If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Contests Home
Previous Contests
What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners
Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Previous Contests
What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners
Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
go diherbal: on 11/6/17 at 4:12am UTC, wrote Wonderful goods from you, man. I've take into account your stuff previous...
Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/7/17 at 8:01am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...
Peter Bauch: on 4/6/17 at 18:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thanks for taking an interest in my essay. You are, like...
Vladimir Tamari: on 4/5/17 at 21:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter I enjoyed your essay starting as it did with Eddington's attack...
James Hoover: on 3/28/17 at 1:48am UTC, wrote Thanks, Peter. In this day and age, your interests -- and mine, physics and...
James Hoover: on 3/27/17 at 22:49pm UTC, wrote Thanks, Peter. I gave yours a high rating two days ago. I hope you liked...
Peter Bauch: on 3/27/17 at 17:54pm UTC, wrote Hi James, Thanks for your comments. I agree with your remark that the...
James Hoover: on 3/25/17 at 17:55pm UTC, wrote Peter, Thinking of Time as a 4th dimension is useful mathematically, but I...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Georgina Woodward: "It's difficult for the acrobats to see each other. I want a 3rd party..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...
Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...
Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...
andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...
Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...
Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...
Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...
Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
go diherbal: on 11/6/17 at 4:12am UTC, wrote Wonderful goods from you, man. I've take into account your stuff previous...
Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/7/17 at 8:01am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...
Peter Bauch: on 4/6/17 at 18:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thanks for taking an interest in my essay. You are, like...
Vladimir Tamari: on 4/5/17 at 21:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter I enjoyed your essay starting as it did with Eddington's attack...
James Hoover: on 3/28/17 at 1:48am UTC, wrote Thanks, Peter. In this day and age, your interests -- and mine, physics and...
James Hoover: on 3/27/17 at 22:49pm UTC, wrote Thanks, Peter. I gave yours a high rating two days ago. I hope you liked...
Peter Bauch: on 3/27/17 at 17:54pm UTC, wrote Hi James, Thanks for your comments. I agree with your remark that the...
James Hoover: on 3/25/17 at 17:55pm UTC, wrote Peter, Thinking of Time as a 4th dimension is useful mathematically, but I...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Georgina Woodward: "It's difficult for the acrobats to see each other. I want a 3rd party..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...
Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...
Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...
andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...
Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...
Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...
Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...
Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
FQXi FORUM
August 24, 2019
CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC: A goal-oriented system approach to gravitation by Peter Bauch [refresh]
TOPIC: A goal-oriented system approach to gravitation by Peter Bauch [refresh]
Essay Abstract
How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of goal-free mathematical evolution? We focus on this question with a model of a goal-oriented system approach to gravitation as opposed to general relativity's progressive goal-satisfaction. This is done by showing how space and time exist on their own in order to determine the origin of gravitation, while leaving general relativity's four-dimensional spacetime interpretation intact.
Author Bio
I studied mathematics and physics at the University of British Columbia and developed an interest in physics and cosmology.
Download Essay PDF File
How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of goal-free mathematical evolution? We focus on this question with a model of a goal-oriented system approach to gravitation as opposed to general relativity's progressive goal-satisfaction. This is done by showing how space and time exist on their own in order to determine the origin of gravitation, while leaving general relativity's four-dimensional spacetime interpretation intact.
Author Bio
I studied mathematics and physics at the University of British Columbia and developed an interest in physics and cosmology.
Download Essay PDF File
Dear Peter Bauch
I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.
How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.
1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.
2) They...
view entire post
I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.
How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.
1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.
2) They...
view entire post
Hector
Sounds interesting. I will check it out.
Peter
Sounds interesting. I will check it out.
Peter
Dear Peter Bauch,
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
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
Joe
Thanks for stopping by. Simple is good. I'll read your essay and comment.
Peter
Thanks for stopping by. Simple is good. I'll read your essay and comment.
Peter
Nice essay Bauch,
Your new study about “Space-time” is good.
