am not sure I understood your post.

Jeff

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.