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.

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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Amrit Sorli**: *on* 9/1/17 at 11:32am UTC, wrote The first mistake regarding the understanding of the mass of W and Z bosons...

**Amrit Sorli**: *on* 3/30/15 at 17:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe, your observations seems right we discover that curvature of...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 3/30/15 at 15:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Sorli, I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally...

**Amrit Sorli**: *on* 2/24/15 at 12:35pm UTC, wrote Dear John, i will read all that, thanks, at the moment I'm full in...

**Theodore St. John**: *on* 2/24/15 at 11:50am UTC, wrote Amrit Sorli, Nice work on your essay. I completely agree that “Time has...

**Amrit Sorli**: *on* 2/22/15 at 16:32pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Tank I read your paper in Progress of Physics. Original work on...

**Hasmukh Tank**: *on* 2/22/15 at 15:10pm UTC, wrote Dear Amrit, I forgot to paste the link of my latest paper referred above,...

**Hasmukh Tank**: *on* 2/22/15 at 15:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Amrit Sorli, I appreciate your approach to understand gravitation...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Robert McEachern**: "Coins *always* have two sides. Always. The fact that some observer has..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Robert, Re.measurement being considered the cause of subsequent effect; I..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

**Eckard Blumschein**: "Steve, Darwin contradicted to the view of Parmenides, ..., and Einstein..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Joe,do you understand that the universe is finite like our series of..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Steve Dufourny**: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..."
*in* Mass–Energy Equivalence...

**Steve Dufourny**: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..."
*in* Mass–Energy Equivalence...

**Steve Dufourny**: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..."
*in* The Demon in the Machine...

**Steve Agnew**: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..."
*in* The Demon in the Machine...

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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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

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.

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 16, 2019

CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]

TOPIC: Application of Bijective Function of Set Theory in Physics by Amrit Srecko Sorli [refresh]

TOPIC: Application of Bijective Function of Set Theory in Physics by Amrit Srecko Sorli [refresh]

To think about mysterious connection between physics and mathematics we need first to understand what mathematics is and what physics is. I see mathematics as a reflection of universal hidden order (in the meaning proposed by David Bohm) in the human rational mind. Physics is the model of the universe created by the human rational mind. The subject of this essay is how to use realize Einstein vision on completeness theorem according to which each element of the physical universe corresponds exactly to the one element of the model. To realize this vision of we apply bijective function of set theory. We build a model the universe in which each mathematical element represents exactly one element of the physical universe.

Amrit Sorli Studied at University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, physics, geodesy, philosophy of science, epistemology, psychology. Amrit is Independent Researcher, co-founder and member of SpaceLife Institute back in 2000 and founder of Foundation of Physics Research Institute - FOPI in 2013. He publish several scientific papers and books. See more on ORCID ID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6711-4844

``However out of pure mathematical laws we cannot deduce physical laws.''

We disagree.

report post as inappropriate

We disagree.

report post as inappropriate

The Noether Theorem regarding the basis for conservation laws is a pretty good example of there at least being a correspondence between mathematical law and physical law.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

I am interested in what you say about "Einstein's Completeness Theorem" Where did you find Einstein’s definition of completeness of a physical theory? Was this something he wrote about specifically or is it your interpretation of his methods?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Philip, see that link. yours Amrit

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_201

5_Jan_1/quantum_theory_completeness/index.html

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_201

5_Jan_1/quantum_theory_completeness/index.html

Amrit Sorli's effort to validate "Einstein vision on completeness theorem according to which each element of the physical universe corresponds exactly to the one element of the model" using bijective function of set theory is important. It would have implications for the foundations of quantum theory and may provide explanations for entanglement and similar phenomenon. Let's see where he goes with this.

Looking forward to additional comments on these important ideas.

Gus Koehler

report post as inappropriate

Looking forward to additional comments on these important ideas.

Gus Koehler

report post as inappropriate

Hi Amrit,

You argue, as I understand it, to replace time by "change sequence" or numerical order of changes which run in space. Time then has only mathematical existence instead of physical reality. But then on page 2 you introduce Planck time and duration as emergent time. I'm confused at this point and wonder if you could clarify this point for me here.

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay, and thanks for contributing your own thoughts.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

You argue, as I understand it, to replace time by "change sequence" or numerical order of changes which run in space. Time then has only mathematical existence instead of physical reality. But then on page 2 you introduce Planck time and duration as emergent time. I'm confused at this point and wonder if you could clarify this point for me here.

