CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Dirty Wet Chemical Universal Awakening by Steven Andresen
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Steven Andresen wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:36 GMT
Essay Abstract The question of aims and intention, how can mindless mathematical laws give rise to them? Is one facet of a most pervasive topic of our time. The discussions relating the complexity and fine tuning problem. Some might wonder if I exaggerate, and to them I suggest looking at the following topics, and realize their themes are entirely motivated by the apparent and unexplained complexity of the world. These topics being prominent in the minds of people, evidences the complexity and fine tuning problem is a most pressing issue confronting our universal awareness. No matter we try, it will not find explanation in absence of a natural organisation principle.
Author BioAn attentive student of nature
Download Essay PDF File
Author Steven Andresen wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 05:38 GMT
I wrote about how emergence of aims and intention in the universe, is basically just an aspect of the complexity problem facing our physical understanding. So I presented an explanation for universal complexities within a Darwinian context, that gives meaningful purpose to the structures observed in this universe. In doing this, the complexity problem is resolved.
In short, it explains that Auv is a regenerative field of space, from which Tuv photons came to emerge for evolutionary progressive reasons. The purpose of photons is to consume Auv, to allow Auv to regenerate, which is useful within a Darwinian context. So Auv field and Tuv photons have compounded complexity while entwined on a symbiotic Co-evolutionary relationship. Matter is just highly evolved structured photons, which are optimized for this purpose of existence. The properties and structures of atoms, planets, stars, galaxies, are optimized in terms of being spread out across space for example, to make for an efficient interaction between space and matter. In this respect the material universe exists to gravitate, and the energy which transfers from Auv to Tuv through the gravitation process, is what enables photons to perform energetic work within these evolved structures of matter. Mass owes its work function to photons, and this is the very simple reason the energy content of mass corresponds to photon velocity C. Infact every action the material universe is capable of engaging in, is mediated by photons. Or put another way, photons are the universes only way of imparting force on anything at all. A profound truth which indicates all physical measures will be derivable from photon velocity, and its sub units of length and duration. Allowing unified physical description.
Steven Andresen
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 16:21 GMT
Dear Steven Andresen,
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...
view entire post
Dear Steven Andresen,
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
George Gantz wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 16:00 GMT
Steven -
I thoroughly enjoyed your essay, and your effort to ascribe Darwinian principles to our cosmic origins. I take a slightly different approach, discussing the feature of dynamic systems to evolve to specific pointer states (attractors). (This contrasts with the Multi-Verse hypothesis that simply assumes that all possible universes emerge.)
Good luck! - George Gantz
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 02:57 GMT
Hi george
Thank you for the kind words. Much appreciated. I'm on a camp trip right now but will have a look at your essay when I return home.
Good luck with your essay and look forward to reading it
Steve
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 09:49 GMT
Nice essay Andresen,
Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…
What is the multiverse hypothesis, beyond attempt to explain the unlikely universal circumstances that enabled life to emerge? The answer is, it has proven to be not much more than. It is a mathematical trick of infinities, that makes inevitabilities of the most unlikely. A fascinating possibility and discussion I...
view entire post
Nice essay Andresen,
Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…
What is the multiverse hypothesis, beyond attempt to explain the unlikely universal circumstances that enabled life to emerge? The answer is, it has proven to be not much more than. It is a mathematical trick of infinities, that makes inevitabilities of the most unlikely. A fascinating possibility and discussion I will not contest, but don’t you think an extreme measure to invent numberless universes, to place an evidence-less band aid over our incomplete universal comprehensions.
The question of the emergence of goals and intentions, for the most part is not a question of how biology achieved it, but rather how a non-biological universal order and structure, achieve biology?
A Good idea, I fully agree with you…………
………………… At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at my essay… “Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe” where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement…..
I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems 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
James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 21:50 GMT
Hi Steven,
I have printed off your essay and will be reading it this weekend. The rating system can be a minefield. I will be keeping track of my rating for each essay I read. However, I will not be posting them until the last few minutes of the contest. I want them to count for something other than target practice by those who abuse the system. I do comment, if I have a comment, near the time that I read an essay. I expect to be back here talking with you. I already know that your deductive skills are very good. Good luck!
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 09:33 GMT
James
Hay its great to see people engaging your essay with so much positivity and support. I'm half way through reading it, then will read it again to let its message soak in a little, then I'll post remark to your page. But yes, what I have read is very good. My days have been filled with camping and surfing, so I havent had a look through many other essays yet, but the couple that I have...
view entire post
James
Hay its great to see people engaging your essay with so much positivity and support. I'm half way through reading it, then will read it again to let its message soak in a little, then I'll post remark to your page. But yes, what I have read is very good. My days have been filled with camping and surfing, so I havent had a look through many other essays yet, but the couple that I have read are very good.
I'm going to be following your lead on how to conduct my voting. Based on what I have read of your essay so far, and from actually knowing your wider scope of work quite well, I feel safe in saying you can expect a boost from me in the final minutes.
