CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
PHYSICAL MATHEMATICS - EXPLAINING THE PHYSICS OF TEN DIMENSIONS by basudeba mishra
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 15:31 GMT
Essay AbstractThe goal of physics is to analyze and understand natural phenomena of the universe - properties of matter, energy, their interaction, and consciousness/observer. Random occurrences are not encountered by chance wandering. There is a causal law putting restrictions on these. The validity of a physical statement rests with its correspondence to reality. The validity of a mathematical statement rests with its logical consistency. Mathematical laws of dynamics can be valid physical statements, as long as they correspond to reality. Dynamics is more than action of forces moment by moment or calculated over the particle’s entire path throughout time. The changeover from LHS to RHS in an equation is not automatic. The sign = or → is not an arithmetic total, but signifies special conditions like dynamical variables or transition states, etc. String theories require 26 or 11 dimensions. M-theory requires 10 dimensions. But scientists have no idea about what these mathematical dimensions are. The strings are said to be excitations in hyperspace in 26 or 11 dimensions of a particle with zero mass and two units of spin. The extra dimensions are thought to be compactified or curled up into tiny pockets inside observable space. The particular vibrations of the strings within a multidimensional hyperspace are thought to correspond to particles that form the basis of all matter and energy. No one knows whether such hyperspace or strings or compactified dimensions exist. Time has come to switch over to physical mathematics. We will show the 10 dimensions in observable space.
Author Bioseeker for truth.
Download Essay PDF File
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 02:26 GMT
Basudeba,
You have 9 pages of build-up followed by 6 points and 4 lines. All of which fit into 3 dimensions.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 03:35 GMT
Dear Sir,
The so-called build up was necessary to remove the misconceptions that has developed for over a Century. It is so deep grained that ALL scientists use extra dimensions without knowing what they are talking about. Hence it was necessary to prove the existing notions wrong.
We would have appreciated a critical comment from you.
Regards,
basudeba
Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 13:27 GMT
Basudeba,
I would have been delighted to give an objective comment. Unfortunately, your understanding of the word "dimension" is so far removed from mine that we are not even speaking the same language. You present 3 dimensions, not 10. The only thing that we agree upon is that time is not a dimension.
I will simply ask you two questions.
1. Does your model allow you to make any testable predictions?
2. Does your model allow you to make any useful calculations?
BTW, I have not scored your essay yet.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 14:05 GMT
Dear Sir,
You may differ from our views on Dimension, but as you have seen the built-up of 8 pages was only to refute all modern notions on dimension including yours. So at least you could have defended your notion of extra-dimensions. Had we not refuted your notion first, you would have simply refuted our views. But now we find that you do not want to be questioned on your views. Please defend your view on dimension that we have proved wrong before attacking our view.
Regarding your points whether does our model make testable predictions, we clarify that a model is an evidence-based representation of something that is either too difficult or impossible to display directly. Here the model itself is the evidence, which can be displayed. You can apply it directly to measure the dimension of any object and verify its authenticity. This also replies your other point.
Regards,
basudeba
Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 16:12 GMT
So, you make no testable predictions and you offer no supporting calculations.
You do not even abide by Euclid's geometry. Feel free to create your own private little universe with whatever rules and definitions that you wish, but don't expect anyone to join you.
Now I have scored your essay.
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 02:43 GMT
Dear Sir,
Testable predictions and supporting calculations are needed for the ignorant who studies models. We are describing reality that corresponds to reality. So all you have to do is find the resemblances from everyday world and see whether it conforms to our description or not. We have proved all modern notions including your notion of dimension wrong. Hence we expected you to counter it and justify your notion. We still hope you will do so.
We do not discuss non-physical concepts in physics papers. As we have posted in our comments in your thread, most people discuss imaginary concepts that are not valid mathematics as if they are real. Kindly comment on that.
And lastly, we do not follow blindly. That is superstition - not science. We apply our mind and judge everything independently on its merits. Otherwise what for we are called intelligent?
Regards,
basudeba
hide replies
Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 16:45 GMT
Dear Seeker for truth, basudeba,
I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 17:21 GMT
Respected Sir,
Kindly read the paper carefully before commenting. We have taken 8 pages to demolish the modern concept of dimension including your concept of "one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension". Dimension cannot be infinite. Hence kindly refute our reasoning and prove your statement before dismissing it outright.
We never anticipated better marks from you and you could have voted us zero. But kindly consider how long general public will be fooled by some fancy concepts like extra-dimensions? After all science is all about whatever exists in Nature and its mechanism.
Regards,
basudeba
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 22:32 GMT
basudeba,
If we challenge fundamental assumptions and propose unfamiliar replacements, however better, we are heretics and rejected a priori. That's the way we humans employ our brains: Rational analysis is too hard work when it conflicts with comfortable assumptions long and well embedded.
I found your essay well constructed, well argued, 'original' (apart from a few thousand...
view entire post
basudeba,
If we challenge fundamental assumptions and propose unfamiliar replacements, however better, we are heretics and rejected a priori. That's the way we humans employ our brains: Rational analysis is too hard work when it conflicts with comfortable assumptions long and well embedded.
I found your essay well constructed, well argued, 'original' (apart from a few thousand years!), adequately on topic and interesting. These are the valid criteria on which essays are judged. I also find the fundamental nature and truth of the 10 dimensions entirely correct and logical.
As you say, it's 'language' that's the problem. We need more words for the varying and non fundamental categories and concepts most are familiar with as 'dimensions'. Some things hide right before our eyes yet can't be distinguished. My own essay deals both with that and the problem in my para 1 above, identifying an important 2nd momentum in OAM which rationalises the failed logic in physics. There are none so blind. But I think and hope you at least will understand and appreciate it.
From your own I pick out some favourite lines;
"Equations do not explain the difference in the properties of water from its constituents. It is true in all reactions. Thus, equations do not give complete information.
Logic is the special proof necessary for knowing the unknown aspects of something generally known. Thus, the validity of a mathematical statement rests with its logical consistency.
Language is the transposition of some information/command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system.
Generalizing such partial information misleads. Thus, it cannot be the only language of Nature. There is physics beyond mathematics
There is no equation for the observer. Yet, the observer has an important role in physics.
If we re-envision classical and quantum observations as macroscopic overlap of quantum effects, we may solve most problems.
Our galaxy is a miniature universe, which is spinning around its axis like everything else in the universe. This will explain many observations, without invoking any novel phenomena.
In visual perception, where the medium is electromagnetic radiation, we need three mutually perpendicular dimensions corresponding to the electric field, the magnetic field and their direction of motion.