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay, and thanks for contributing your own thoughts.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edvin,

Fundamental time is numerical order of change. When we measure this numerical order with clocks we get emergent time which is duration. Duration is a sum of numerical order. Without measurement of the observer there is no duration. See our article published in Foundations of Physics: Perspectives of the Numerical Order of Material Changes in Timeless Approaches in Physics

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9

840-y

yours amrit

I cannot attach article here, but I can send it to you. Write me on my mail sorli.amrit@gmail.com

Fundamental time is numerical order of change. When we measure this numerical order with clocks we get emergent time which is duration. Duration is a sum of numerical order. Without measurement of the observer there is no duration. See our article published in Foundations of Physics: Perspectives of the Numerical Order of Material Changes in Timeless Approaches in Physics

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9

840-y

yours amrit

I cannot attach article here, but I can send it to you. Write me on my mail sorli.amrit@gmail.com

With undestanding time has only a math existence, space becomes a direct information medium of quantum entanglment, see published article attached

attachments: 3_3D_space_as_a_medium_of_quantum_entanglement.pdf

attachments: 3_3D_space_as_a_medium_of_quantum_entanglement.pdf

Special Relativity can be described in a 3D space......

attachments: 1_About_a_new_suggested_interpretation_of_special_theory_of.pdf

attachments: 1_About_a_new_suggested_interpretation_of_special_theory_of.pdf

Dear Amrit Srecko Sorli:

First of all, I admire the effort that goes into making a submission. That applies to your article. I liked the idea of a bijective relationship between elements of a physical theory and a mathematical theory because it seems like a fresh take. Is there not a difficulty in this approach though: how does one determine what an element is, whether for physics or math? Is there an explanation of what energy is, or how it arises, sufficient for us to consider it as an element? You can see the effects of electromagnetic energy, but do you see the energy directly? I suspect that counting relates to some deep aspect of the structure of the universe, which is why we see it in so many contexts and your emphasis of counting in the introduction seems right. On your conclusion “out of pure mathematical laws we cannot deduce physical laws” would the prediction of the positron based on Dirac’s math be a counterexample?

Bob Shour

report post as inappropriate

First of all, I admire the effort that goes into making a submission. That applies to your article. I liked the idea of a bijective relationship between elements of a physical theory and a mathematical theory because it seems like a fresh take. Is there not a difficulty in this approach though: how does one determine what an element is, whether for physics or math? Is there an explanation of what energy is, or how it arises, sufficient for us to consider it as an element? You can see the effects of electromagnetic energy, but do you see the energy directly? I suspect that counting relates to some deep aspect of the structure of the universe, which is why we see it in so many contexts and your emphasis of counting in the introduction seems right. On your conclusion “out of pure mathematical laws we cannot deduce physical laws” would the prediction of the positron based on Dirac’s math be a counterexample?

Bob Shour

report post as inappropriate

Dear Bob,

with mathematics is all fine. It is perfect.

Just in physics we have to apply it in a proper way.

This is the outcome of bijective epistemology.

Mass and gravity have origin in diminished energy density of quantum vacuum. Higgs boson is a momentary flux of energy of quntum vacuum, not mmore. Has no real impact on particles mass. The whole theory of Higgs is simply not right. It has no bijective correspondence with physical reality.

Yours Amrit

attachments: 2_Gravity_originates_from_variable_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum.pdf

with mathematics is all fine. It is perfect.

Just in physics we have to apply it in a proper way.

This is the outcome of bijective epistemology.

Mass and gravity have origin in diminished energy density of quantum vacuum. Higgs boson is a momentary flux of energy of quntum vacuum, not mmore. Has no real impact on particles mass. The whole theory of Higgs is simply not right. It has no bijective correspondence with physical reality.

Yours Amrit

attachments: 2_Gravity_originates_from_variable_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum.pdf

DEar Joe, thanks, very good comment,

there is no "hidden order",

there is just ORDER that common mind is not able to grasp.

Please give good vote to my paper.

Thanks.

Amrit

there is no "hidden order",

there is just ORDER that common mind is not able to grasp.

Please give good vote to my paper.

Thanks.

Amrit

Amrit,

Thank you for contributing your views on this topic. I do however believe we do not gain any insights into a greater understanding of reality by rejecting one model in replace of another. The fundamental idea in question is our ability to define an event or observation (using whatever model) and to predict future occurrences in an effort to validate our understandings of this physical interpretation or description of nature.

Fortunately we have gained many pieces to this very complicated puzzle, now we must arrange these pieces into a coherent manner that effectively defines reality. This is the current state in physics. Its not that the concept of using physics is wrong neither is the method you advocate. I believe they are both useful and will arrive at similar conclusions even if they are stated in different languages.

You propose an excellent argument, suggesting the physics we are currently using is not a correct interpretation of mathematical laws. Perhaps we will uncover this complete idea soon.

Best Regards,

D.C.Adams

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for contributing your views on this topic. I do however believe we do not gain any insights into a greater understanding of reality by rejecting one model in replace of another. The fundamental idea in question is our ability to define an event or observation (using whatever model) and to predict future occurrences in an effort to validate our understandings of this physical interpretation or description of nature.