I like yourself, left it very late to begin working on my essay. Infact I ran out of time while I feel I could have spent another week refining it. Actually I didnt even sort out the basics, like grammar and spelling, so thats pretty bad. Oh well. Thank you for your vote of confidence. I think it safe to say that my concept will be a test for anybodies sensibilities. But I think this will have more to do with peoples general reaction to unfamiliar concepts, than it will be a reflection on the soundness of the ideas. But it will take somebody with a right mindset and willingness to pry back the lid and view the inner contents, to see it represents a cohesive theory. That it actually works in a sensible and straightforward manor.
While you are reading my essay James, may I give you something else to keep in mind? My concept achieves something quite interesting. When we humans build a mechanical device to undertake work, we have to provide it with fuel of some type. We need so many liters of fuel to drive a car so far, and so fuel requirement is an ever expansive sum over time. However, our physics has anointed things called "fundamental forces" which can undertake perpetual work without requiring an energy source as an expanding sum over time. Gravity, mass and also an atoms electromagnetic field are examples I give of seemingly perpetual work being undertaken by this universe. Ok, pretty basic consideration. Now consider it in light of my essay proposition please?
If Auv (Dark Energy) corresponds to a regenerative field of space, which is metabolized by Tuv mass in a process which enables mass to perform work actions. Well, mass is what actuates gravitational acceleration, and is also the seat of an atoms electromagnetic field. So then we can say there is a continual energy consumption responsible for gravity and atomic work actions. This makes perfect sense in terms of Auv = Tuv.
Of course we then have to ask ourselves, how does Dark Energy achieve the magic of continual emergence? And I dont know, but it is a confirmed observation that it is, that it does. So this counts as no small piece of evidence toward my hypothesis.
The interaction between space and matter, Gravitational fields and mass sharing equality Guv = Tuv. Why equality? Because its a continual energy flow that enables mass. This is a very simple proposition, and the evidence lines up everywhere that it needs too. This concept pursued leads to an ever expanding range of considerations which only lend weight towards the argument. A good deal of hows and whys are answered that would not have been expected.
What I say here now cannot be considered unsubstantial or whimsical. It stacks up in so many different ways, against so many different considerations. If people are willing to test this idea, then they will discover it is as I say. And thinking in terms of Auv being a regenerative field of space which flows to mass, brings with it the consideration of a Darwinian Universal system of compounded physical complexities.
Steven
view post as summary
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 09:58 GMT
James
I would have you ask yourself the question, from where does a photon derive its capacity for imparting force? Why and how does a photon undertake motion?
They seam unfair questions, except that my hypothesis makes a simple sense of them.
Steve
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 13:05 GMT
James
Oh yeah, and also keeping in mind that intriguing conversation you and I have partaken in. Variable C equating to a variable baryon mass. Gluons being photons that share the same variable C potential that normal photons do, depending on the galaxies gravitation potential. not only an interesting idea, but also one that delivers a seemingly appropriate formula for solving anomalous galaxy motions. This is all part of the same conversation you and I had earlier, however I havent explained all of my reasoning before now, how I came to share a similar outlook to you. Different in many ways, but similar in many respects.
My hope is that some of what has been shared between us earlier, will encourage you to follow up on what I share in my essay now. It isnt like my theory delves in obscurities like added dimensions, or some other intangible. My concept is very simple in this respect, that I point to two equality's and say, "consider the possibility this equality exists because energy flows from A to B". And that it is a simplest type of relationship, a conversion from work potential into work. The mechanics of this idea couldn't be simpler.
Steve
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 02:46 GMT
Hi Steven,
"My hope is that some of what has been shared between us earlier, will encourage you to follow up on what I share in my essay now."
That I still need to do. I was studying it, but, my exchanges with Steve Agnew began to take up my time. That seems to be subsiding without resolution. You might find that you agree with this statement: Resolution is not a consequence of what...
view entire post
Hi Steven,
"My hope is that some of what has been shared between us earlier, will encourage you to follow up on what I share in my essay now."
That I still need to do. I was studying it, but, my exchanges with Steve Agnew began to take up my time. That seems to be subsiding without resolution. You might find that you agree with this statement: Resolution is not a consequence of what takes place here at FQXi.org. But, so that I am understood by any readers: FQXi.org does provide a quality record of who said what when? If resolution comes about that will help as a reference wherever it turns out that resolution is possible. I haven't found that place yet. Theoretical physics protects itself not only from dissidents, but also from any outside source that might present the solutions that they have failed to provide. I don't expect any of them to be reading this.
"It isnt like my theory delves in obscurities like added dimensions, or some other intangible."
Definitely a plus in your favor.
"My concept is very simple in this respect, that I point to two equality's and say, "consider the possibility this equality exists because energy flows from A to B"."