But this approach gives rise to Blackhole singularity as well as Bigbang singularity etc.
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...
view entire post
Your new study about “Space-time” is good.
But this approach gives rise to Blackhole singularity as well as Bigbang singularity etc.
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...
view entire post
Dear SNP. Gupta
Thanks for reading and your comments. Actually my model has no singularity in a black hole. There is nothing inside the event horizon. The mass is in a shell outside the horizon.
You have an admirable passion for what you are doing and I think you have a good idea with a many-body solution using Newtonian physics – something you can't do with general relativity. It could be important as we reach out into space to calculate the positions of a multitude of bodies for practical purposes. General relativity has its place though as a theory about how gravitation works and I don't believe it will ever be supplanted.
I see that you have some disdain for general relativity (“outdated”) and I think that if you want to be taken seriously (no laughing behind the back as you put it) don't tread on Einstein – it's a red flag. I say that because I would like to see you succeed with your potentially valuable many-body approach which doesn't need to consider general relativity anyways.
Cheers,
Peter
Thanks for reading and your comments. Actually my model has no singularity in a black hole. There is nothing inside the event horizon. The mass is in a shell outside the horizon.
You have an admirable passion for what you are doing and I think you have a good idea with a many-body solution using Newtonian physics – something you can't do with general relativity. It could be important as we reach out into space to calculate the positions of a multitude of bodies for practical purposes. General relativity has its place though as a theory about how gravitation works and I don't believe it will ever be supplanted.
I see that you have some disdain for general relativity (“outdated”) and I think that if you want to be taken seriously (no laughing behind the back as you put it) don't tread on Einstein – it's a red flag. I say that because I would like to see you succeed with your potentially valuable many-body approach which doesn't need to consider general relativity anyways.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter,
Very nice essay. I like the model too, though as an astronomer there are some things that would bear closer examination. i.e. Have you yet looked closely at Active Galactic Nuclei and quasar dynamics? and What conclusions would your model suggest regarding the effect of what we designate; 'dark matter'?
I see you have a derisory score but feel, though short and not really on topic, that it's still worth far more.
As a mathematician I'd be interested in what you make of the derivation in the latter part of my essay. I similarly debunk the nonsense of QM, retaining all the findings and Bells theorem but producing the 'predictions' entirely classically.
Well done and thanks for a nice non obscure read, and also nice diagrams,
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Very nice essay. I like the model too, though as an astronomer there are some things that would bear closer examination. i.e. Have you yet looked closely at Active Galactic Nuclei and quasar dynamics? and What conclusions would your model suggest regarding the effect of what we designate; 'dark matter'?
I see you have a derisory score but feel, though short and not really on topic, that it's still worth far more.
As a mathematician I'd be interested in what you make of the derivation in the latter part of my essay. I similarly debunk the nonsense of QM, retaining all the findings and Bells theorem but producing the 'predictions' entirely classically.
Well done and thanks for a nice non obscure read, and also nice diagrams,
Best
Peter
Peter,
This is a nice essay. I favor the notion that time is not a dimension and your rationale is plausible I think. The visual aides are clear and effective.
I have a question for you. You make a comparison between the deflection predicted by Einstein vs that predicted by Newton and the ratio between the two values is 2:1. I understand that the spin of a photon is 1 compared to the spin of a fermion as 1/2. The ratio between these spin values is also 2:1. Is this a coincidence or is spin the link between GR and QM?
BTW, if you believe that space-time is an artificial construct, then you might be interested in my essay. I believe that time is simply a scalar value.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
This is a nice essay. I favor the notion that time is not a dimension and your rationale is plausible I think. The visual aides are clear and effective.
I have a question for you. You make a comparison between the deflection predicted by Einstein vs that predicted by Newton and the ratio between the two values is 2:1. I understand that the spin of a photon is 1 compared to the spin of a fermion as 1/2. The ratio between these spin values is also 2:1. Is this a coincidence or is spin the link between GR and QM?
