It is really so nice to see researchers promote the idea of a collapsing universe. My wish is that Curseanu's research will allow her to find the fundamental universe decay rate of 0.26 ppb/yr. Her lambda is 0.31 ppb/yr at 1e-17 interactions per s, which is so very close to the right answer, but at least she is heading down a productive path and away from the blind alley of GR.
Now if Hossenfelder can only see the light as well, there might be a quorum and this silly little gravity problem will finally be licked...
Steve Agnew replied on May. 28, 2016 @ 14:34 GMT
This small problem of gravity is not so small after all, but a collapsing universe ties gravity and charge forces together rather nicely.
The notion of a collapsing universe, which then takes care of collapsing wavefunctions, provides the basic force and energy that drives both charge and gravity forces.
For charge force, the collapsing aether acts on each of two charges with opposite phase and there is a aether flux of mdot = 1.1e-10 kg/s. This is simply a reinterpretation of the constants of charge action mdot = me re / (rB tp), electron mass times charge radius divided by Bohr radius times charge spin period. This interprets charge force as a result of a universal collapse.
Gravity is the effect of aether collapse scaled to the time size of the universe. In effect, the universe wrapped back onto itself in time. Every photon emitted at the CMB entangles every matter particle in the present but with a time separation of tB / 2Tu, the ratio the Bohr period to the universe pulse period, Tu, of 13.4 Byrs.
So gravity force scales from charge force simply as e tB / (2Tu), where e is the electron charge. This means that the aether particle mass simply scales from the Planck constant, h, as mae = h / (4 pi c Tu) and the size of a collapsing universe is what determines gravity force. Of course while dipole photons mediate charge force and so charges have sign, quadrupole biphotons mediate gravity force and so all matter attracts even while both charge and gravity are due to the collapse of aether.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on May. 28, 2016 @ 14:59 GMT
Georgina,
There are no limits to what is observable because only real infinite physical surface that is always illuminated by real infinite is non-surface light is observable. Please note that Dr. Curceanu stated: “The theory of quantum mechanics is very successful in describing the world and phenomena on a microscopic scale (electrons, atoms, and even molecules), but it starts to be questionable whether the same theory can describe macroscopic bodies, or aggregates of many, many atoms.”
The real observable Universe consists only of infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Observable infinite surface is the one and only macroscopic entity one real observable Universe could acquire. The real Universe does not consist of invisible atoms swirling round in invisible space.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 28, 2016 @ 21:21 GMT
Hi Joe, thanks for replying. It is not possible for us to observe far beyond the distance light can travel to have reached us. So the whole infinite surface you propose can't be categorized as observable, unless you are redefining what observable means. I will admit that it could be potentially observable by beings elsewhere in such a universe but that is adding more speculation. Another question is what you mean by the 'real universe'. I don't think you are completely wrong when you describe a material surface that is illuminated but I don't think there being surfaces precludes structure below and within those surfaces and different scales of material being. Another idea you might consider is that a surface itself is not (really) observable only the image produced from the received light is observable. There are in that way two universes, the material and the image.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on May. 29, 2016 @ 15:43 GMT
Georgina,
Real light cannot travel because real light does not have a real surface. That is why Einstein's unrealistic assertion that (invisible) energy exactly equals (invisible) mass multiplied by the constant speed of (invisible) light passing through an (invisible) vacuum tube multiplied by its (invisible) light self, is UTTERLY WRONG. Newton’s laws of motion are all WRONG because they deal with the supposed finite motion of invisible objects through invisible space.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 29, 2016 @ 21:59 GMT
Hi Joe,
I think you may need to define your use of the term "real light" I agree light is not the same as matter. The electromagnetic radiation in the environment is invisible but upon receipt it can be used to generate vision and seen light. Consider another wave phenomenon, water waves: you might argue that the wave itself doesn't have a surface because it is the material water that is in possession of a surface. Yet the energy of the wave does change its location over time. That is visible. So can't it be said to be travelling? I don't think invisibility makes something unreal. Experiments have been done where tiny objects have been rendered invisible by the bending of light rays around them. They are only visible in the first place because of the scattering of light from the surface (including absorption of some wavelengths and re-emission of others) which then provides information to an observer enabling vision. I actually agree with you that Newton was actually giving us Laws that apply to invisible objects (the objects themselves and not the images of them produced by observation). That does not make the laws wrong.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 29, 2016 @ 22:11 GMT
Joe,