VECTOR SPACE This is not mathematics, but politics, where problems multiply by division. What does it physically mean?
By convention, depending upon the nature of the force, we designate the field as electric field, magnetic field etc. Why complicate it with unnecessary details which has no physical meaning"Finally I do offer some genuine physical meaning to those last two momenta, which it seems as you suggest, are inherently 'coupled'.
I'd like to discuss your view on inertial frames, my proposition of invalidity of Cartesian 'frame' systems, and fractals with respect to galaxies and universes, and the inherent Hindu assumption of eternal recycling, which you may have seen my published paper on.
Very well done. Be aware a rise up the local scale is imminent.
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 03:46 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for not only reading, but also carefully applying your mind to the paper. These two are rare commodities now. It is the age of big data and less analysis, with reductionism and sensationalization compounding the problem to mislead. As you have rightly pointed out, we are treated as a heretic and often rejected. The few remarks above show that. They did not...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for not only reading, but also carefully applying your mind to the paper. These two are rare commodities now. It is the age of big data and less analysis, with reductionism and sensationalization compounding the problem to mislead. As you have rightly pointed out, we are treated as a heretic and often rejected. The few remarks above show that. They did not notice that we had proved them wrong, nor did they see what we propose as an alternative. They are asking for testable predictions and calculations though we are not presenting any model, but correspondence to reality. We are not bothered by that. A big coterie is working here which vote for each other. We had written to FQXi repeatedly with proof. So we are not expecting high scores or awards. Our intention is to expose the racket that fictionalizes physics with weird concepts and justifies it using a cloak of incomprehensibility in the name of mathematics, though that itself violates the rules of mathematics.
Regarding your proposition, we point out two concepts of our ancients: 1) The universe called Jagat because everything in it is ever moving. 2) Everything in the universe is interconnected and interdependent (Madhu Braahmanam). Thus, there is no fixed frame except the galactic center and inertial frames are the reality. Cartesian coordinates (Dik) are arbitrary assumptions that extends infinitely. There is no rule to fix the origin. Hence, along with space, time, coordinates and consciousness are the only four infinities.
Regarding the inherent Hindu assumption of eternal recycling, we have not seen your papers as you have logged in here as Anonymous. Your signature Peter can be related to many. Hence kindly give more reference. Recycling in our concept is not as is understood in general – scraping and reusing the scrap to build new things. Our concept of recycling has other equivalent terms as pulsation (spanda) or evolution-devolution (unmesha-samkocha). This is related to causality. We believe in multiverses in the sense there are infinite universes unconnected from each other embedded in one basic frame. The totality has some amount of inherent instability, which starts a disturbance in the equipoise background. This breaks the equipoise and spreads out at a very fast rate due to inertia of motion. Since the background was at rest, it generated inertia of restoration (sthitisthaapaka) due to elasticity. This generated a bow-shock effect and brought the forward motion to rest cutting off a volume (anda). This boundary is called Naimishaaranya. The structure is the cosmic egg or Brahmaanda, which is the universe.
Once the outward motion becomes weak and comes to rest, the reconnection in the interior generates another force, which begins dragging everything towards the center, which obviously moves at a lesser speed. After reaching the center, it bounces back again at reduced speed. This process repeats which reduces the speed of light over the ages. This explains inflation. The repeated outward motion and back pits energy with the background repeatedly generating first various energies (Rishi vamsha) and then particles (Deva vamsha) to charged particles (Soorya-Soma Vamsha). This leads to creation. After certain stage, the whole process reverses – not recycles – to go back to the initial stage of equipoise. The process repeats again and again. To that extent you can call it recycling. However, we use the term recycling (samvatsara) to time evolution.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 15:48 GMT
basudeba
T'was I! (-logged out).
Thanks for your interesting response. There's one major difference with the astronomical accretion and Active Galactic Nucleus (observed) dynamics leading to quasar jets (and a pattern reproduced at large scale in the CMB.; It is that speed significantly INCREASES towards the centre. The more mass the faster it spins. Like a ballerina or ice skater who speeds up by pulling in her arms. The toroid spin and contraflow jets are what rips apart and re-ionizes the matter (all that is actual discovery not theory).
The paper analysing the cosequences is here;
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603 or
http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf or
www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_
WITH_BARS But I think even more important now is the exposure of a simple Classical QM derivation in my essay, addressing the topic directly but plus a whole lot more!
There's also a video;
Vimeo; Classic QMI agree with your 'cartel' suggestion. I got hit with three '1's! early on before people even had a chance to read it! I see you may have had some too. Your essay deserves far better and my score for it is going on now. I hope you'll read, comment and do the same for mine.
Very best of luck.
Peter (Jackson)
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thanks for the response. We will soon examine your comments here and also go through your essay.
Regards,
basudeba
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 10:25 GMT
Dear basudeba mishra ji,
Good essay on Physical Mathematics for the space of ten dimensions bringing in the old traditional Indian dimensions …
You have written nicely…
1. “Data is not synonymous with knowledge. Knowledge is the concepts stored in memory. By combining lots of data, we generate something big and different….”
2. “Already physics is struggling with misguided concepts like extra-dimensions, gravitons, strings, Axions, bare mass, bare charge, etc”
3. “What is the basic difference between quantum physics and classical physics? Notices of the American Mathematical Society Volume 52, Number 9 published a paper which shows that the theory of dynamical systems used to design trajectories of space flights and the theory of transition states in chemical reactions share the same set of mathematic”
4. “This makes space-time four-dimensional. It shows that we can specify time using a number. An object remain invariant under mutual transformation of the dimensions: like rotating length to breadth or height, even though the measured value of the new axes change. Time does not fulfill these criteria”
Have a look at my essay also…
Best wishes…………….
=snp. gupta
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 11:39 GMT
Dear Sir,
We were thinking of studying your essay, but could not make time as we were frequently going out. Today also we are going out. Next week we will comment on your essay.
There is a cartel here who vote for each other. In any case, since we are going against the main stream, we invite hostility. But we are not here to win any prizes. We want to stand against the mad rush to fictionalize physics. You might have noticed we took 8 pages to demolish the modern concepts. But no one is talking about that.
Let us hope for the best.
Regards,
basudeba
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 22:33 GMT
Dear basudeba mishra ji,
I could not get time to reply your post, I am sorry for the late . you are exactly correct. I fully accept and support your esteemed words……
“There is a cartel here who vote for each other. In any case, since we are going against the main stream, we invite hostility. But we are not here to win any prizes. We want to stand against the mad rush to fictionalize physics. You might have noticed we took 8 pages to demolish the modern concepts. But no one is talking about that……….” I fully agree with you.