Here is where I hesitate to agree. The reason is that energy is not a property. It is a calculation of force times distance with the resulting sum being what is called energy. Theoretical physicists will vehemently object to my statement. That is because energy is what replaces cause. Cause never appears in physics equationss. The right side of an equation consists of initial conditions while the left side of an equation consists of final conditions. The only place in an equation that cause can make its appearance without being part of the right side or the left side is as the equals sign. The equals sign is usually read as the magnitude and units of the right side equal the magnitude and units of the left side. However, my opinion is that it can also be read as the conditions of the right side of the equation are changed into the conditions of the left side of the equation. In other words, cause is represented by the equals sign. I am suggesting that the equals sign can be read as "is changed into". So, my opinion is that: It always remains the case that we only learn about effects and not about what is cause. We compare initial effects that have been previously gathered as empirical evidence with another set of effects that we gather after an experiment has been performed. We see their change. We find that the conservation laws provide that their magnitudes and units will be equal. However, it is obvious that the effects have changed. The cause of that change is unknown. At least it is unknown as a certainty. We are free to propose what the cause may be.
"And that it is a simplest type of relationship, a conversion from work potential into work."
Your last statement quoted above is the most like physics freed from theory. work has the same units as does energy. However, it differs in that its result is useful. Make that 'purposeful'. Work, just like energy, is force applied across a distance. However, when one refers to 'work', the magic that theorists imagine that energy, like a wizard, can perform to change the Universe from particle creation and chaos to human free-will, is not implied. Rather, the use of the word work acknowledges that there are effects, and, there must be cause, but, without trying to claim that a dumb mechanical process is as good as a wizard. The most that can be said about cause is what it does. So, setting the wizard aside: Saying that work is performed is as far as the mechanical interpretation of physics will allow us to go. Theoretical physics thrives on the pretense that the wizard exists, not as a God of course, but as energy. It is the greatest fraud of theoretical physics to teach that intelligence can arise from dumbness. I expect that we probably disagree on this point. Disagreement and discussion is good. My exchanges with professionals may not make it appear that I feel this way. It is their demeaning attitude all the while that they lack several important answers that causes me to challenge them back. You are welcome to challenge me back. I don't have all the answers. If I mixed up right from left in my earlier part of this message it is because I am left handed. Please read my intent as speaking about an initial side of an equation becoming a final side of an equation. I won't go back and check it.
I will return to talk about how a photon imparts force.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 03:36 GMT
James
I find what you have said in response to my questions to be quite interesting, and I am familiar with these opinions and ideas of yours from reading your work and from our earlier discussions. However you haven't responded to my question, that even if it is poorly framed, the meaning of which is easily inferred.
"My concept is very simple in this respect, that I point to two equality's Auv and Tuv and say, "consider the possibility this equality exists because the capacity for work is transferred from A to B?"
Tuv being photon work which is perpetuated by an emergent field of space Auv. A field which photons metabolize to enable their capacity for motion and or work?
I understand something of your related ideas, the light field etc. So a tailored question for you might be, what causes photons to slow as they approach a gravitating body? And maybe extended too, what causes photon motion in the first place? I asked you this question some time ago, and your response was that sometimes prior cause is not required. But I'm asking you to reconsider this in light of the notion of the above Auv = Tuv, if you will please?
Steven
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 04:23 GMT
Steven,
"So a tailored question for you might be, what causes photons to slow as they approach a gravitating body? And maybe extended too, what causes photon motion in the first place? I asked you this question some time ago, and your response was that sometimes prior cause is not required
Very good message. This part I don't recall: "Your response was that sometimes prior cause is not required." It doesn't sound familiar to me. I am not clear on what that meant. I try to respond tomorrow.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 06:35 GMT
James
I have been thinking along lines of an analogy which might be helpful.
My vision of the universal process Auv = Tuv, would be somewhat analogous of a battery with capacitance, an electrical circuit, and loading.
The Dark Energy observation would correspond to a field of space for which the Universe manages to leverage the full volume of space, to continually...
view entire post
James
I have been thinking along lines of an analogy which might be helpful.
My vision of the universal process Auv = Tuv, would be somewhat analogous of a battery with capacitance, an electrical circuit, and loading.
The Dark Energy observation would correspond to a field of space for which the Universe manages to leverage the full volume of space, to continually raise an energy capacitance Auv. In this respect the Universe might be considered analogous to a rechargeable battery.
Traditionally our batteries are connected to points of load via wires, however in the case of Auv = Tuv, every point of space could be a potential sight of discharge or load. So space itself being circuited.
Photons place a load on the capacitance of space, in much the same respect that a light bulb places load on a battery's capacitance. Photon velocity depending on the relative capacitance of space, corresponding to gravitational potentials. This gives a variable value C which corresponds to you're light field theory.