BTW, if you believe that space-time is an artificial construct, then you might be interested in my essay. I believe that time is simply a scalar value.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
Dear Peter Bauch,
Your new study about “Space-time” is good.
I believe in that space-time is an artificial construct.
You tried to visualize the space time and gravitational interaction by the hypothetical particle such as graviton and dark matter particles. I don't mind that.
I suggest that you should your approach on the Lagrange points in a system of gravitating two bodies.
And also you would read my essay "A SPACE-TIME AS A PERFECT FLUID SINK FLOW" at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2826
if you write your email address on your post, we would discuss more about General and Special Theory of Relativity.
Best Regards,
Ch.Bayarsaikhan
report post as inappropriate
Your new study about “Space-time” is good.
I believe in that space-time is an artificial construct.
You tried to visualize the space time and gravitational interaction by the hypothetical particle such as graviton and dark matter particles. I don't mind that.
I suggest that you should your approach on the Lagrange points in a system of gravitating two bodies.
And also you would read my essay "A SPACE-TIME AS A PERFECT FLUID SINK FLOW" at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2826
if you write your email address on your post, we would discuss more about General and Special Theory of Relativity.
Best Regards,
Ch.Bayarsaikhan
Dear Peter,
Nice to hear from you. To answer your questions:
Have you looked closely at Active Galactic Nuclei and quasar dynamics?
I assume you are talking about black hole jets and accretion discs and so forth. The black hole I came up with is basic. The main point is that inside the event horizon there is no space. The matter that is normally thought to collapse into a singularity has instead been forced into a dense shell around the event horizon by the growing “bubble of nothing” that expanded from the inside. A spinning shell would be like a flywheel and at the poles, where the rotation slows, jet outflows from accretion discs are possible.
What conclusions would your model suggest regarding the effect of what we designate dark matter?
The gravitons I came up with are also dark matter particles, although they contain no matter. Instead they impart curvature to space and so act like matter in causing gravitation. They position themselves between particles – they never interact with particles. If you were trying to detect one it would elude whatever method of detection you had, not to mention that it is essentially composed of nothing in the first place. Dark matter is thought to exist in a halo extending well beyond a galaxy. If you consider that galaxies were much closer together in the early universe, two neighboring galaxies would have had a number of gravitons between them in addition to inside them. As they drifted apart the gravitons between them followed one or the other galaxy in a halo.
I read your well illustrated essay and found it interesting that you would use a classical spin because I do the same thing with the spin-2 graviton which returns to its original state after a rotation of 180 degrees. I get how you bring a 1/2 spin particle back to its original state after a 720 degree rotation – that's good. I think the major roadblock to the acceptance of such an interpretation is that particles are thought of as points by the mainstream, where spin can only be described in terms of the abstract mathematics of linear algebra. However, particles such as an electron may have internal structure which could permit a classical spin but that is yet to be discovered. Gerald Gabrielse, a physicist at Harvard, thinks the electron may have an internal structure.
Regards,
Peter
Nice to hear from you. To answer your questions:
Have you looked closely at Active Galactic Nuclei and quasar dynamics?
I assume you are talking about black hole jets and accretion discs and so forth. The black hole I came up with is basic. The main point is that inside the event horizon there is no space. The matter that is normally thought to collapse into a singularity has instead been forced into a dense shell around the event horizon by the growing “bubble of nothing” that expanded from the inside. A spinning shell would be like a flywheel and at the poles, where the rotation slows, jet outflows from accretion discs are possible.
What conclusions would your model suggest regarding the effect of what we designate dark matter?
The gravitons I came up with are also dark matter particles, although they contain no matter. Instead they impart curvature to space and so act like matter in causing gravitation. They position themselves between particles – they never interact with particles. If you were trying to detect one it would elude whatever method of detection you had, not to mention that it is essentially composed of nothing in the first place. Dark matter is thought to exist in a halo extending well beyond a galaxy. If you consider that galaxies were much closer together in the early universe, two neighboring galaxies would have had a number of gravitons between them in addition to inside them. As they drifted apart the gravitons between them followed one or the other galaxy in a halo.