Let us hope for the best.
Best Regards,
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 17:33 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
Very interesting, profound essay and important ideas on the way to the truth. I agree with you: «Dimension is an existential description.»
In basic science crisis of understanding, crisis of representation and interpretation. An ontological standard basification of knowledge is necessary to introduce with the empirical standard in fundamental physics.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 10:40 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much. There is a dire need to strongly resist fictionalization of physics. Hence our ideas are directed towards proving some of the modern concepts as wrong and explain it using physical mathematics instead of flowing with the tide of mathematical fiction in the name of physics.
We were out of station and returned today. We will go through your essay and comment soon.
Regards,
basudeba
Kigen William Ekeson wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 10:32 GMT
Dear Mishra,
Thank you for your interesting and well written essay. I have also thought that the fundamental assumptions behind the idea of extra "spatial" dimensions might be questionable. Unfortunately, I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician and so, can't really make specific comparisons. However, I appreciate the new perspective you have suggested. Perhaps you'll find time to read and comment on my own essay. Also, I would appreciate a reference source for the final 10 conditions/characteristics(?) that you list at the end of your work.
Good Luck,
Willam Ekeson
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 10:49 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thanks for your encouraging comments. There is a dire need to strongly resist fictionalization of physics. Hence our ideas are directed towards proving some of the modern concepts as wrong and explain it using physical mathematics instead of flowing with the tide of mathematical fiction in the name of physics.
The ideas contained in this post are not new, but thousands of years old. We had given the references in the bibliography. Prashastapaada of yore in his book COMPENDIUM OF PROPERTIES OF MATTER (PADAARTHA DHARMA SAMGRAHA)written in Sanskrit, had described these in Dik Prakarana based on an ancient treatise by Kanaada. These books might have been translated into English.
Regards,
basudeba
George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 07:41 GMT
Hi dear Basudeba,
I remember you from early contest as a like minded! Now I will study your essay and I hope my work also may deserve to your kindly attention. Then we can tell each other our impressions and opinions. I hope on your response
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 21:43 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thanks for your encouraging statements.
Regards,
basudeba
George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 07:25 GMT
Dear basudeba,
I have read your essay and I find there many interesting to me assertions and definitions that are significantly and these are acceptable for me also. I can say that you are inclined to realistic thinking, which I see mandatory in the natural science.
Meantime I must to recognize that some of your conclusions and assertions remained not fully understandable for me. It maybe, because I am not so well with some sections of math.
However, your study on the significance of physical units, it is close to me generally, as I have touched on this matter somewhat in mine work (that I hope you can read and evaluate). That is why I can say that your essay are significant and it deserves a support! I hope hearing you in my site.
My good wishes!
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 03:08 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thanks for the comment. If you indicate the points which were not clear, we will like to explain.
Right now, I am busy in some personal problems. After few days, I will visit, comment and rate your essay appropriately.
Regards,
basudeba
Rajiv K Singh wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Basudeb,
I see that your approach is vastly different from mine. Yet, I kept noticing that your expressions and statements made good sense at places. For example, how you argued against reductionism, and why mathematics does not tell us all about things that are knowable.
When you say, "Concepts are expressed in a language", did you mean a kind of language developed by humanity,...
view entire post
Dear Basudeb,
I see that your approach is vastly different from mine. Yet, I kept noticing that your expressions and statements made good sense at places. For example, how you argued against reductionism, and why mathematics does not tell us all about things that are knowable.
When you say, "Concepts are expressed in a language", did you mean a kind of language developed by humanity, or did you mean a certain kind of universal language? If it is the former then we have a trouble that even animals seem to have concepts of objects. But if it is the latter, then one has to worry about what kind of language could that be? So, the language remains undefined. In either case, the description of language should be such that is evolvable by natural processes. Even animals are known to have concept of small numbers. For example, an animal could select two objects under well defined experiments, or it can even have a sense of larger and smaller numbers. All of these are concepts. But look at the difficulty of visualizing or expressing the meaning of 'two' without any association with objects.
It is pleasure to see that you mention, "language of Nature'; and as I observe that you have commented well on my article, "The language of nature", I would have liked to see your comments on description and development of the universal language.
While reading, I did have sense that you do touch upon certain fundamental aspect of nature, but articulation did not convey it appropriately, or the example was not suitable. For example, it appeared to me that you are connecting fundamental forces of nature with the observable perceptions. Yes, interactions must be mediated by such forces, therefore, the forces do form the basis of sensing. But the senses such as sight, sound, taste, and touch could be highly derived (emergent) functions of fundamental interactions, which only ensure that organism has the right information to function in a given environment. Therefore, this could be unlimited. And why limit to human senses, all interactions are equivalent to observations.
Again, this point is well taken that if there exists a claim of dimensionality of certain state space, but no interaction takes place with such states yielding any observable consequence, then such a claim of dimensionality of space is void.
By the time I read the last page, I felt that you were basing your ideas on certain ancient scriptures that may not have the right relevance in the current context or version of science, therefore, they may not be applicable. The best way to show the applicability is to explain observed phenomena in a non violative terms and predict certain observables that discern your basis from others. I do not mean to downplay the importance of ancient work, they were extra ordinary work to take the human knowledge forward, but they cannot be the last word to understand the deeper aspects of natural phenomena. In fact, what we know of in modern science may also evolve the same way.
I restate, at several places I saw a sharp reasoning that must take the attention of the modern physicists to reconsider the established notions. But then the empirical verification is a way forward as you stated in the context of string theory. You have not mentioned much in your bio.
Rajiv
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 07:41 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thanks for your comments. In our paper, we have defined Language as the transposition of some information/command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system. Thus, language here is not that only developed by humanity, or but also it includes a certain kind of universal language. Regarding what kind of language it could be, there is plenty of literature (though few read it...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
Thanks for your comments. In our paper, we have defined Language as the transposition of some information/command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system. Thus, language here is not that only developed by humanity, or but also it includes a certain kind of universal language. Regarding what kind of language it could be, there is plenty of literature (though few read it and fewer understand it). Specifically Patanjali has written on this subject extensively. We could not elaborate here due to space constraint. We have used that in our paper on Information technology. We started writing a paper on the basic language that would have included not only human, but also languages of all animals and birds/fishes. However, we could not complete it. With everything else permitting, we have the intention of completing it one day. The basic area we are working on is the similarity of “content” of all languages and the 14 Maheshwari Sootras. A large number of extensions of this Sootra are possible. Panini used only 42 of these to write the whole of Sanskrit grammar. We intended to use the others.