All Universal bodies Tuv sit within this universal circuit (space) drawing on the relative capacitance of Auv. In this respect all universal bodies Tuv plugged into the universal circuit Auv, are as light bulbs circuited in series. Light bulbs in series have lower voltage across their individual filaments than a single bulb, because of their shared loading, and therefore are collectively dimmer. An analogous effect is respectable for anomalous galaxy motions. Mass being a manifestation of photon C work capacity, it's value is dependent on the local capacitance of Auv. Crowding masses close together places a collective load on the local capacitance of Auv, which accounts for a lower value for C as crowding increases, and therefore a variable baryon mass is resulted. The exterior of Galaxies experience a higher Auv capacitance and therefore baryons have greater mass, and relative baryon mass declines as you move toward galaxy interior, as Auv capacitance declines.
I understand how cockamamie that might sound. But I deliver this idea within the wider context of a Darwinian theory, which needs to be taken into account. It gives me the ability to fashion a detailed coherent explanation, with specific reasons for why the universe came to be as we observe it to be. I have expressed some of these explanations within my essay, however my thinking on the subject is far more extensive than those. My further thinking on the subject is waiting for a conducive discussion that I expect will happen at some time or another, with the right person or persons. But I surf in white pointer shark infested waters all the time, so if those people dont hurry up and realize the potential of this idea, I might be robbed of the chance of sharing it personally. Robbed because imagination and skills of deduction are rare. Not aimed at you
Steve
view post as summary
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 01:57 GMT
Steve Andresen,
I don't learn from analogies as well as I do from direct descriptions. I am always looking for seeing the real thing. Analogies are always about something else. I am held back sometimes from responding promptly because I have difficulty with your terminology. An example: "Mass being a manifestation of photon C work capacity, ... " I am not saying that your thought is wrong. I have to do some 'work' to understand it. You provide enough information, but, I need to read all of it more than once. Actually, I have an immediate interest in your message about the weight load variation of a rotating rod. What I want to know, because I want to help, is: Do you know how to take a derivative of a function and also how to integrate a function? I think that the derivative idea applies to your rotating rod. I can write a response that may be helpful if I know that you know what a derivative is in Calculus. If you do not, then I can help better and more quickly than others can. If you know Calculus, then please excuse my message as my failing to see this in your messages.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 02:37 GMT
James
You said
"I am held back sometimes from responding promptly because I have difficulty with your terminology. An example: "Mass being a manifestation of photon C work capacity
Haha yes I do understand. I do make effort towards prose, but not always, and not always well. Sometimes I just resort to short hand expressions, multiple meanings strung together without adequate...
view entire post
James
You said
"I am held back sometimes from responding promptly because I have difficulty with your terminology. An example: "Mass being a manifestation of photon C work capacity
Haha yes I do understand. I do make effort towards prose, but not always, and not always well. Sometimes I just resort to short hand expressions, multiple meanings strung together without adequate reference for my reader. Sorry about this. In the case of the above example, I refer to my notion that mass is a work function based on photon velocity. Its ability to perform work equals velocity C. But I realize this is not the only confusing aspect of my expression. It has to be said though, that although you are far better at prose than myself, I sometimes also have to read your expressions a couple of times to let its message sink in, to become accustom to your approach. But a very worthwhile exercise it is indeed. I suspect this is somewhat inevitable when new concepts are invented.
I'm glad my observation relating a poles weight transition in a gravitational field, takes your interest. I have some material which will simplify your considerations on the subject, a couple of illustrations, graphs etc. I will have to prepare these for you, so please hold on a bit. Its a very straight forward observation isnt it? I'm a little staggered this hasnt been noted before now, and that the few times I have presented it to forum communities over the last couple of years didnt eventuate in constructive conversation. A tough crowd that isnt accustomed to taking fresh evidences back to the basic considerations. So tangled up in the confusions, and dont know when to retreat back to the beginning and start the puzzle fresh.
I have not fully ratified this quantum puzzle, because my understanding of the methods for testing Bells Inequality are limited. However, I have advanced my thinking far enough to know that this prescribes a very interesting dynamic which looks like a possible puzzle fit. A dynamic which decodes the anomalous quantum results, revealing the entirely causal mechanics behind the scenes. Put simply, the orientation of the two polarization filters in relation of each other, is an important detail in revealing the correlation of the quantum system, photons. If you change the orientation of the filters, then the shifting correlations observed of the photons, does not track linearly.
Heres another way to put it. If you can account an entirely causal interaction that makes sense of the individual photons behaviors, giving the observed probability curve. Then the correlations then observed between a second photon and its filter, becomes a purely incidental correlation. The magic disappears.
You asked me
"Do you know how to take a derivative of a function and also how to integrate a function?"
My mathematical ability is very informal. I am not schooled in the terminologies nor advanced formula building. But I think if you describe your meanings, I will take an understanding from you.
