CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Dynamics of Einstein Separability. by Thomas Howard Ray
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 20:21 GMT
Essay AbstractAre cognizance and consciousness innate to our brain-minds, or the effect of a negative environmental feedback loop? We argue the latter case.
Author BioIndependent researcher, complex systems.
Download Essay PDF File
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 04:54 GMT
This was an interesting read Tom..
The neutrino experiment you propose is interesting. It was not hard to justify giving you a moderately high rating, to help offset the 1 bomb you received early on. I Have not found any essays worthy of less that a 4, and I have only given ratings of 5 or higher so far. But I guess some folks figure that only an on-target essay should be given a decent grade - or something like that.
I wish you luck. Your essay is well written and deserves some positive attention.
All the Best.
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 15:58 GMT
Jonathan,
Thanks for the "gentleman's 'C'".
I would much rather preferred that you understood the implications of the experiment.
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 20:12 GMT
I expect to revisit it..
I try to plow through a large number of essays early on, before becoming more selective and thorough. Some are too dense to get through in a single run, because they cram in a lot of content or use heavy Maths elaborately. Lawrence Crowell tends to write using a lot of acronyms, along with tricky Math, which may impress a few people while losing many others.
Your paper was clearly written, but perhaps I missed something profound behind the apparent simplicity of it. It seems like you are looking for a specific quantum gravity signature, and that it might also be difficult to precisely compensate for background neutrino flux. Would a colder fluid like liquid Helium provide greater isolation from thermal effects, being closer to absolute zero?
I visited with CardioMag developer Karl Rosner last year, and they have a device that measures the heart's dynamic magnetic field with femto-Tesla sensitivity. But as you might imagine; it was a real problem to deal with the fact that magnetism is ubiquitous. How does one measure a deviation so small, in a magnetically noisy environment?
It looks like you are proposing to use something just below a critical threshold, and a collimated beams of neutrinos. I don't know how one might direct a neutrino-beam with precision. It might be tough to overcome the engineering challenges to conduct the experiment. I like the idea, but it still seems a bit incomplete.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 01:02 GMT
I'll leave the materials science to the experimentalists.
The experimental result, however, has implications for, among other things,
quantum computing without the need for entanglement.
All based on a simple harmonic oscillation.
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 15:51 GMT
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7552.pdf
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 03:23 GMT
I'm delighted to see the Steven is the author you have cited here..
For whatever reason, I am still not grasping your intended meaning. I'll look at Steven's paper when I can, and continue to attempt to wrap my head around what you have said, but I have a lot of reading on my to-do list. I will also take the time to find your e-mail (on a machine I seldom use) and send Steven's recent papers, plus make an invitation to the group thread. Current circulation includes Steven, Ed Klingman, Stan Robertson, Andy Beckwith, and myself.
My own research is coming together in a really powerful way, right now. I missed the implications of an important innovation in theoretical Physics a few years back, even though it got on the cover of Scientific American and I am a subscriber. "Black Hole at the Beginning of Time" is a little misleading, though, compared to what the theory actually says. Pourhasan, Afshordi, and Mann were the authors of the Sci Am article and a paper.
Anyhow; my presentation at GR21 was about Mandelbrot Gravity Theory and it turns out MGT exactly reproduces some aspects of the DGP gravity framework, including the 5-d black hole --> white hole as the origin of the space we currently inhabit. It falls out of the theory that inflation in an octonionic embedding space results in a 5-d maximum volume, then G2 symmetries kick in via the rolling-ball analogy. This relation is reproduced in M at (-0.75, 0i).
This delivers us into a quaternionic bubble within the octonionic embedding space.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 14:34 GMT
I appreciate the time you are taking to explain further..
I figure that if some things don't jump out after reading a paper top to bottom, it is the presentation which is lacking. I try to evaluate the premise on its own merits, or by its own basis, but of course that hinges on understanding what the author is talking about. I guess I am saying I thought you would impress me more with your clarity, given how deeply you have thought this through. Your rationale seems very precise, from your comments, but I can't glean all of that from reading your paper alone.
I only gave Carlo Rovelli 8 out of 10 points, and I have not given out any 9s or 10s yet, but neither have I given out a 1, 2, or 3 rating. Someone would need to be crystal clear with a bang on idea, in order to get a perfect score from me. But a score of 1-3 seems ludicrous, even with the most inane ideas and least articulate writing I've seen here. So it would seem that some of the participants are not using the rating system to indicate the relative measure of quality, but instead are using the rating as a variable by which they can hammer down ideas they don't agree with. I am sorry you have been the victim of this.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 15:03 GMT
Honestly, Jonathan, I don't give a damn about the ratings. I harbor no illusions that my essay will win a prize with the deck stacked from the beginning, in favor of the prevailing mystical POV held by FQXi as a whole.