Regarding “the difficulty of visualizing or expressing the meaning of 'two' without any association with objects”, you must remember that number is a quality of all objects, by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one (एकत्वं केवलान्वयीति). If there are similars, it is many, which can be 2,3,4,…n depending upon the sequential perception of “one”s. Since two is perceived effortlessly immediately after one, it is called two (द्वी – द्रुततरा संख्या). Since three also is recognized fairly quickly, it is called three (त्री – तीर्णतमा संख्या). These numbers can be perceived by children, animals and birds. Thereafter, the numbers become difficult to perceive. Hence the next number is called four (चत्वार - चलितसमा). And so on. We have written a book on Number theory. In case you want to get a free copy, you can do so by sending your postal address or email id.
You are right that “the senses such as sight, sound, taste, and touch could be highly derived (emergent) functions of fundamental interactions, which only ensure that organism has the right information to function in a given environment” and that “this could be unlimited. And why limit to human senses, all interactions are equivalent to observations”. But the forces that we experience are also unlimited. Just like we restrict these to few fundamental forces, similarly, senses could be restricted to five. For example, the basic principle of vision – be it human or any other living being – is same. But just like the same electricity appears differently by providing light, defused air (fan), atmospheric circulation (AC), coolant (fridge), etc. based on the nature of the instrument through which it is revealed, the same light appears to its receptor in the eye in visual perception infinitely differently. If you restrict a wide band of wave lengths to seven colors, why cannot we restrict the senses to five?
The book we referred to is known as पदार्थ धर्मसंग्रह. Thus, it is certainly a relevant book. Yes, it uses different terminology and classification. You might not have come across these books. Or you might have read some book, which, like most translations are a distorted version of the original work. We are in this field for the last 50 years, but shifted to writing only for the last 20 years at the instance of a Vice Chancellor in a University, who has guided more than 800 students to PhD in Physics. (We were associated with Educational Administration for sometime) Some other Physics Professors also encouraged us to go ahead. We find our ancient knowledge of science was far superior and are willing to face any question in this regard.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 08:27 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
I perused your explanations, and I offer the following remarks.
You say, "we have defined Language as the transposition of some information / command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system". So, I gather that for "transposition of information" to occur, a mind or a CPU is needed. But then mind already has a language to sense and express. No, I did not mean...
view entire post
Dear Basudeba,
I perused your explanations, and I offer the following remarks.
You say, "we have defined Language as the transposition of some information / command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system". So, I gather that for "transposition of information" to occur, a mind or a CPU is needed. But then mind already has a language to sense and express. No, I did not mean such languages which has an existence (dependence) over mind / CPU, I meant the one that can even express the function of mind without the help of any interpreter.
I meant a language that can express all meaning (semantics), all mathematics, and all objects, without having to base on mind. That is, such a language must be inherent to natural function of physical matter and their interaction.
You said, "you must remember that number is a quality of all objects, by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one (एकत्वं केवलान्वयीति). If there are similars, it is many, which can be 2,3,4,…n depending upon the sequential perception of 'one's." Even for understanding the abstraction of numbers you depended on already existing mechanism (order, means, ability) of perception. Could you describe how from most fundamental consideration of physical interactions alone such an abstraction of numbers may arise? In your expression, "we differentiate", you helplessly depended on the perception of a differentiator, our existence. Someone may ask, how may such a differentiating system come about?
I do understand that you perused my essay, but then, this is what I described -- what kind of language could that be, which originates from the natural causation in the physical interactions alone, which forms even the basis of mind. You should tear my logic, my understanding, my explanations in the essay apart, but with proper understanding.
You are right, my knowledge is limited to translations of truly tiny few of such scriptures. My knowledge of Sanskrit is limited. I cannot read the original with fluency as you could. I also want to say, what these ancient thinkers have produced, are derived largely from 'pure thinking', with only limited degree of empirical tools. Thinking as well as demanding self consistency, they did manage to arrive at certain truths which either stood for long, or could even stand for eternity. As you are aware only mathematical proofs could stand for eternity. Firstly, what we experience is that no matter how deeply or sharply we think about physical universe, the ultimate understanding could not be produced. In fact, one is not even sure if there exists an ultimate definitive reality. I mean, if at the most basic level of physical matter, there is uncertainty or randomness then no matter how much you think, you cannot remove the randomness to make everything predictable. Secondly, what has also been observed is that no matter how sound an idea may appear to begin with, but nature has always proved them wrong / incomplete. So, the basis of science developed on the notion of empirical verification -- if one scientist proposes something, others carry out the observation in different contexts to test if that stands. This has been the basis of success of science. Could you name one scientist, whose all ideas have been proven right. So no ones idea is taken at face value any more. Scientists have failed, but the science has become more and more robust with time. So much so, that religious thinkers also have begun to take pride in saying their ideas match with science -- that is, placing the proof of credibility on science. Yet, the scientific understanding goes on evolving. Thirdly, only way to test someones idea is by observation alone. That is why your criticism of String Theory stands well. But then, the same yardstick must apply to these ancient thinkers as well. Let me ask, what have these thinkers said about the precise laws of electrodynamics (Maxwell's laws), general theory of relativity, or the wave function nature of smallest of quantum reality of physical nature. How would you produce a technology of radio communication device from the ideas of the ancients? They could not have been so specific, since tools and technologies did not exist.
All I am saying is that knowledge has certainly progressed since ancient times. So, at best one may take those thinkers' ideas as guidelines, not as final and most explicit and specific truths, and hypothesize new ones to make predictable models which can be verified with measurements. Quantification is the key, and I am sure you understand it better. Most successful are those, who question themselves and their ideas in perpetuity, never taking anything for granted. Nature has offered surprises to all, the moment you think this is how things have to be, you would have to face the most unpleasant surprise.
It has never served any one well simply trusting that what some one else has said is an ultimate truth. For example, it is not even good to trust that General Theory of Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics are the last words on the reality of nature. Your statements of even 'fictionalization of physics', and 'people voting for each other' may have an element of truth. With time, things will get straightened. Efforts must continue without being too judgmental.
If you happened to refer to any external source, I might peruse depending on my own limitations.