Steve
view post as summary
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 05:03 GMT
Steven,
Theorists have ideas that cause math to have to account for strangeness. Then, when their ideas are challenged, they resort to telling us: You need to learn the mathematics. Actually you do not. The reason is because it is their fallacious ideas that need their math. For example, Euclid's geometry is correct geometry. It says that a straight line is straight. Einstein needed a...
view entire post
Steven,
Theorists have ideas that cause math to have to account for strangeness. Then, when their ideas are challenged, they resort to telling us: You need to learn the mathematics. Actually you do not. The reason is because it is their fallacious ideas that need their math. For example, Euclid's geometry is correct geometry. It says that a straight line is straight. Einstein needed a straight line to bend, but because we see it as a straight line, he needed Riemannian geometry invented before Einstein as an exercise in four dimensional geometry. It made no geometrical sense, but, since Einstein's space-time makes no geometrical sense, Riemannian geometry serves it well.
I intend to introduce mathematics that makes sense. Adding two numbers yields their sum. Subtracting two numbers yields their difference. Believe it or not, this is quickly headed toward understanding calculus. We begin mathematics with adding and subtracting. We do not add nor do we subtract. We memorize solutions or we must resort to counting. If we count what the solution is for 3 added to two, we count from two, then three, four, five, and have our solution of five. For addition we count upward. For subtraction we count downward. If we remember answers, we spout them out or write them down and are finished with doing the math. Lower mathematics consists of shortcuts for counting.
Advanced mathematics also consists of shortcuts for counting. There are many shortcuts, but, they all represent memorization of solutions or looking the solutions up in mathematical tables. There always remain some necessary calculations of multiplication, division, adding and subtracting, but those have their shortcuts covered in lower mathematics.
Now for understanding calculus. There are two operations. One consists of taking the derivative of a function. The other consists of integrating a function. A function is an equation such as f=ma. The difference between lower mathematics and Calculus is that calculus is the mathematics of change. It is liberating! I remember very clearly when an instructor showed how to take the derivative of a function in my first semester of college. Then he dropped the subject and moved on to some other mathematical subject that needed to be reviewed by new students. I had no previous understanding of just about anything he was presenting. I didn't even know what algebra was.
After seeing his short presentation of how to take a derivative and how he then just moved on to something else, I spoke up and asked if we were coming back to this? I knew that something very important had just passed in front of me. He said: Yes we are coming back to this. Mathematics came alive for me at that moment because I recognized that taking the derivative introduced the mathematics of change. Physics is about change.
You should take notice that a derivative of a function is represented by the letter D. The reason is because taking the derivative is division. You should also notice that the symbol for integrating a function is very much like an S. The reason is because integration is taking the sum. It is addition. Addition is made simpler by memorization of multiplication tables. Division and multiplication are covered in lower mathematics as shortcuts for counting. We are still counting things. we count up and we count down.
More in my next message about the mathematics of change. It has to come from me or it will probably be made to seem mystical by those who rely on others not understanding it.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 11:14 GMT
James
This made me chuckle
"Theorists have ideas that cause math to have to account for strangeness. Then, when their ideas are challenged, they resort to telling us: You need to learn the mathematics. Actually you do not. The reason is because it is their fallacious ideas that need their math."
Nicely put.
Then you said
"For example, Euclid's geometry is...
view entire post
James
This made me chuckle
"Theorists have ideas that cause math to have to account for strangeness. Then, when their ideas are challenged, they resort to telling us: You need to learn the mathematics. Actually you do not. The reason is because it is their fallacious ideas that need their math."
Nicely put.
Then you said
"For example, Euclid's geometry is correct geometry. It says that a straight line is straight. Einstein needed a straight line to bend, but because we see it as a straight line, he needed Riemannian geometry invented before Einstein as an exercise in four dimensional geometry. It made no geometrical sense, but, since Einstein's space-time makes no geometrical sense, Riemannian geometry serves it well."
I believe you are entirely correct in what you say here. Non Euclidean straight lines in curved space, will be shown to be the wrong way to interpret the properties of space. However I believe Einstein did achieve something amazing, even if the interpretations are skewed somewhat. His concept of space time does track a real correlation. So how can GR be considered both right and wrong at the same time? Within my paradigm it is very simple.
Time is nothing more than object activity. If your clock depends on photon activity to track time, and that activity alters its rate depending on gravitational potential, then you simply have to ask the practical question. Why does object activity, or photon activity change at different heights in a gravitational field? This is a better and simpler way to visualize what spacetime is. Time is not a component of the fabric of space. It is object activity. The spacetime concept is still real and useful, but it represents a correlation between space and object activity, or photon activity.
Einsteins theory of General Relativity successfully tracks the correlation between space and object activity. This is how it is both right and wrong at the same time. He knew he didnt have all the conceptual pieces of the puzzle, and he never claimed that he did. He had successfully approached a remarkable truth, and so I think he deserves his credit.
Thank you for being willing to assist my math learning. I am paying close attention, and I realize you are giving me a wonderful gift. Emphasizing the important points through story of experience, you are a good teacher James. "I knew that something very important had just passed in front of me." I am hearing you.
Steve
view post as summary
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 11:49 GMT
James
Here are a couple of diagrams that will help you to interpret the pole weight transition in comparison to photon probability curves.