I read your well illustrated essay and found it interesting that you would use a classical spin because I do the same thing with the spin-2 graviton which returns to its original state after a rotation of 180 degrees. I get how you bring a 1/2 spin particle back to its original state after a 720 degree rotation – that's good. I think the major roadblock to the acceptance of such an interpretation is that particles are thought of as points by the mainstream, where spin can only be described in terms of the abstract mathematics of linear algebra. However, particles such as an electron may have internal structure which could permit a classical spin but that is yet to be discovered. Gerald Gabrielse, a physicist at Harvard, thinks the electron may have an internal structure.
Regards,
Peter
Peter,
I agree fermions are probably more complex than a spherical shell, I keep getting pointed towards tori, with only 'handing' of view dictating whether we find an electron or positron (see Majorana..)
The interesting thing is they do couple with light (absorption/re-emission) but have a refractive index on 1. i.e. they leave no EM 'signature' (except kinetic when in motion, which we do find) so are 'dark'. They also have the right mass for dark matter, populate the outer halos of galaxies, and indeed form the surface fine structure of ALL matter! I've never seen anyone argument against them or even consideration of them!
The 'discrete field' model I developed suddenly seemed able to produce and resolve a whole tranche, indeed just about every anomaly is astrophysics! I got a paper published, though the top mainstream journals ran a mile as it was 'new physics'! Perhaps you could have a look and see if you can find any inconsistencies; HJ; A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars
I see I haven't rated your essay yet so will do. Hold on for take off. Mine's been hit with 11 '1's so far so so I hope you'll think it's work a good one too. Do revert on my string with comments including on the above paper.
Very best.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
I agree fermions are probably more complex than a spherical shell, I keep getting pointed towards tori, with only 'handing' of view dictating whether we find an electron or positron (see Majorana..)
The interesting thing is they do couple with light (absorption/re-emission) but have a refractive index on 1. i.e. they leave no EM 'signature' (except kinetic when in motion, which we do find) so are 'dark'. They also have the right mass for dark matter, populate the outer halos of galaxies, and indeed form the surface fine structure of ALL matter! I've never seen anyone argument against them or even consideration of them!
The 'discrete field' model I developed suddenly seemed able to produce and resolve a whole tranche, indeed just about every anomaly is astrophysics! I got a paper published, though the top mainstream journals ran a mile as it was 'new physics'! Perhaps you could have a look and see if you can find any inconsistencies; HJ; A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars
I see I haven't rated your essay yet so will do. Hold on for take off. Mine's been hit with 11 '1's so far so so I hope you'll think it's work a good one too. Do revert on my string with comments including on the above paper.
Very best.
Peter
Dear Gary,
Thanks for your favorable comments.
I'm not sure if there would be a solid connection between the ratios you pointed out – interesting point though.
It's been a long time since I studied math and although I still understand the concepts I learned I've lost my technical ability so much of what you've presented in your paper is unfamiliar. However, I get the basic idea of what you are doing. Your centerpiece is 6pi^5 and I like the way you have tried to establish meaning to the coefficient 6 and the order 5 in the way you have. You've gone beyond a numerical derivation to find the mass ratio between the electron and the proton and tried to establish some physical explanation for those numbers. Kudos for that. As Richard Feynman said in QED, “you would be surprised how many numbers you can make out of pi's and e's and so on.” I read that Lenz's paper was only one sentence long so obviously he didn't come up with any significance beyond that mysterious “coincidence.”
Good luck,
Peter
Thanks for your favorable comments.
I'm not sure if there would be a solid connection between the ratios you pointed out – interesting point though.