Rajiv
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 03:17 GMT
Dear Sir,
There is no contradiction between our views. When we talk about mind, we mean a mechanical function as has been mentioned in our ancient texts. We frequently compare mind with RAM and brain with HDD. Mind supports sensory instruments and reports to intelligence, like RAM supports applications (task). RAM has volatile memory and hangs from time to time if overloaded. Similarly mind...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
There is no contradiction between our views. When we talk about mind, we mean a mechanical function as has been mentioned in our ancient texts. We frequently compare mind with RAM and brain with HDD. Mind supports sensory instruments and reports to intelligence, like RAM supports applications (task). RAM has volatile memory and hangs from time to time if overloaded. Similarly mind goes to sleep if overworked. Intelligence is like CPU, which does the processing of all sensory inputs. Just like CPU cannot execute a program that is “not on the disc” and has not been loaded in the RAM, intelligence cannot act without mind. If memory speed is less than FSB, it takes too long to fetch an instruction or an operand. Similarly, mind shows dullness or brightness based on its species specific speed. Just like the CPU and RAM differ in processing capabilities (arithmetic dexterity) and storage capacity respectively even after the computer breaks down; different species show different levels of behavior. These are input, memory, processing and output related and not perception related (as “I know” or happiness, pain, desire etc.). Vital energy that starts breathing, which continues perpetually is like the power supply (electricity provided by a battery). The first breath is like the BIOS Chip, which boosts the computer and searches and loads the OS to RAM from ROM that cannot be modified, which is equivalent to memory content of the new born (such as to cry to draw attention of others when it is uncomfortable or to suckle the nipple when it is brought near its mouth when hungry and many such first time behavior, which has not been experienced by it since birth). First breathing is like first boosting of the computer. Like Consciousness, OS is same for all computers, but BIOS varies from computer to computer. Similarly, consciousness in all living beings exhibits itself through DNA coding, which is species specific. It is a program semi permanently stored into one of the main chips. The OS creates virtual memory in HDD by creating a page-file when the system runs out of RAM. Similarly, we recollect more recollections correlated with greater connectivity among different regions of brain. Sometimes “over-clocking” boosts up OS speed. Similarly, suddenly we have bright ideas.
More RAM directly increases the amount of applications run simultaneously, faster loading time, faster boot up, and overall greater boost through all aspects. Greater brain size and surface area (creases) does the same for living beings. The better the CPU, more information can be processed at a time. Similarly, better intelligence can take faster decisions. The better the HDD, the faster the information can be passed on to the processor. The bigger the HDD, more information can be stored. The bigger the brain surface area, the faster and better operations could be performed. The CPU processes information in computers using logic gates. Intelligence does the same thing through sensory agencies. CPU directs RAM to do what is important. RAM can provide inputs, but cannot directly take decisions. Intelligence takes decisions based on inputs provided by mind only. When switched off, RAM becomes empty. CMOS battery keeps the CMOS alive the chip even when the computer is turned off. Similarly, intelligence remains active even in deep sleep. This way, macroscopic phenomena are connected to the brain’s known neural activity. But when someone says “macroscopic quantum phenomena”, we are at a loss. If it is macroscopic, it cannot be quantum. If both are the same, both these terms are superfluous.
There are differences between brain’s software and computer software. A computer can simultaneously test for more than one condition or execute multiple commands. But the brain cannot do so. They follow sequence of logical efforts first and knowledge of such efforts later. Computers run on standard/special programs, which are soft, i.e., flexible to be instantly reprogrammed. These are put to the hardware to become operational. Similarly, the body matter including the bacteria, neurons, DNA, microtubules, etc., are hardwires that operationalize the life’s software. But who writes the program? Only conscious beings can initiate action based on freewill. It is different from motion, which is a mechanical reaction. Thus, we have to admit a super consciousness outside all mechanical devices including robots. Here we are with you.
However, since human mind is like a computer, it cannot write its own program. And for writing a program, we need a language. For any language, there is a need for a concept (भाव) of some deficiency and its rectification (भवतु इति चित्तवृत्ति). If we have the knowledge (ज्ञानम्) of the mechanism for rectifying the deficiency, we have a desire to undertake such operation (ज्ञान जन्य भवेदिच्छा इच्छा जन्य कृति भवेत्). This desire could be of two types. When it has a form “I should have this” (ममेदं भवत्विति), it is internal thought, which draws from similar information stored in the brain to act as the inertia of mind (भावना संस्कार). When it is directed at others (तस्येदं भवत्विति), it needs a language that must as you say “express the function of mind without the help of any interpreter” and “that can express all meaning (semantics), all mathematics, and all objects, without having to base on mind - a language inherent to natural function of physical matter and their interaction”.
You are right that even for understanding the abstraction of numbers we depend on already existing mechanism (order, means, ability) of perception. Kanaada has listed 17 fundamental (स्वाभाविक) qualities (गुण) and 7 emergent (नैसर्गिक) qualities. By quality, we mean analysis (मन्त्रणे) by which we come to a conclusion about real nature of anything. For example, when you are looking at the pen you are holding, do you see the same thing that you are holding? No. Because what you “see” is the reflected radiation that comes out of the object (and not the object proper) in your hand, which interacts with your eyes and gets measured. But what you are holding is the object proper which emits radiation and not the radiation. Both ways, it is incomplete information (अनवर्णे इमे भूमिः). Then how do you “know” that it is the same object? Because both these partial inputs are “mixed” in your brain to give you a composite picture through proper analysis.
How do we analyze? We cognize objects or concepts only when they are in transition (रजसा उद्घाटितम्). We could perceive only when energy exchange takes place leading to transfer from one state to another. Without such transition, nothing ever will be perceptible. In fact this is the explanation for the state before creation. Thus, existence itself dependent on such transition. But cognition through all such transitions have a universal form as “I know (जानाम्यहं)”, though the objects of cognition differ infinitely. That universal consciousness, when confined in a limited body (जीव) appears differently just like the water of the ocean and the same water inside a pitcher appear different and show different characteristics. We have discussed about it in detail in our previous papers. Thus, there exists a differentiator.
We beg to differ from you regarding “what these ancient thinkers have produced, are derived largely from 'pure thinking', with only limited degree of empirical tools”. They practiced “observe (द्रष्टव्य), learn from others (श्रोतव्य), analyze independently (मन्तव्य) and then put to practice (निदिध्यासितव्य). Our research methodology as described by Gautama is much more exacting and tasking than modern methodology. Unfortunately, most of our ancient texts were burnt by Moguls and distorted by the British. Now people have forgotten about those and you will not find anyone talking in this language. ALL translations and commentaries of our scriptures are wrong. We interpret these from originals based on the traditional method transmitted to us from our forefathers. But our ancient science was far superior to modern science. Here we give just one example.