The graph above, the length of the lines is proportional and represents the weight at that angle, 0, 22, 45, 67, 90 degrees. And so it shows the proportions of weight change through an arc of 90 degrees.
The graph underneath is an altered version of that wiki link. The way they set out the chart on wiki is not very conducing to visualizing what I wish to point out. The way I present it here, it does not matter if you visualize a pole at different relative angles to the ground, or gravitational field, or a photon at different angles to a light polarization filter. Please let me know if you have any questions?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w
eight%20transition.jpg?dl=0
Steve
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 12:23 GMT
James
Here is a really useful visual aid, the photon probability characteristics. I expect you might watch it from the start, but I point to the detail beginning at 3 minutes in, till 4.40 mins out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adrCLSTn9mI
Like I said earlier, I haven't fully ratified this concept. I dont knew if the proportions demonstrated by the poles weight transition are an exact match for the photon probability, or just similar. It would be nice to find out.
Steve
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 01:58 GMT
Hi Steven,
My exchanges with Steve Agnew have slowed down. I have tomorrow off from babysitting grandchildren.
A helpful hint:
When you want to include a link here at FQXi.org remove http://
For example https://www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w will not become a link.
In what follows I am substituting ( for [ you must use [
The reason I am substituting ( is so that I do not form links in the examples
You first write (link:
Remember that ( should be [
Then remove https:// from your address.
Then you have (link:www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w
Close the brackets (link:www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w)
Those parenthesis are supposed to be brackets. Moving on:
Add a name for your link. No spaces are necessary.
(link:www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w]Interpretin
g the pole weight transition
Add (/link)
(link:www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w)Inte
rpreting the pole weight transition(/link)
Use brackets instead of those parenthesis and its done. I will do that now:
Interpreting the pole weight transitionJames
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 04:47 GMT
James
Yes your discussions with Steve Agnew. Do you feel he swayed your mind, or did you sway his on any point or another? I only tuned into part of the conversation, so I'm not sure how things turned out.
But generally speaking, I see the difficulty you have making people realize the potential benefit of defining mass. It not only surprises me that they cant see the logic, but also that they will argue so fervently to maintain status quo. They have accepted and wish to preserve understanding of the world that has been presented to them. Its a particular mindset more than it is a reasoned approach to science. But dont worry James, something is going to give at some point and the flood gates will open to change. Those stuck in the mud will be swepped up reluctantly in the current. They will need to hear it from their perceived to be authorities first, and then they will change direction all as one.
Thanks for the link pointer.
Youre free tomorrow! I wonder if we couldnt try live chat? Do you have Facebook, perhaps we could use the messenger service?
Steve
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 05:01 GMT
Steven,
You are doing well for your first participation and introduction of your views. I think it would be best to leave your views undisturbed here in your forum. Readers should be introduced in the easiest manner possible to what you think. Please look to my forum for discussions that include my view.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 05:03 GMT
Steven,
Well we disagree. That is fine; but, it will need to be discussed so that we have a chance to bat it back and forth. I will introduce my position by saying that Einstein messed physics up but good! Lets talk about predicting relationships:
SA: However I believe Einstein did achieve something amazing, even if the interpretations are skewed somewhat. His concept of space time does track a real correlation. So how can GR be considered both right and wrong at the same time? ...
JP: Professionals will always pay attention to the patterns observed in empirical evidence. They make certain that their interpretation does not contradict empirical evidence. You will not find that a professional's ideas contradict patterns observed in empirical evidence. At least not for known patterns. Their mathematics will include known patterns. It is those patterns that make for successful predictions. The mathematics is unaware. It does not know what names theorists' assign to properties. It does not know what interpretations are expressed verbally. What it knows is that there are magnitudes that are brought together according to the rules of mathematics. The mathematics does honor units. It honors the relationships between properties, which are represented by their units, and it has been given, by the theorist, the mathematical form necessary to mimic the patterns of empirical evidence. For example, the predictions of the equation f=ma are unaffected by my disagreement with theorists; where, I insist that mass must be made a defined property while they live with it remaining an undefined property. There is much else about physics that will show that it is affected by this disagreement, but not f=ma. I will wait for your response before continuing on to clock's versus altitude and then on tp space-time.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 05:08 GMT
Steven,
I just tried to leave a post in your forum and then a post in my forum. They both ended up in your forum. Sorry. Being experienced doesn't always protect one from making a mistake! :)
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 05:29 GMT
"Youre free tomorrow! I wonder if we couldnt try live chat? Do you have Facebook, perhaps we could use the messenger service?"
I will have more time, but, I am not certain when. First I will do what my wife would like to do. That won't take up the whole day. We are in for some inclement weather. I will post in the Alternative Models forum under Blogs when I am available. I like that others, including adversaries, see what I write. I am not active on Facebook although I do have an account there. I don't use it, so I am inexperienced, although I receive notifications because it is there. My family and relatives use Facebook a lot. So I see when they have tagged me or other. I won't evaluate my discussion with Steve Agnew. I will let our posts help readers determine that for themselves. I would like to know what readers think. Maybe there are any! :) Everyone is busy. I am writing what I think needs to be said. I keep it up!