It's been a long time since I studied math and although I still understand the concepts I learned I've lost my technical ability so much of what you've presented in your paper is unfamiliar. However, I get the basic idea of what you are doing. Your centerpiece is 6pi^5 and I like the way you have tried to establish meaning to the coefficient 6 and the order 5 in the way you have. You've gone beyond a numerical derivation to find the mass ratio between the electron and the proton and tried to establish some physical explanation for those numbers. Kudos for that. As Richard Feynman said in QED, “you would be surprised how many numbers you can make out of pi's and e's and so on.” I read that Lenz's paper was only one sentence long so obviously he didn't come up with any significance beyond that mysterious “coincidence.”
Good luck,
Peter
Dear Bayarsaikhan Choisuren,
Thank you for taking the time to look at my work. It's good to hear from someone who has an an advanced understanding of physics. Although my bio says I studied math and physics I didn't make it as far as differential geometry, although I have a grounding in the basic concepts. Thanks for the invitation to discuss issues but I'm afraid I wouldn't have much to say since you're light years ahead of me in a technical sense.
I went through your essay and you have some excellent diagrams and I learned a bit about Lagrangians. It's good to see you have some ideas regarding cosmology. For instance you posit a cyclical universe which I like, although I favor a big crunch as opposed to a big rip. In one of your posts you said that “free space should not be empty, it might be filled with an invisible perfect fluid with a critical flow velocity equal to the light speed.” Personally I think this is correct.
Best Wishes,
Peter
Thank you for taking the time to look at my work. It's good to hear from someone who has an an advanced understanding of physics. Although my bio says I studied math and physics I didn't make it as far as differential geometry, although I have a grounding in the basic concepts. Thanks for the invitation to discuss issues but I'm afraid I wouldn't have much to say since you're light years ahead of me in a technical sense.
I went through your essay and you have some excellent diagrams and I learned a bit about Lagrangians. It's good to see you have some ideas regarding cosmology. For instance you posit a cyclical universe which I like, although I favor a big crunch as opposed to a big rip. In one of your posts you said that “free space should not be empty, it might be filled with an invisible perfect fluid with a critical flow velocity equal to the light speed.” Personally I think this is correct.
Best Wishes,
Peter
Dear Peter Bauch,
Thank you for your reply, it is nice to me to read your essay.
I appreciate your attempts for gravitation.
I think that you have a much things to do in your future.
And also I am a theoretical physicist so I am interested in your idea for GR and SR and Cosmology.
I would like to have a discuss on this subject if you send me a massage by my email address that is written in my essay in the contest
Thank you again,
Ch,Bayarsaikhan
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your reply, it is nice to me to read your essay.
I appreciate your attempts for gravitation.
I think that you have a much things to do in your future.
And also I am a theoretical physicist so I am interested in your idea for GR and SR and Cosmology.
I would like to have a discuss on this subject if you send me a massage by my email address that is written in my essay in the contest
Thank you again,
Ch,Bayarsaikhan
Dear Peter Bauch,
The speed of light in vacuum is constant relative to ‘Space’ itself, instead of relative to a material object. Therefore, the speed of electromagnetic wave is not only a speed but also a fundamental property of nature, which is able to be a key property to generate gravitational and inertial forces.
Thank you again,
With Best Regards
Ch.Bayarsaikhan
report post as inappropriate
The speed of light in vacuum is constant relative to ‘Space’ itself, instead of relative to a material object. Therefore, the speed of electromagnetic wave is not only a speed but also a fundamental property of nature, which is able to be a key property to generate gravitational and inertial forces.
Thank you again,
With Best Regards
Ch.Bayarsaikhan
Dear Peter Bauch,
The second term in Eq.6 in my essay is to corresponds to the Fly-by anomaly. Just remember Anderson’s empirical relation.
With Best Regards,
Ch.Bayarsaikhan
report post as inappropriate
The second term in Eq.6 in my essay is to corresponds to the Fly-by anomaly. Just remember Anderson’s empirical relation.
With Best Regards,
Ch.Bayarsaikhan
Dear Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren,
Thanks for that.
Regards,
Peter
Thanks for that.
Regards,
Peter
Hi Peter,
Your essay grabbed me. And what you point out is heretical to current physics with a vengeance! And there are a few that agree with you...including me.