One of the emergent qualities listed by Kanaada is mass (गुरुत्व). Elementary physics text books say that weight is a product of mass and g and that a stone weighing 1 kg on Earth will weigh about 250 grams on Moon. But how do we “know”? Has anyone actually measured? If yes, which balance and which weight did they use? If they used the same balance and weight measure as on Earth by taking it to the Moon, will g affect only the stone and not the balance or the weight measure? If not why not? If yes, then the effect will cancel each other and the stone will weigh the same as on Earth. If they use another balance and weight measure, then we must apply a conversion factor not only to the stone, but also to the weight measure, leading to the same result. Thus, multiplying mass by g is superfluous. Yet, Kanaada says it is an emerging property because it is regulated not by g, but by another variety of gravitational effect (आवह), which makes objects “fall”. This “fall” through any medium changes its impact. For example, the same stone held under water, will appear light. If we take the same stone to a hill top, it will appear heavier not because of g, but because the lesser density of air affects us more than it affects the stone, which falls at a faster pace. You may say it is the same as g and nothing new. Hence we will give another example.
Let us take the example of fluidity (द्रवत्व). Why does it behave differently from solids even though both have mass? It flows laterally over any base. You will say it is not as tightly held (तरलावयव) as solids (निविडावयव). But then it is different from gas which is also not held tightly (विरलावयव). Then why does not the fluid evaporate like gas? If it is an intermediate stage between solids and gases, what made it like that? Kanaada says: it is another variety of gravitational effect (प्रवह), which is the generally understood gravity. Gravity is considered by our ancients as an inter-body force (उद्याम), whereas the strong (अन्तर्याम), weak (beta decay only - वहिर्याम) and electromagnetic (उपयाम) interactions are intra-body forces – they arise from within the body. They divide the weak force into two different categories, which is now being called the fifth fundamental force of Nature (यातयाम). (Recently a 6.8σ anomaly has been reported in the opening angle and invariant mass distributions of e+e− pairs produced in 8Be nuclear transitions. The data are explained by a 17 MeV vector gauge boson X that is produced in the decay of an excited state to the ground state, 8Be∗→8Be X, and then decays through X→e+e−. The X boson mediates a fifth force with a characteristic range of 12 fm and has millicharged couplings to up and down quarks and electrons, and a proton coupling that is suppressed relative to neutrons. The protophobic X boson may also alleviate the current 3.6σ discrepancy between the predicted and measured values of the muon’s anomalous magnetic DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.071803.).
Our ancients held that gravity is a composite of seven different forces with one single and 3 pairs (साकञ्जना सप्तथमाहुरेकजं षडिज्जमा). These have different functions. The generally understood gravity is not an attractive force, but a stabilizing force that stabilizes orbits of bodies at the maximum possible distance (उरुगाय प्रतिष्ठा) from their common barycenter. Obviously, this is related to their respective masses. Since distance is measured from the respective centers of masses (हृदयम्), the bodies are treated as point particles. The other varieties of gravity can explain the Pioneer Anomaly (अनुवह), the sudden deflection of Voyager 2 beyond the orbit of Saturn (संवह), and the fly-by anomaly etc. Interestingly, these could describe many other properties of substances including inertia and sound.
All you are pointing out is limitedness of human beings. This is true. That is why we call schools – विद्यालय and not knowledge centers - ज्ञानालय. विद्या is related to its complement ignorance – अविद्या. Then it is different for different persons. Hence you cannot put any universal limit on it. Nature neither proves anyone right or wrong. It is the degree of knowledge that is exposed.
We are sure you are aware of the many limitations of Maxwell's laws. Prashastapaada, whom we have referred, had discussed relativity – specifically the equivalence principle in his book. Russell used it as his paradox in set theory. Even string theory got its name and concept from वायुर्वै गौतमः तत् सूत्रम्. We have books dealing with technical subjects dealt with in ancient times, which have been acknowledged as valid scientific books by the world scientific community. Thus, it is not correct to say that “tools and technologies did not exist).
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 07:09 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
I can see that you are extremely passionate about your views, and you make good efforts to put forward supportive arguments. I can also see that your main intention here is to bring your views to light, which you feel to be right, than just winning the competition. Having said that let me place the counter rationality, and again, I must confess, my arguments are limited to my...
view entire post
Dear Basudeba,
I can see that you are extremely passionate about your views, and you make good efforts to put forward supportive arguments. I can also see that your main intention here is to bring your views to light, which you feel to be right, than just winning the competition. Having said that let me place the counter rationality, and again, I must confess, my arguments are limited to my knowledge of science or observable nature.
First, I have no idea why you drew parallel between a computer and the brain. To my understanding, there is no comparison what so ever, and your arguments about the mind-brain relation is stronger without it. There is no software in the brain, brain processing is entirely by its hardware organization. The brain function is such that it continuously modifies itself, computer programs cannot do that.
I can see that, you, like ancients, take consciousness for granted, as fundamental entity in the universe. No problems, as long as you explain every phenomena correctly and objectively. Objective consideration comes from the fact that others also must observe the things the same way. Others will have to be forced by your arguments and proof of concept with observation. In a statement like this, "For any language, there is a need for a concept (भाव) of some deficiency and its rectification (भवतु इति चित्तवृत्ति). If we have the knowledge (ज्ञानम्) of the mechanism for rectifying the deficiency, we have a desire to undertake such operation (ज्ञान जन्य भवेदिच्छा इच्छा जन्य कृति भवेत्)", I observe several concepts, and feelings are introduced as granted existence, e.g. 'need' or 'deficiency', and 'desire'. Do they naturally originate from consciousness, or do they have independent existence? I cannot argue on every such point, but one has to be watchful, whether we introduce anything without having brought out its genesis first. I appreciate very much that you also quote the Sanskrit version from the scriptures, so that I can at least figure out whether your remarks are true to the scriptures.
From these quotes, (भवतु इति चित्तवृत्ति), or, (ज्ञान जन्य भवेदिच्छा इच्छा जन्य कृति भवेत्), I observe that knowledge of the seers is expressed as qualitative facts, as 'what' of things, not why or how it connects to measurable physical things. I read the second quote as, "Knowledge gives rise to desire for things, and desire causes the action to achieve the same." Now, how is knowledge, desire, and action related to the measurable physical world, such that I make an observation and verify the facts. That is why I called them qualitative, not quantitative. I can certainly feel it, but in this essay context, or in our discussion that is what we are trying to establish, how the feelings originate. And why the same logic of ancients do not apply to non-living things? Several living things also do not have (चित्तवृत्ति), why? Then, you will need to propose new laws about why only certain kinds of living things can have (चित्तवृत्ति). And then the question would arise, why there is a multitude of feelings, and their types; one cannot create a fundamental law for each type, and we do not know what kinds of feelings animals have. So, while these scriptures do fantastic job of making us understand our mental phenomena, so that we understand ourselves at mental level, but they do not connect to the natural phenomena of the universe.