James Putnam
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 12:00 GMT
James
I wonder how our time zones will correlate? I'm in Australia, My late morning will be your evening. I'll message here sometime in the morn, but if your busy then no drama.
Steve
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 00:04 GMT
James
I had a quick look on facebook and cant find you. Whats your handle?
Steve
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 01:07 GMT
Sorry James, I dont know where this is "the Alternative Models forum under Blogs"
Steve
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 22:32 GMT
Steven,
Our winter storm failed to materialize and my time was spent with my wife out. The Alternative Models Forum is reached by clicking on Forum, then clicking on Ultimate Reality, then clicking on Alternative Models of Reality. If someone's blog messages has the link Alternative Models of Reality, then just click on their message.
Following this message is another installment...
view entire post
Steven,
Our winter storm failed to materialize and my time was spent with my wife out. The Alternative Models Forum is reached by clicking on Forum, then clicking on Ultimate Reality, then clicking on Alternative Models of Reality. If someone's blog messages has the link Alternative Models of Reality, then just click on their message.
Following this message is another installment on taking a derivative. That will end it for now. This is our last week for evaluating Essays. Also, I have fallen behind in our general conversation. I will see what I can do about correcting that. Two quick responses: (1) What is being transferred? If the answer is energy, then the word may seem sufficient, Physicists rely heavily upon it; but, it is not an empirically established 'substance'. There is 'magic' in some of the words that physicists use and 'energy' is one of those words. Energy is not explained. The idea of mass and energy equivalence does not explain either mass or energy. Besides they are not equivalent. They are proportional to one another. They are not the same thing.
Energy's only derivation is as the product of force and distance. One must explain 'force' if their solution relies upon the word 'energy'. What is it that is being transferred? Force is unexplained. there is much that remains unexplained because the properties of mechanics are derived from mass, length, and time. None of these are derived properties. None have a physical explanation. They are introduced simply as existing.
Response (2): Photon activity refutes the idea that time is either photon activity or object activity or both. The reason for my saying this is what I presented in my essay for the first essay contest. The Nature of Time. What i showed in that essay is that there is a Universally Constant Incremental Measure of Time. It is the time that any photon spends acquiring information about a change of velocity of a charged particle. It is also the time that any photon spends transferring that information to another charge particle. In my essay and in all of my work, it can be seen as (delta)t. It is also the time required for a photon to travel the radius of a hydrogen atom anywhere, under any conditions. It is the time it takes for any photon to pass a given point. It is independent of the speed of light which is always changing. It is the clock of the Universe and it ticks away everywhere with perfect time.
Anyway that is how I view it. My reward for learning this was that the use of (delta)t in the denominators in physics equations is what brought unity to all of my equations. It is also what allowed me to discover new equations, one of which was presented in my current essay.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 00:01 GMT
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 01:04 GMT
Steven,
"You should take notice that a derivative of a function is represented by the letter D. The reason is because taking the derivative is division. You should also notice that the symbol for integrating a function is very much like an S. The reason is because integration is taking the sum. It is addition. Addition is made simpler by memorization of multiplication tables. Division and...
view entire post
Steven,
"You should take notice that a derivative of a function is represented by the letter D. The reason is because taking the derivative is division. You should also notice that the symbol for integrating a function is very much like an S. The reason is because integration is taking the sum. It is addition. Addition is made simpler by memorization of multiplication tables. Division and multiplication are covered in lower mathematics as shortcuts for counting. We are still counting things. we count up and we count down."
I often write using differentials. Here is the reason why I write the mathematics as I do. If one knows algebra, then much of differential Calculus can be understood if written using those differentials. It is easy to follow. Someone reading my words might more easily connect my word meanings to my equations.
Acceleration is a change of velocity with respect to time. Since all physics empirical evidence is communicated to us via photons as measures of change of velocity with respect to time, that empirical evidence arrives in the form of incremental measures. like pieces, of acceleration, i.e., a usually very small measure of a change of velocity with respect to a unit of time. We all know that a=dv/dt. What may not be so clearly known is that dv is the differential of velocity and dt is the differential of time. The ratio of dv/dt is the derivative of velocity with respect to time.
Both of those differentials are very small changes. So small that they are said to be approaching infinitely small magnitudes. Yet their ratio does not change. Their ratio is the change of velocity with respect to time, located at some point on a curve of a plot of velocity vs time. I write it as dv/dt. Physicists might write it as D
tv. That D might also be fancy script form.
How is one to easily visualize the physical meaning of dv/dt? The answer is that the ratio of differentials comes from a right triangle. A right triangle plotted on rectangular Cartesian coordinates is the basis for the derivative of a function. The 'x' coordinate is horizontal and called the abscissa. The 'y' coordinate is vertical and called the ordinate. A right triangle has a hypotenuse. A curved line representing a change of velocity with respect to time is plotted on graph paper. The hypotenuse is called the tangent line because it is placed so that it touches the plotted curve at a point. It is the two other sides of the triangle that are of immediate interest. If velocity is plotted against time, the vertical side of the triangle represents a measure of a change of velocity; and, the bottom or base side represents a measure of a change of time.