Further to:I don't think invisibility makes something unreal. The object rendered invisible remains a part of the material reality of the universe (that I have called 'Object reality') but ceases to be part of the observer's reality generated from received EM, (that I have called 'Image reality'). The visible and invisible realities co-exist without paradox/impossibility.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on May. 30, 2016 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear Georgina,
Real matter is real infinite surface. It is observable because it is always illuminated by infinite real non-surface light. Real infinite light is not produced by finite invisible waves of kinetic energy. You wrote: “I don't think invisibility makes something unreal.” But you cannot see a state of invisibility, therefore a state of invisibility MUST BE UNREAL
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 30, 2016 @ 20:33 GMT
Hi Joe,
Re. your statement "But you cannot see a state of invisibility, therefore a state of invisibility MUST BE UNREAL" There are in my opinion two kinds of reality. The kind that is observed, measured and or experienced from the input of information from the external environment and the kind that exists independent of observation , measurement and experience. From a quick Google search one definition of "real" shown first, is "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed". That isn't qualified by the requirement that it is visible. I mentioned an experiment where an object is rendered invisible by bending of light rays around it. It would be quite easy to show that the object is not de-materializing by having it on a weighing platform and seeing if the weight shown changes when the object becomes invisible.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 30, 2016 @ 21:12 GMT
Hi Joe,
you have previously said that the light does not travel. How is it then that material objects are visible? You have said they must be visible to be real. It is known from biology that the visual system receives EM radiation input that stimulates the cells of the retina. Individual cells respond to certain frequencies and intensities of input. Illumination, rendering objects visible, requires the processing of the EM input. Without that input and processing there is no vision of the external environment. It is not visible (without that) even if there is a relation between the EM radiation (light) and the material object.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on May. 31, 2016 @ 14:48 GMT
Georgina,
You are confusing invisible with out-of-sight. The real observable Universe is utterly simple. It consists only of infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. You have a complete surface including the surface of your eyes. You can only see SURFACE. Gary Kasparov lost to the IBM computer Big Blue. Kasparov was capable at the time of playing a dozen games of chess blindfolded because Kasparov had previously seen and memorized real chess action. No computer will ever be built that could “play” a game of chess without prior instruction. The state of invisible CANNOT BE MEMORIZED.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 31, 2016 @ 20:25 GMT
Hi Joe,
there are different meanings of the term "invisible" eg. it can mean not perceptible to the eye, not visible (I would include "cloaked" out of sight in that category) or impossible to see. It seems "impossible to see" is the meaning you have chosen. Re. only being able to see surfaces, it does depend upon the material. I have some glass paperweights and I can see more than the surface, I can see coloured glass inside, below the clear glass surface. Sea weed under the surface of water? Dense cloud structure within more diffuse cloud?
I don't understand the relevance of the chess game to your argument.I'm not sure why you are talking about memorizing -are you talking about an imaginable universe, "real" equating with imaginable (to your mind)?
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 1, 2016 @ 15:41 GMT
Georgina,
One real observable Universe can only consist of one real observable infinite surface that was always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Your eyes have a surface that can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored flattish looking partial surfaces. You do not see any complete set of surfaces sequentially. You can describe the surface of the colored lights shining through the surface of the glass paperweight BECAUSE YOU HAVE MEMORIZED THEM. You failed to mention that at the time you looked at the glass paperweight, you would have also seen a patch of the surface of the desk the glass paperweight was resting on and an INFINITE number of other partial surfaces including a tiny portion of the surface of your real nose as you gazed at the glass paperweight. The dictionary definition for invisible confuses it with unseen, or out of sight.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 1, 2016 @ 21:30 GMT
Hi Joe, I am still unclear about whether you are talking about what exists independently of observation or only about what is seen (or might be seen giving appropriate observer location). I'm not sure whether you would regard what can be represented showing, for example, an output from ultraviolet light receipt by a device would still fall into your category of observable; or whether human sight alone is relevant to your model. Not seeing the complete set of possible observable surfaces is an important point as it is showing one of the ways in which measurement /observation /experience differs from what exists independently. What the observer sees is dependent upon what information can be received from that location at that time and formed into the observed (Image) reality. Yes I have memorized the look if the paperweights,why do you emphasize that?