In between, I find several right statements, but they must be connected in one stream of observable logic. For example, "when you are looking at a pen you are holding, do you see the same thing that you are holding?". I agree, a mental representation of something is not the thing itself, it is only a model of the thing, that is useful in deriving conclusions. "We cognize objects or concepts only when they are in transition (रजसा उद्घाटितम्). We could perceive only when energy exchange takes place leading to transfer from one state to another. Without such transition, nothing ever will be perceptible." Yes true, then why should not we construct the model (knowledge) also based on these perceptions?
Yes, you must differ with me on, "what these ancient thinkers have produced, are derived largely from 'pure thinking', with only limited degree of empirical tools". As you said, "They practiced “observe (द्रष्टव्य), learn from others (श्रोतव्य), analyze independently (मन्तव्य) and then put to practice (निदिध्यासितव्य)." Yes, they were as scientific as they could be, but did they have 'electron microscope, a telescope, advance chemical / biological technologies' to perform experiments and test their theories. That is what I meant when I said, 'with limited tools'.
You mentioned about remarkable ancient knowledge of gravity. What must I do with this knowledge to determine, how many seconds will a massive object take to fall to the ground if I drop it from a height of 4 meters? How, do I compute the exact height of the tides that will occur at 12 noon, say at Calcutta, from the position of the sun, moon? How do I make a measurement on the cellular structure of cells of a plant or animal to determine if they belong to a particular phylum. This is why I said, a qualitative knowledge is different from quantitative knowledge. There is a book I read a long time ago called "Surya Siddhanta", there I found methods to compute the position of planets and sun, moon. It was a remarkable quantitative achievement, even though predicted positions mary vary by a deg of arc or so from measurement, where as today's measurements given better than a microsecond of arc of accuracy. But then, like in the west, scientific inquiry stopped in India too, before 1000 AD, but the second wave of resurgence of quantitative observation did not happen in India. When I read your statements, I feel, you have far more knowledge of many natural phenomena than the ancients you quote. For example, could Kanada have made this statement, "The data are explained by a 17 MeV vector gauge boson X that is produced in the decay of an excited state to the ground state, 8Be∗→8Be X, and then decays through X→e+e−."
Dear Basudeba, let me repeat, I do not question the knowledge of the ancients, but they are limited like most of our knowledge of modern physics. They apply in certain domain, but not in all domains. Animals also appear to be conscious, but do these rules apply to them, and what if we happened to find very advanced life on another planet, would they be bound by these rules? In the realm of consciousness, any idea is good enough at the moment. There is one very strong positive aspect of your argument is that ancients took it as one fundamental element of nature as is space or matter. So, you have a base. Unfortunately, I am proposing a method, how consciousness may originate in any system that has certain complex physical organization.
Sometimes, I have a self doubt, if I should be judging your views from the perspective of modern science. But then I take solace in the fact that you are as scientific in your approach as any one of others. You also put forward your arguments with humility and patience. My request would be to keep adjusting your views till you find a ground that is empirically demonstrable. You may peruse my essay with the intention to find anomalies, faults, and to discover statements that are not logically derived or derivable, and shred my arguments on scientific basis. If you find it easy to do that, my essay is worthless, if you find difficulty in doing that, it is strong.
Rajiv
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 08:50 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
In my last comment, I forgot to mention one very important point, so I thought, I would just complete that. These ancient thinkers are often referred to as seers, and not for a wrong reason. By their meditative qualities, and thinking about many aspects of relevant issues, it was possible that they could rule out many ideas to arrive at certain general working principles. So, often times, one may find that their propositions and hypotheses form a very robust platform to build complete pictures of natural order.
For example, as you mentioned, even (रजसा उद्घाटितम्) tells clearly that unless objects interact, you cannot know about them. And the object is not only physical objects, but even mental representations. Unless the objects make a change externally, or within the mental representations, they cannot be known. One may always think of in terms of very general applicability of their statements, then one might get the central idea. Similarly, let me quote you, "For any language, there is a need for a concept (भाव) of some deficiency and its rectification (भवतु इति चित्तवृत्ति)". You formed one translation, let me form another -- senses are the expressions, and sense of a need is the expression of desires. It does not say how the most fundamental 'sense' arises, but it shows how the desires are expressed. I may be wrong, but this way of translating makes good sense to me, because, once the expressions of high level abstract semantic values are created, along with actions to make a difference, evolution may hard wire the processes of maximizing certain abstract senses that form the goals and desires. I cannot directly translate, I translated your translation.
The writings of the ancients are to be taken as guidelines to form basis for new research. That is how I feel.
Rajiv
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Donald G Palmer wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 15:58 GMT
Dear Basudeb,
You have some interesting thoughts, a number of which I agree with, including that theories include concepts invoking (human) language and mathematical equations cannot, by themselves, be the theory. I also agree that 'time' cannot be a physical dimension.
There are a few places where I am not clear on your use of terms. In general you seem to use mathematical terms as physicists tend to, rather than mathematicians. In so doing, I am not sure you have entirely separated mathematical concepts from your physical ones, as you appear to conflate a mathematical continuum with a physical one. A mathematical continuum (e.g a dimension) can be infinitely divided and is not a sequence of points, since any point does not have an identifiable 'next' point (since there are always an infinity of points between any two).
This one difference means the universe (and any dimension of it) would need to be infinitely divideable to match the mathematical concept and should indicate that mathematics and physical reality are not likely to ever match exactly.
I agree that we need to take a different path and perspective in order to understand reality - and that the same objects can look very different from different perspectives.
Let me suggest a different direction: Do physical objects extend spatially in scale? Are physical objects only comprised of the smallest particles or do they have an existence at multiple scales? If they exist at multiple scales, isn't this an extension mutually perpendicular to our standard three dimensions? If they only exist at the smallest particles, how do we explain our visual and tactile senses that portray objects primarily at 'our' scale?
Best to you and your essay,
Don
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 21:34 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for the appreciation.
The paper had two parts: pleading for switch over to Physical Mathematics from Mathematical Physics and as an example demolish the myth of extra-dimensions. Incidentally, you can view the paper from the perspective of Clifford Algebra also.