I value your input for the potential insights it brings, and for our stark contrast in views and approaches. You are an honest broker of truth, and I value that.
My broader research program can be found at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313512566_A_Neutrin
o_Experiment_To_Test_Quantum_Gravity
hide replies
Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 14:23 GMT
Hi Tom,
Happy to see you again on FQXI and your papper,I asked me but where is Tom? :)
Relevant general reading ,thanks for sharing and good luck in this contest.
Best
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 16:00 GMT
Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 15:47 GMT
Dear Thomas Howard Ray,
Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.
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.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 15:56 GMT
Joe,
What is simpler than a simple harmonic oscillation?
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 16:59 GMT
Thomas,
Without a doubt, it am the indisputable fact that 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.
Invisible “harmonic oscillation” am not simple.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 18:17 GMT
Why do you think a harmonic oscillation is invisible?
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:55 GMT
Because only infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light am visible. An harmonic oscillation cannot be isolated so that any eye could see it. Phenomena that cannot be seen by an eye are considered to be invisible in the world of the realist.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 18:12 GMT
Why do you think a harmonic oscillation cannot be isolated so that any eye can see it?
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:33 GMT
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.
According to url: http://prxint.com/prx-oscillators.html There are many kinds of invisible oscillators. There am only one kind of unified visible surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 01:57 GMT
Didn't answer the question, Joe. Isn't "seeing" a physical interaction?
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 16:49 GMT
Without a doubt Thomas, seeing is believing.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 19:16 GMT
Then you agree that an oscillation is real. Good.
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 16:21 GMT
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.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Complex finite invisible oscillations could never exist in a singular simple infinite system. I know you are a doubting Thomas, but please do not distort my words.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 02:29 GMT
Why do you think complex finite invisible oscillations could never exist in a singular simple infinite system?
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 16:34 GMT
Because I know that 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. Only stubborn doubters waste their time trying to be thoughtful.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 20:02 GMT
You know? So you don't think it's necessary to science to know how that you know?
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 15:15 GMT
Correct. I do not “think” I am correct, I know that 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. You apparently think that both you and “science” has the capability for “thinking” unrealistically about invisible matters.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 17:17 GMT
Thoughtless "knowing" is called religion, Joe. Should we just abandon science for religion? What makes your non-thinking more realistic than rational science?
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 15:06 GMT
Religion is called religion in the world of reality I happen to reside in. My knowing is knowing, it is not my “non-thinking.” As I have carefully explained in my essay: Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and he 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. All of the theoretical physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible real Universe because they have arrogantly described what they thought instead of believing what they actually saw.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 16:37 GMT
No getting through to you, Joe. You've wasted enough time talking about "your reality" in my essay forum, and never once mentioning my essay. Goodbye.
hide replies
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 06:43 GMT
Dear Ray,
Nice essay sir,
Your ideas and observations are excellent. Firstly … ‘We intend to show that unified spacetime does not imply a mutually exclusive internal or external consciousness, and Einstein separability 2 is physically real’…..
2. The Bohm-Hiley nonlocal interpretation preserves the classical notion that particles do possess a position and momentum...
view entire post
Dear Ray,
Nice essay sir,
Your ideas and observations are excellent. Firstly … ‘We intend to show that unified spacetime does not imply a mutually exclusive internal or external consciousness, and Einstein separability 2 is physically real’…..
2. The Bohm-Hiley nonlocal interpretation preserves the classical notion that particles do possess a position and momentum independent of the observer, albeit with nonlocal mathematics….
3. Einstein introduced the idea of non-rigid transformations, limiting the domain preserving Lorentz transformation to those regions of spacetime where time plays a minimal role, i.e., where space is Euclidean, which is almost everywhere—those regions of the old and the cold.
4. You proposed a nice experiment, lets hope someone will do that.
………………………… At this point I would like to mention that, In Dynamic Universe Model also this concept is same. But Dynamic Universe Model doesn’t use Relativity concepts. So the associated problems of SR and GR like singularities and Bigbang etc are not present. By considering the other 60 percent of Galaxies in the Universe including Blue shifted Galaxies and Quasars, the model doesn’t restrict itself to only expanding Universe model.
For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 14:35 GMT
Tom,
Nice essay ... I'm glad to see someone propose an experiment.
FYI, Dr. Klingman also proposes a consciousness field, although his experimental basis differs from yours.
I have a few questions for you beginning near the bottom of page 2 of your essay. You present a schematic of two self-interacting fields. Should not the observer O be either 2+ or 2- to maintain neutrality? Assuming that the observer is the same for both fields, does this imply that the observer O is himself an alternating electro-magnetic field? Does the requirement that there be a pair of complimentary self-interacting fields account for the universe/self dichotomy? I might have made one of the triangles upside down to emphasize that the observer is changing.