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 2, 2016 @ 15:29 GMT
Georgina,
NOTHING exists independently of visible infinite surface. There is no finite invisible space. There is no invisible finite matter. All observers are automatically in the only position infinite surface can be seen from, for part of the infinity of surface covers each and every observer including each observers eyes.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 2, 2016 @ 23:37 GMT
Hi Joe,
so the surface you talk about, it seems to me from your description, is the external reality and not the image formed by an observer; correct? What are holes? How do you classify those things too small to be observed without a device, invisible or just unseen?
Moving Atoms: Making The World's Smallest Movie
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 3, 2016 @ 15:13 GMT
Georgina,
Real observable infinite surface does not have an invisible finite interior, or an invisible finite exterior. It is physically impossible for anyone to see a hole for there cannot be any invisible finite space in infinite surface. The surface of the hare always travels at the same speed as that of the tortoise does, whether one or both of them are alive or dead. Surface is unified. When you scratch your nose, all the rest of infinite surface is engaged in some other observable activity other than the scratching of your nose.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 3, 2016 @ 16:31 GMT
I forgot this thread, thanks for your answer Mr Agnew.It is a beautiful appraoch towards this gravity,we search it after all.
Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 3, 2016 @ 20:10 GMT
Joe,
It might help if you explained your assertions, rather than just making them. I can accept that an observable surface does not include structure within because, if we are only talking about opaque surfaces the interior is not itself observable. Yet many biological and mechanical processes could not occur without the interior. I am not just a surface and nor is a car. I think you will have to do more than just deny the identify-ability of holes. My ability to see them, or rather the differences in the image produced from different intensities of received light is important so that I don't, for example, fall down them. I would find the hare and tortoise moving at the same rate comprehensible if you were talking about the potential sensory data within the EM radiation but you have said light doesn't travel and now are saying the surface does. Please
explain what you are talking about Joe.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 4, 2016 @ 14:33 GMT
Georgina,
There is no clearer an explanation I could possibly provide than the indisputable fact that only observable infinite surface always illuminated by infinite non-surface light exists. You are confusing a finite separate independent you, or a finite separate independent motor car of consisting only of a finite surface and you are wrong. It could not physically possibly be. Either all visible and invisible physical phenomena is finite and separated and independent, or only UNIFIED observable surface is infinite.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 4, 2016 @ 20:17 GMT
Joe, the "indisputable fact" you have stated is not an explanation. You have not explained how something infinite is observable,or how you know the surface and the light are infinite. You have not explained what
you mean by illumination. You have not explained how observation is possible; given your previous statement that light does not travel, and given the the structure and function of the visual system of an observer).Please explain why sub components of the infinite surface can not be considered, even if they are continuous with the whole? Your final either or doesn't work for me. There is a difference between what is observable and what exists (using what I understand by the term 'observable'-you have not described how your alternative with non moving light works). I accept the philosophical argument that the whole of what materially exists might be regarded as one unified system but that isn't what you are saying, I think. The structure of that final 'either or'needs revising to provide a good logical argument. Eg. Objects can be mentally isolated from the whole of the material universe for consideration without being considered independent of it.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 5, 2016 @ 15:27 GMT
There is a beauty to aethertime gravity where it is the periods of quantum orbits that scale all force.