Fortunately we have gained many pieces to this very complicated puzzle, now we must arrange these pieces into a coherent manner that effectively defines reality. This is the current state in physics. Its not that the concept of using physics is wrong neither is the method you advocate. I believe they are both useful and will arrive at similar conclusions even if they are stated in different languages.

You propose an excellent argument, suggesting the physics we are currently using is not a correct interpretation of mathematical laws. Perhaps we will uncover this complete idea soon.

Best Regards,

D.C.Adams

report post as inappropriate

Hi Adams, bijective epistemology goal is improving existent physics and see which elements are nonexistent. Physics is a strong building, we just have to adjust few elements. For exampla existent model of mass and gravity is not right. Our proposal model is respecting bijective function, see files attached. yours Amrit

attachments: 5_Special_theory_of_relativity_postulated_on_homogeneity_of_space_and_time_and_on_relativity_principle.pdf, 3_Gravity_originates_from_variable_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum.pdf

attachments: 5_Special_theory_of_relativity_postulated_on_homogeneity_of_space_and_time_and_on_relativity_principle.pdf, 3_Gravity_originates_from_variable_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum.pdf

Dear Amrit,

A worthwhile essay to read. I have a problem that you may want to try your tool: Bijective function of set theory on.

What does a line consist of and how can you cut a line?

Best regards,

Akinbo Ojo

report post as inappropriate

A worthwhile essay to read. I have a problem that you may want to try your tool: Bijective function of set theory on.

What does a line consist of and how can you cut a line?

Best regards,

Akinbo Ojo

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ojo,

the "point" is that we esablish bijective function between what we perceive and what we imagine.

yours amrit

The Main Power of Physics is Creative Imagination based on Experimemtal Data.

the "point" is that we esablish bijective function between what we perceive and what we imagine.

yours amrit

The Main Power of Physics is Creative Imagination based on Experimemtal Data.

There is completeness to your subject on relative kind of matter.

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

We thoroughly enjoyed your ideas. It stands at a different footing from most essays. We extend your ideas as follows.

Your classification resembles ancient Indian system of classification of fundamental entities - Matter (prithwi), change that induces inertia (ap), heat energy (teja), non-heat energy (marut) and space (vyoma), where the others are sequential order emergent...

view entire post

We thoroughly enjoyed your ideas. It stands at a different footing from most essays. We extend your ideas as follows.

Your classification resembles ancient Indian system of classification of fundamental entities - Matter (prithwi), change that induces inertia (ap), heat energy (teja), non-heat energy (marut) and space (vyoma), where the others are sequential order emergent...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

great, i like your extention. yours amrit

attachments: 3_The_Physics_of_NOW.pdf, 1_naslovnica_the_physics_of_now.jpg

attachments: 3_The_Physics_of_NOW.pdf, 1_naslovnica_the_physics_of_now.jpg

Dear Dr. Amrit Sorli,

I appreciate your approach to understand gravitation in terms of vacuum energy; and wish to draw your attention to one thing, that Planck Mass is a theoretically-derived quantity, obtained by equating G m m = h c . And Planck-length is a geometric-mean of Gravitational-radius and Compton-Wavelength of every particle. That is, Planck-Length is a geometric-mean of two different physical lengths, and so, not a fundamental-length. More details are described in:

"An Insight into Planck's Units"

www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2011/PP-27-04.PDF

Hope,

you will find it important for your further research.

You may have already read my previous year's essay:

"On the Emergence of Physical-World from the Ultimate-Reality"

fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2001

which was based on a postulate that empty-space is not really empty. Hope, reading of this essay may trigger some useful ideas in your mind.

My latest paper submitted to journal is also based on the fact that photon's energy produces gravitational-field of negative potential-energy; and cosmological red-shift is a process of "filling" that gravitational potential-well from the positive energy of the photon. I wellcome your comments at my e-mail address: tank.hasmukh@rediffmail.com, hasmukh.tank1@gmail.com

Wishing you grand success in your research,

Yours sincerely,

Hasmukh K. Tank

report post as inappropriate

I appreciate your approach to understand gravitation in terms of vacuum energy; and wish to draw your attention to one thing, that Planck Mass is a theoretically-derived quantity, obtained by equating G m m = h c . And Planck-length is a geometric-mean of Gravitational-radius and Compton-Wavelength of every particle. That is, Planck-Length is a geometric-mean of two different physical lengths, and so, not a fundamental-length. More details are described in:

"An Insight into Planck's Units"

www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2011/PP-27-04.PDF

Hope,

you will find it important for your further research.