Lastly, do you argue that if the cosmic background were warmer, there would be no gravity and no self-awareness?
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 15:46 GMT
Thank you, Gary, for a most thoughtful and insightful post.
I'll look forward to reading Gene's essay. We agree on many things in principle (consciousness field among them).
" ... near the bottom of page 2 of your essay. You present a schematic of two self-interacting fields. Should not the observer O be either 2+ or 2- to maintain neutrality?"
It doesn't matter, physically,...
view entire post
Thank you, Gary, for a most thoughtful and insightful post.
I'll look forward to reading Gene's essay. We agree on many things in principle (consciousness field among them).
" ... near the bottom of page 2 of your essay. You present a schematic of two self-interacting fields. Should not the observer O be either 2+ or 2- to maintain neutrality?"
It doesn't matter, physically, what number is assigned to a non-physical case. It does not affect local measure.
"Assuming that the observer is the same for both fields, does this imply that the observer O is himself an alternating electro-magnetic field?"
Yes! That's a good way to put it. The unsigned observer doesn't exist. The male-female ( + or - ), each valued 1/2, add the value +/- 4 to the
interactive fields. In other words, the field becomes physical in an asymmetrical way -- here's how I explained it in the larger context of my work I referenced earlier:
The introduction of one unpaired sign completes the circuit and forces action on the interacting left and right fields. It also tells us that there is such a thing as an unpaired sign—whether we say male and female observers, positive and negative charge, left and right orientation.
The principle of least action is the principle of least separation, and least separation compels action in one direction at a time, and not simultaneously.
If that physical separation were more than zero, there would be resistance to motion—inertia. What we actually observe is that universe is largely inertia free. (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1371)
Zeno asked, is motion possible? Mach and Einstein answered that all motion is relative. There is zero separation between the relative and the possible—which begs a topological model. What we mean is that Einstein was essentially correct in his concept of a unified field theory, describing spaces in relative motion: " ... the infinitesimal displacement field ... replaces the inertial system inasmuch as it makes it possible to compare vectors at infinitesimally close points." (Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Fifth Edition, 1956, appendix II, p.142.)
"Does the requirement that there be a pair of complimentary self-interacting fields account for the universe/self dichotomy? I might have made one of the triangles upside down to emphasize that the observer is changing."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
"Lastly, do you argue that if the cosmic background were warmer, there would be no gravity and no self-awareness?"
Did gravity and self-awareness exist in the earlier, warmer, universe? :-)
I have read your essay, and in due course will comment, hopefully with a comparable level of seriousness with which you have honored me.
All best,
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 15:48 GMT
Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 14:35 GMT
Tom,
Your speculation regarding gravity, consciousness, and the temperature of the background radiation is interesting ...
I don't know about awareness, but I could believe that gravity did not exist until the universe cooled enough for there to be matter. So the first moment of cosmological inflation could have been gravity-free.
Regarding consciousness, your idea implies to me that the neutrino field is the mediator of consciousness and it requires there be a single, lowest-energy wave function for the observer ....
That is profound. These are new ideas for me. Thanks.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 00:28 GMT
Tom,
Could a Bose-Einstein Condensate be sentient or could it measurably interact with the consciousness field?
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 16:21 GMT
Gary,
That's an interesting question. Let's talk about the question from this angle: Would you agree that "sentience" is equal to "harmony'?
hide replies
James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 23:44 GMT
Thomas,
Your essay is an interesting journey.
Reading your essay, I feel like I've entered an interactive phantom world in which I'm bathed in neutrino radiation -- which I know we all are. I know that the quantum world does a number on us to the tune of some 7*1027 atoms. I never thought of the quantum (gravity) world being interactive with consciousness but you almost poetically declare neutrinos at the speed of light showed us a classical world. Like that.
It's mind boggling.
If you want to assemble yourself, I like to hear your comments on my essay.
Regards,
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 05:40 GMT
Thomas,
Time grows short, so I am reviewing those I've read to see if I have rated them. Yours I did on 3/20. Bad accounting and short memory.
Hope you enjoyed the interchange of ideas as much as I did.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 14:00 GMT
Hi Tom,
Nice Essay and a bit provocative. Your neutrino experiment to test quantum gravity is interesting, despite thinking about the Neutrino field as the fundamental field is a bit speculative. In any case, your Essay enjoyed me, so, I will give you the highest score. Thanks for your comments in my Essay page, I wish you good luck in the Contest.
Cheers, Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 12:46 GMT
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 05:19 GMT
Hi Tom,
I understand your essay a little better than the first time because I've read the comments here.
It's not clear to me that the neutrino beam, which is uncharged, will disrupt superconductivity, which is an electromagnetic phenomena. Or perhaps you're saying that if the neutrino is absorbed in a nucleus that then radiates the secondary radiation will disturb the superconductivity. You could be right, I don't know. It's always good to propose experiments.