I would say that gravitons exist in a cartesian 3d space. However, gradients of gravitons act like a prism. Light bends when it passes thru gradients of gravitons. This creates the illusion that mass curves space-time. This illusion is workable (like the sun rising), but it causes us to miss dark matter and dark energy!
I define the graviton in a slightly different way than you do. You can check it out in the paper:
http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/118
8/1163
High Marks,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Your essay grabbed me. And what you point out is heretical to current physics with a vengeance! And there are a few that agree with you...including me.
I would say that gravitons exist in a cartesian 3d space. However, gradients of gravitons act like a prism. Light bends when it passes thru gradients of gravitons. This creates the illusion that mass curves space-time. This illusion is workable (like the sun rising), but it causes us to miss dark matter and dark energy!
I define the graviton in a slightly different way than you do. You can check it out in the paper:
http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/118
8/1163
High Marks,
Don Limuti
Dear Don,
Thanks for your support. Will score in kind.
I've checked out your work and I see you have quite the passion (as I do) to come up with out-of-the-box ideas in physics. I always like looking at other alternative concepts. I've seen that idea about the gravitational deflection of light due to refraction in other places (a few here at FQXi like it) and it's interesting that you attribute it to gravitons.
I read your short (but sweet) essay which had me thinking about determinism. That reference you gave is chock-full of interesting material.
Cheers,
Peter
Thanks for your support. Will score in kind.
I've checked out your work and I see you have quite the passion (as I do) to come up with out-of-the-box ideas in physics. I always like looking at other alternative concepts. I've seen that idea about the gravitational deflection of light due to refraction in other places (a few here at FQXi like it) and it's interesting that you attribute it to gravitons.
I read your short (but sweet) essay which had me thinking about determinism. That reference you gave is chock-full of interesting material.
Cheers,
Peter
To Peter Jackson,
You said I was not really on topic and I'll explain why I think I am.
What inspired me to enter was in the preamble: “The motion of the most basic particle can be described by the action of a particle moment by moment.” Also the question: “How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of goal-free mathematical evolution?”
The geodesic path taken by a particle in gravitation is a perfect example of mindless mathematics at work. The particle is like a mindless robot – it has no goal other than to deal with the moment at hand, then depending on what the input is, it moves to the next moment and so on. In mathematics that moment has a domain called a neighborhood which has no spatial extent, yet it is treated as though it has, and that is where all the mathematics is performed. Thus the particle wanders in its mathematical evolution with no sense of a future goal and so is goal-free. This tells us how the particle moves but not why it moves in that path. For that you would require a goal-oriented system (i.e. quantum gravity) which has the initial intention of bringing matter closer together. I tried to show how that could be done and since quantum gravity is an open question, I used my own idea (as you did with entanglement).
Peter
You said I was not really on topic and I'll explain why I think I am.
What inspired me to enter was in the preamble: “The motion of the most basic particle can be described by the action of a particle moment by moment.” Also the question: “How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of goal-free mathematical evolution?”
The geodesic path taken by a particle in gravitation is a perfect example of mindless mathematics at work. The particle is like a mindless robot – it has no goal other than to deal with the moment at hand, then depending on what the input is, it moves to the next moment and so on. In mathematics that moment has a domain called a neighborhood which has no spatial extent, yet it is treated as though it has, and that is where all the mathematics is performed. Thus the particle wanders in its mathematical evolution with no sense of a future goal and so is goal-free. This tells us how the particle moves but not why it moves in that path. For that you would require a goal-oriented system (i.e. quantum gravity) which has the initial intention of bringing matter closer together. I tried to show how that could be done and since quantum gravity is an open question, I used my own idea (as you did with entanglement).
Peter
Peter,
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. For example, consider musings of this physicist in his blog: http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/what-is-spacetime-rea
lly/. Does the formalism of quantum mechanics negate space being a spin network
quantized down to 10-34 meters?
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.
Interesting out-of-the-box adventure here that is accessible.