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 3, 2016 @ 16:31 GMT as "I forgot this thread, thanks for your answer Mr Agnew.It is a beautiful appraoch towards this gravity,we search it after all."Instead of force being body-centered and 1/r^2 with a singularity at r=0, aethertime force is action-centered with a quantum period as 1/tau^2. Since a quantum orbit always has a finite period, the singularities of space and time do not actually exist. Spacetime singularities are the result of the limitations of the notions of continuous space and time. Aethertime changes the meaning of a black hole since it is the black hole finite quantum period that is what defines an event horizon.
There is a decoherence time for all quantum phase including that of a black hole spin down. Unlike atomic time, decoherence time does not stop at an event horizon. The decoherence of the boson matter of a black hole spin down simply represents the destiny of all matter in the universe.
In effect, the spin down of black holes encodes all of the information of the fermion matter and there is no information lost in a black hole. Black holes are a sink for the entropy and all of the information of accreted fermion matter, Therefore it is the spin downs of black holes that point the arrow of time and it is the spin downs of black holes that provide the order that characterizes the universe.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 5, 2016 @ 15:30 GMT
Georgina,
An indisputable fact is self-explanatory, that is why it cannot be disputed.. There has never been any invisible FINITE separate independent “something” There has only ever been unified observable infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Invisible observers with invisible finite observational structures have never existed, so why do I have to explain how they function? Real infinity does not have any finite invisible sub-components.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 5, 2016 @ 20:06 GMT
Joe,
it isn't self explanatory, that is why I don't understand how your model functions and have asked so may questions (that you haven't addressed). If the "indisputable fact" isn't up for discussion you should not claim it as a fact but as the premise of your argument (a given)on which the rest of your speculation and argument is based.I think you do have to discuss ( and expand on the the idea) you are proposing if it is to be taken seriously. How does your model fit or differ with physics, chemistry and biology, what can it explain or improve upon, how does it function to give the kinds of reality we experience (or can deduce exist independently of experience)?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 6, 2016 @ 00:10 GMT
Hi again Joe, please could you help me out a little and let me know if you are seriously proposing your belief system or whether it is an attempted parody of physics modelling of the universe (or some kinds of physics model). A science "spaghetti monster"?
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 6, 2016 @ 14:47 GMT
Georgina,
The one real observable Universe that consists only of infinite unified surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light is not a FINITE invisible “model” of reality. It is the only irreducible uncontestable FACT that can be pragmatically proven by direct observation. YOU will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed flattish varied colored infinite surface wherever you look with your infinite surface covered eyes. You will only ever touch infinite surface with your infinite surface sense organs. You will only taste infinite surface with your infinite taste organs. You will only smell infinite surface with the infinite surface of your nasal organs. You will only hear the clashing of infinite surface with the infinite surface of your real or fabricated infinite surface hearing organs.
Scientific journals have refused to send out my truthful infinite surface statement for peer revue. They will never allow it to be published. Like you, and Hawking, everybody only believes in invisible codswallop.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 6, 2016 @ 22:39 GMT
Hi Joe, thank you for taking the time to reply. I now understand that what you are describing is not a scientific model but your own (indisputable ) belief. The main reason it will not be published in a scientific journal is because it is not science. What peer review do you think is possible when you say your statements are indisputable truth? The time and thought I have spent on it (as one of your peers) is probably as good a review as it will get. What is and isn't "codswallop" is a matter of subjective opinion.S. Hawkins ideas are at least based on concepts and mathematics that can be, and are, disputed.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 7, 2016 @ 14:45 GMT
Georgina,
It is science that is wrong, I am right. All scientists squawk about the treatment Galileo received from the Catholic Church. But the Church bored a hole in the roof of a Basilica in order to track a sunbeam and prove that Galileo was right about the earth orbiting the sun. You know I am right about infinite surface. That must now become the science of visible reality and all of the quantum quackery must now be consigned to the science fiction of invisible implausibility. I converted you, it is now time for either the AIP CHAOS Journal to submit my essay NOW SEE HERE to two female scientists for Peer Review, or for the Journal of North Carolina Academy of Science to do so.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 7, 2016 @ 15:27 GMT
Georgina,
Professor of Microbiology Melanie Lee-Brown, who is the Managing Editor of the Journal of North Carolina Academy of Science accepted my educational essay, NOW SEE HERE. She cannot find any Peer reviewers for it. Ms Overstreet, the Peer Revue Manager of the AIP CHAOS Journal specifically requested that I submit my essay to the Journal and she consulted with Professor Jurgen Kurtha to find the proper Peer Reviewers. Ignoramus Kurtha rejected my essay without sending to out for the Peer Review the Peer Review Manager had advocated.