You may have already read my previous year's essay:

"On the Emergence of Physical-World from the Ultimate-Reality"

fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2001

which was based on a postulate that empty-space is not really empty. Hope, reading of this essay may trigger some useful ideas in your mind.

My latest paper submitted to journal is also based on the fact that photon's energy produces gravitational-field of negative potential-energy; and cosmological red-shift is a process of "filling" that gravitational potential-well from the positive energy of the photon. I wellcome your comments at my e-mail address: tank.hasmukh@rediffmail.com, hasmukh.tank1@gmail.com

Wishing you grand success in your research,

Yours sincerely,

Hasmukh K. Tank

report post as inappropriate

Dear Amrit,

I forgot to paste the link of my latest paper referred above, it is at:

http://vixra.org/abs/1502.0104

Yours sincerely,

Hasmukh K. Tank

report post as inappropriate

I forgot to paste the link of my latest paper referred above, it is at:

http://vixra.org/abs/1502.0104

Yours sincerely,

Hasmukh K. Tank

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Tank

I read your paper in Progress of Physics. Original work on the subject of Planck units. For me Max Planck was equal to Albert Einstein. We are now getting together their results. Energy density of quantum vacuum is future of physics. Explaining mass of elementary particles is pure failor, which will be recognized soon by entire scientific community.

yours amrit

www.fopi.info

attachments: 5_Gravity_originates_from_variable_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum.pdf, 3_Relativistic_energy_and_mass_originate.pdf

I read your paper in Progress of Physics. Original work on the subject of Planck units. For me Max Planck was equal to Albert Einstein. We are now getting together their results. Energy density of quantum vacuum is future of physics. Explaining mass of elementary particles is pure failor, which will be recognized soon by entire scientific community.

yours amrit

www.fopi.info

attachments: 5_Gravity_originates_from_variable_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum.pdf, 3_Relativistic_energy_and_mass_originate.pdf

Amrit Sorli,

Nice work on your essay. I completely agree that “Time has only a mathematical existence, past, present and future are only a mathematical realities” and “Time travels are out of question, one can travel in space only and time is duration of its motion”. I think I have a good model, which I posted at http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0045 called the space-time-motion model, which you may appreciate if you get a chance to read it.

Most of these essays are very thought provoking but some are hard to read. I went a different route and wrote what I consider a more entertaining twist - sort of a blend of Knights of the Round Table and Lord of the Rings (See Doctors of the Ring - The Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into Consciousness). It is based on my space-time-motion model, which I invite you to read and let me know what you think (email to stjohntheodore@gmail.com). Of course, I also invite you to read and rate Doctors of the Ring if you get the chance.

Respectfully,

Ted St. John

report post as inappropriate

Nice work on your essay. I completely agree that “Time has only a mathematical existence, past, present and future are only a mathematical realities” and “Time travels are out of question, one can travel in space only and time is duration of its motion”. I think I have a good model, which I posted at http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0045 called the space-time-motion model, which you may appreciate if you get a chance to read it.

Most of these essays are very thought provoking but some are hard to read. I went a different route and wrote what I consider a more entertaining twist - sort of a blend of Knights of the Round Table and Lord of the Rings (See Doctors of the Ring - The Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into Consciousness). It is based on my space-time-motion model, which I invite you to read and let me know what you think (email to stjohntheodore@gmail.com). Of course, I also invite you to read and rate Doctors of the Ring if you get the chance.

Respectfully,

Ted St. John

report post as inappropriate

Dear John, i will read all that, thanks, at the moment I'm full in quantum vacuum technology.

yours Amrit

yours Amrit

Dear Mr. Sorli,

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joe,

your observations seems right

we discover that curvature of space-time in GR has origin in variable energy densiy of quantum vacuum. We fing out fundamental origin of mass and gravity.

I will have a look at your paper.

Yours Amrit

attachments: 2_SPACE-TIME_CURVATURE_of_GENERAL_RELATIVITY_and_Energy_Density_of_QV.pdf

your observations seems right

we discover that curvature of space-time in GR has origin in variable energy densiy of quantum vacuum. We fing out fundamental origin of mass and gravity.

I will have a look at your paper.

Yours Amrit

attachments: 2_SPACE-TIME_CURVATURE_of_GENERAL_RELATIVITY_and_Energy_Density_of_QV.pdf

The first mistake regarding the understanding of the mass of W and Z bosons was done 120 years ago throwing the ether out of physics.

attachments: Ten_Dogmas_of_todays_Mainstream_Physics_on_the_Deathbed.pdf, Historical_misunderstsnding_on_the_origin_of_bosons_mass.pdf

attachments: Ten_Dogmas_of_todays_Mainstream_Physics_on_the_Deathbed.pdf, Historical_misunderstsnding_on_the_origin_of_bosons_mass.pdf

Login or create account to post reply or comment.