Hope you get a chance to comment on mine.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
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. For example, consider musings of this physicist in his blog: http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/what-is-spacetime-rea
lly/. Does the formalism of quantum mechanics negate space being a spin network
quantized down to 10-34 meters?
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.
Interesting out-of-the-box adventure here that is accessible.
Hope you get a chance to comment on mine.
Jim Hoover
Hi James,
Thanks for your comments. I agree with your remark that the fourth dimension has led to bizarre concepts. Mathematically it's as easy to add any number of dimensions to three as it is to to add one and you're right, theorists have taken that to extremes. I don't think dimensions higher than three have any bearing on reality simply because of the unnatural leap that has to be made in forcing a fourth axis onto three.
Yours is a very well written essay which I think addresses the question: “Is goal-oriented behavior a cosmic trend?” You point out the difficulty of survival in the face of entropy and how self-replication may have a role not only with respect to human survival, but to microstructures and large-scale structures as well. Looks like a winner.
Good luck,
Peter
Thanks for your comments. I agree with your remark that the fourth dimension has led to bizarre concepts. Mathematically it's as easy to add any number of dimensions to three as it is to to add one and you're right, theorists have taken that to extremes. I don't think dimensions higher than three have any bearing on reality simply because of the unnatural leap that has to be made in forcing a fourth axis onto three.
Yours is a very well written essay which I think addresses the question: “Is goal-oriented behavior a cosmic trend?” You point out the difficulty of survival in the face of entropy and how self-replication may have a role not only with respect to human survival, but to microstructures and large-scale structures as well. Looks like a winner.
Good luck,
Peter
Thanks, Peter. I gave yours a high rating two days ago. I hope you liked mine as well. We always appreciate comments and up-front ratings, considering that 1/3 of mine have been w/o comment or reading.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Jim
Thanks, Peter. In this day and age, your interests -- and mine, physics and cosmology -- provide a curiosity, substance, independence, and wonder that silences too much noise and odious crassness in our popular culture.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Jim
Dear Peter
I enjoyed your essay starting as it did with Eddington's attack on spacetime. In my fqxi essay I too launch strenuous objections to basing physics on spacetime. Eddington in the book you quoted also proposes a density based explanation for gravity wereby it is like a field of gradient index of refraction, hence the bending of light as it does in a desert mirage due to density gradations in the heated iur.
I need to re-read your paper to more fully understand the radius explanations.
With best wishes
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
I enjoyed your essay starting as it did with Eddington's attack on spacetime. In my fqxi essay I too launch strenuous objections to basing physics on spacetime. Eddington in the book you quoted also proposes a density based explanation for gravity wereby it is like a field of gradient index of refraction, hence the bending of light as it does in a desert mirage due to density gradations in the heated iur.
I need to re-read your paper to more fully understand the radius explanations.
With best wishes
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
Thanks for taking an interest in my essay. You are, like many others here at FQXi, a kindred spirit in trying to come up with a model explaining the workings of the universe that is far removed from the mainstream.
I read your nicely illustrated essay with your musings on the state of physics today and scored highly.
Cheers,
Peter
Thanks for taking an interest in my essay. You are, like many others here at FQXi, a kindred spirit in trying to come up with a model explaining the workings of the universe that is far removed from the mainstream.
I read your nicely illustrated essay with your musings on the state of physics today and scored highly.
Cheers,
Peter
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
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
Wonderful goods from you, man. I've take into account your stuff previous to and you're simply extremely magnificent. obat herbal hepatitis b dan c
I really like what you've bought here, certainly like what you are stating and the way during which you say it. obat tradisional jantung koroner
You make it enjoyable and you continue to take care of to stay it sensible. obat herbal penyakit tbc
report post as inappropriate
I really like what you've bought here, certainly like what you are stating and the way during which you say it. obat tradisional jantung koroner
You make it enjoyable and you continue to take care of to stay it sensible. obat herbal penyakit tbc
Login or create account to post reply or comment.