You have raised some very important points and we would like to give a detailed reply. Since we are on the move for a week, we will give a detailed reply extending your arguments next week. We will also go through your essay and comment then.
Regards,
basudeba
peter cameron wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 20:28 GMT
Basudeba,
in previous post you mention viewing your work from perspective of Clifford algebra. Are you familiar with
the work of David Hestenes on the geometric interpretation? It gives a powerful intuitive perspective on concepts of space and dimension, and is unique in its capacity to work in any dimension (unlike for instance the vector algebra of Gibbs).
My coauthor Michaele Suisse has posted an
essay that seeks to lay a quantum mechanical foundation for mathematical approaches to emergence of sentience. Would be delightful if we could find connection between our work and yours via your Clifford perspective.
Best regards,
Peter
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 22:17 GMT
Basudeba,
Thinking of Time as a 4th dimension is useful mathematically, but I think it has also led to numerous bizarre concepts that completely miss the mark. We need to free ourselves from the accepted ideas and supplement it with others, risking ridicule of followers of orthodoxy.
Do you consider the 4th dimension of the ancients as "duration" rather then time, considering you said "time" is not a dimension but linked to space? What about the dimensions we don't see. We overcome EM limitations and see beyond the visual, but what about other dimensions. How do the dimensions of the ancients relate to the 10 dimensions of observable space, the tenth being infinite possibilities? Symbolic of infinity?
In my essay I speculate about discovering dark matter in a dynamic galactic network of complex actions and interactions of normal matter with the various forces -- gravitational, EM, weak and strong interacting with orbits around SMBH. I propose that researchers wiggle free of labs and lab assumptions and static models.
Hope you get a chance to comment on my essay.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 12:24 GMT
Dear Sir,
(In my essay) What is a dimension? If you define it precisely and apply to time, you will know the difference. Duration is nothing but a measure of time or time itself, because duration is the interval between events and that is the definition of time.
How do you say that the “10th dimension of observable space, the tenth being infinite possibilities? Symbolic of infinity”? Before that you have to prove that there is a tenth dimension different from what we have defined.
We will go through your essay soon.
Thanks and regards,
basudeba
James Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 16:16 GMT
Basudeba,
Thank you for your kind words and for reading my essay.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 05:05 GMT
Many thanks dear basudeba, for your kindly words (in my page) and mostly, for your meaningful remarks on the relation of reality, math and physics. I can add only one remark - many of us have thinking that the God had special intention - to hid from us the secrets of his creation. I am thinking (and I see that you also!) that the problem of cognition are linked with us, but not with the Creator!
I wish you all the best!
report post as inappropriate
Janko Kokosar wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 19:51 GMT
Dear Basudeba Mishra
You write in your essay something what I disagree,but it is pedagogical example for difference between physics and mathematics.
Mishra: Can luminous intensity be a dimension? No, because dimension is a fixed quality that depicts invariant extent in a given direction, but intensity is neither invariant nor has a direction.
Kokosar: It is not true, because mathematically, we can draw still another dimension, and so we obtain also the direction of the vector. But physically, we do not see this direction. But, the goal of physics is to become math. I wrote many times about this, also on FQXi.
You wrote also something similar, as I wrote in my old essay.
You wrote:
In visual perception, where the medium is electromagnetic radiation, we need three mutually perpendicular dimensions corresponding to the electric field, the magnetic field and their direction of motion
This is similar to my sentence:
The author’s own explanation is that three dimensions of a photon are a cause or a consequence of three dimensions of space. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1418
More in
my essay and in other my links. Thanks for commenting my essay.
Best regards, Janko Kokošar
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 22:21 GMT
Dear basudeba mishra ji,
Thank you for your nice complements and blessings and thank you for your post on my essay. I am aslo working against Mainstream....
…… Your words……….…………………….You are right that the “resultant UGF vector force is varying according to ever varying dynamic movements and positions of all the masses in the Universe from time to time”....
view entire post
Dear basudeba mishra ji,
Thank you for your nice complements and blessings and thank you for your post on my essay. I am aslo working against Mainstream....
…… Your words……….…………………….You are right that the “resultant UGF vector force is varying according to ever varying dynamic movements and positions of all the masses in the Universe from time to time”. It is not a two-body problem. The Model has to be singularity free and body-body collision-free n-body problem solution based on UGF acting on each and every body with some mass in the Universe. …………..Reply……………….
Correct
……………
Your words……….……………………. The nature of gravity is not attraction, but stabilization of bodies in the maximum permissible distance around their common barycenter determined based on their respective masses. Time has to move in one direction i.e. into future only. ………… Reply……………..
The nature of gravity is NOT ONLY attraction, but stabilization of bodies also. You can see Rotating Universe at this link:
https://resonance.is/the-rotating-universe/
…………
….Your words………………..The big bang, as it is presented, is now a discredited and discarded model. As you have pointed out, “The Galaxy GN-z11, born only 400 million years after the Big Bang, exists at a distance of 32 billion light years”. This is impossible to explain in the big-bang theory – particularly after adding inflation. But big bang, if explained properly, could explain everything. In that model, there is no place for inflation, but a gradual reduction of the speed of light over the years. If we consider that, the age of the universe could be different. You have tried to explain it in a different way based on your model. …………..Reply……………….
Yes Mishraji, Bigbang model had many problems, it will have singularities.
In Dynamic Universe Model, speed of light wont change with time. Gravitation attarction also constant and there is no Gravitational repulsion
…………… Your words……….……………………. It is true that the distance changing has no effect on overall shape of the Universe. Thus, galaxies can be at any distance. You have given one explanation for it in your Dynamic Equilibrium of UGF in this model. …………..Reply……………….
Yes Mishraji, Galaxies can exist at any place and at any time in the Universe.
…………… Your words……….…………………….
Your conclusion: “Here probably the ‘a-biological world’ learned from the Universe and subsequently the physical systems learnt to pursue the goal of reproduction and formed the “Biological world”. Slowly these biological life forms acquired intelligence and now trying to understand Universe!” is interesting and has the scope to develop it further.
We enjoyed your essay thoroughly. …………..Reply……………….
Thank you for good words and blessings. Hope you will do some further work on this model….
Best regards,
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 13:38 GMT
basudeba,
Thanks for your comments on my essay. You didn't respond as you intended above (23 Feb). I understand we're near the deadline but hope you may do so later anyway. Your score in the 3's is way too low I think, but you'll be pleased to hear I hadn't scored it yet so a boost is coming now. (I you hadn't done mine I hope you will).
Best of luck in the run in.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.