Joe Fisher, Realist.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 7, 2016 @ 17:50 GMT
I think I've learned a useful phrase today:
" ... invisible implausibility."
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 7, 2016 @ 18:25 GMT
Hello all,
Hello Tom hope you are better ,happy to see you on fqxi.Take care Jedi :)
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jun. 7, 2016 @ 18:26 GMT
Georgi,
don't bother giving anyone free rent in your head, God knows how many of those polite rejection form letters a publisher like AIP sends out every week. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 7, 2016 @ 20:30 GMT
Hi Joe,
I think it would be helpful for you to take a break from thinking about and promoting your ideas and then come back to them later with a refreshed frame of mind. You may see things differently. It appears to me that you are not currently able to rationally discuss them. Your false comments "You know I'm right " and I have converted you", and others, show some delusional thinking is going on, not helping your cause. I'm not saying any of that to insult you. Wishing you well, Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 8, 2016 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Georgina,
Observable unified infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light is not my idea. It is pragmatic reality that anyone can easily apprehend by using their senses. Hawking’s book, A brief History of Time is filled only with his ideas about invisible atoms moving in invisible space; and invisible black holes in invisible space, and an invisible expanding universe. Scientists are supposed to be ethical seekers of the truth. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but there was supposed to be another Essay Contest at this site concerning The Physics of the Observer that was mentioned in the Grant application rules. Why don’t you query Dr. Foster, the Projects manager as to why the Essay Contest has not been started.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 8, 2016 @ 22:44 GMT
Dear Joe,
I have already given you lots to think about in previous posts, but you have not logically addressed the arguments raised. In my last post I offered some advise that you are also ignoring. This will be my last response for a while as I think you need to take some time to sort out your thoughts.
My visual system is able to generate an internally appreciated appearance that has been formed with electromagnetic radiation information input; and the internally processing that links memory to the appearance allowing 'object' recognition. What is seen is not the external material reality. It is illuminated and so seeable because of the way the EM information is processed. Without EM radiation input to the visual system, (or without correct processing due to a fault in the system ), it is dark and the previously mentioned 'appearance'is not formed. If you are going to relate your infinite surface to vision then I will have to disagree with the statement that it is infinite ( as the output appearance only relates to the information received.) I will also disagree that it is always illuminated. Complete darkness can be difficult to achieve and the visual system is able to detect the response to a single photon. However there are places such as caves (with wall surfaces) where there is no light. I will not believe that the output of my visual system is the totality of what exist but it gives a useful representation of what is outside of me for navigating in the world. Surfaces alone can not fully account for the form and function of the structures of the material universe.If you wish to use vision as evidence for your statements then you have to allow for something ( such as particles and processes) that permits vision to occur.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 9, 2016 @ 15:19 GMT
Georgina,
Tellingly, the physicists at CERN have not, cannot, and will not ever be able to produce visible proof of the invisible theoretical Higgs Boson’s existence. The reason for this is that only unified observable infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light can ever exist. Air surface may have been removed from the interior of the cyclotron, infinite surface remained.
Your surface covered “visual system” often referred to as your eyes can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed flat looking varied colored SURFACE. You have not given me anything to think about. That is the beauty of my assertion that the real Universe consists only of unified visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, it does not require any thought. The repeated mentioning of the invisible phenomena you have skillfully memorized apparently from reading the works of theoretical physicists are very entertaining and I do thank you for bringing them to my attention.
With fond regards,
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
hide replies