By the way, my gravity-based model of the neutrino is Majorana, that is, a neutrino is its own antiparticle. Does this agree with your model or not? Attempts are ongoing to determine this aspect, but so far the question is unanswered.
I liked your Kevin Brown quote re 'free particles'.
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay, and thanks for continuing to play this game.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 17:55 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Certainly, it agrees with Majorana, insofar as "self-interacting" is identical to "self-reinforcing", as a neutrino particle, converted to soliton wave, has become.
The LASER-generated neutrino beam should generate sufficient heat, I think.
Kevin Brown is the best. I haven't read all his
mathpage essays, and I bought the book, just in case of zombie apocalypse. :-)
Best,
Tom
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 22:22 GMT
Oooh, and a zombie just took a bite of my score. Hide your brains.
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 14:37 GMT
Reference to advantages of Majorana particles: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7173872_Distinguish
ing_between_Dirac_and_Majorana_Neutrinos_with_Two-Particle_I
nterferometry
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 00:22 GMT
Hello Thomas - we meet again hoping you are well.
I read your paper, and you appear to endorse an Einsteinian view of physics with some variations that I could not quite follow on a preliminary reading. In general I have been trying to propose a physics without some key Einsteinian concepts like the importance of the observer, spacetime and the point photon localized in space (hence duality). I have outlined this
my fqxi essayI noticed you relate neutrinos to solitons - again I did not understand the exact scenario. However I was interested because in section 3.4 (Fig. 40) of my
Beautiful Universe Model I speculate that due to a fundamental topological property of vectors on a sphere, each atom will have a a non-diffracting anomalous tube or vortex extending in space - can that be the neutrino-soliton? I value your opinion on this and on my essay.
Best Wishes,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 16:10 GMT
Hi Vladimir,
I'm doing better, thanks.
I agree with Einstein
in toto. To eliminate observer entanglement eliminates spacetime--and to eliminate spacetime eliminates the possibility of locality.
A soliton is a self-reinforcing wave that overcomes the resistance of dispersion in a medium. That requires time. Sure, ol' man river might keep rolling along, without ever telling us his secrets ... as you acknowledge, Einstein's quest was to know the thoughts of "the Old One ... the rest are details", including the origin of ol' man river.
Now, while solitons are solutions to non-linear equations, they are dependent on conditions, and so cannot be fundamental. I suggest that the conditions under which neutrinos can decay into solitons include time dilation, released in a heat bath up to a threshold of decoherence.
In other words, The Old One is speaking continuously, on a very specific frequency and in a compressed (time dilated) message. One doesn't have to be a believer to get it.
Best,
Tom
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 00:26 GMT
Oops sorry that was my comment above
Vladimr
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 00:20 GMT
Hi Tom
Glad you are doing better - so am I (chemo).
My idea about neutrinos being solitons obviously needs fleshing out. But why is time-dependence needed if the soliton just moves, like a particle from A to B in various states of an absolute universe? From your remarks on my fqxi essay page I take it you - very understandably - wish to stick to the tried and true Einsteinian spacetime universe. Who can blame you given my sketchy if not flighty suggestions for a rudimentary alternative? (muttered as I exit: ...and yet it is absolute :)
Best, Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 14:30 GMT
Awww, I didn't know you were taking chemo treatments, Vladimir. Wishing you better health!
Will reply later.
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 20:18 GMT
Vladimir:
I suspect that few if any among us have examined our biases and hidden assumptions as thoroughly as we can, or ought to.
Fear, or conviction, stops us at some point, and we rest our arguments. That's the limit of anyone's competence.
As you suggest, relativity has physical, testable consequences. One realizes, as an observer, that what one observes is necessarily distant from its source, or else “The physical world is ‘cock-a-doodle-do’” as Einstein put it. We assume that the distance has a limit, a point at which the world becomes objective, because we say that’s what “objective” means.
Maybe, however, the world is too close to be objective.
Be well,
Tom
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 23:25 GMT
Dear Ray
Thank you for your commisseration- so far so good!
I have read your defence of Einstein and fear it is lost on me I have capacity only for understanding one world-system at a time!
The distinction you make between a distant information source and local experience, each emitted or absorbed at different rates is too foreign to my mindset and the model I have adopted. In that model everything is connected through the 'clockwork' of the lattice. Motion at A is transmitted node to node to B, whether B is sentient, living, or neither. Another way of thinking of it is to expand the reference frame to include all of the Universe and within that frame everything is absolute and classical. It is only when an observer is introduced, by no means necessary for example when two black hokes interact that relativistic effects kick in ... for that observer only!
Do not mind me - best wishes in your work. Be well.
Vladimir
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 18:35 GMT
Defending my defense of Einstein, attached.
attachments:
6_april_2017.pdf
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear Sirs!
Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».
New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.
Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.