The value of the vertical side divided by the value of the base side gives the slope of the tangent line. The slope is the rate of change of the variable 'v' with respect to the variable 't'. Having the tangent line touching only at a point means that the changes of velocity and time are as small as possible without becoming zero. Division by zero is not permitted. The extremely small change in 'v' is represented by dv and the corresponding extremely small change in time is represented by dt. These extremely small changes contribute to accuracy in the solution. The derivative is the slope of the plotted line at any point. If the line represents a plot of velocity with respect to time, then the slope (dv/dt) of the line at any point is the acceleration at that point. The steeper the slope, the greater the rate of change.
Sometimes the Greek letter Delta (A small triangle.) is used instead of the letter 'd', when the changes are not so very small. Those values of change are referred to as being incremental. Getting away from my style of math, in Calculus books you will usually not see the derivative written as dv/dt. It is customary to use the Capital letter 'D' as in D
t(v) which is saying the same thing as dv/dt. The velocity 'v' is usually a variable and its 'function' is how it varies such as v=1/2gt. The velocity 'v' is a function of the variable 't' as in 1/2gt. So, in general, all variables that are functions of 't' can be represented by a general form of a derivative written as d
tf(t).
Mathematics books will be far more rigorous than I have been. My intent is to get to the basic idea of taking a derivative. You will see much more style applied to the mathematics used here by the professionals. There is good reason behind the use of all of that style. It conveys far more meanings than this simplified form that I use. However, I write so that non-professionals might also understand my work. Truth is that doesn't happen much, but, that is what I try to accomplish.
Lastly, Integration in Calculus is reversing what was done when taking a derivative. That doesn't always go smoothly. That is why Calculus books have lists of 'Integrals' that are general forms for known types of solutions. You look for the type of solution you need and let your mathematics take that form and run with it. Pay attention to lone constants. They disappear when taking a derivative. They are unknown what they were before. They have to be solved for when you reverse the process and are instead Integrating. You have to know some data, independent of the Integration process, that allows you to solve for the constant.
It all gets handled well in the end by the mathematicians. Physics is another matter. There is interpretation and invention that invades and, I think, often overpowers the mathematics causing it to serve 'interpretation and invention' rather than serve to reveal what empirical evidence is communicating to us.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 01:05 GMT
James
Thank you once again for providing a mathematical lesson. Much appreciated. I have wanted to develop my mathematical capability for quite some time. When the contest is finalized and my sail boat is anti-fouled and afloat I will study your last message with fervor. When I am anchored behind isolated islands in foul weather I'll have plenty of time toward perusing such learning.
Ok I note that my notion of time being photon activity is not comparable with your approach which is independent of the speed of light. I am not motivated to contest this point of difference, but rather my intention is just to map out your concepts so I know where you stand. As I have said earlier, it is easy to find disagreement on the internet and so I dont go out of my way to seek it. I would rather sound out your ideas with a mind for learning from you.
On facebook I think you need to activate the messenger service to receive a message from me. I think we can cover a lot of ground very quickly using live chat. Instant response times will allow me to get a better gauge on your ideas.
Steve
hide replies
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 11:11 GMT
Dear Steve,
I read with great interest your deep analytical essay executed in the spirit of deep Carthusian doubt with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists,
lyricists, poets and
musicians filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).
I believe that the modern "crisis of understanding" (K.V.Kopeykin "Souls "of atoms and "atoms"of the soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and the "three great problems of physics"), «trouble with physics (Lee Smolin," The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next") is the deep meta-physical crisis, the deep crisis of the ontological foundations of knowledge.
FQXI Contests are first of all new ideas. You give such ideas. I give my highest rating.
I believe, that only extremely constructive ontology, and the global "brain storm" with the most in-depth analysis of all the accumulated knowledge will help us to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation: "An educated people without a metaphysics is like a richly decorated temple without a holy of holies." (G.W.F.Hegel)
I invite you to read
my ontological ideas .
Best regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 03:59 GMT
Dear Vladimir
Thank you kindly. I am delighted to receive such a message and rating, an appreciation for new ideas. And I also very much enjoyed the links you provided. I have begun reading your essay and am up to page five, and it has to be said that I understand why you were able to tune into my concept and appreciate its merit. I think that you like I, are undertaking a personal quest to learn the nature of things. The universe is a single physical process, everything in existence related within one scope. Furthermore its explanation needs to be of a natural process, which makes articulated sense of the structures and complexities observed of the natural world, without having a sense of being a forced explanation. People seem to have a hard time recognizing that the nature of the complexity of this world requires an organisational principle. So it is very pleasing to meet people like yourself who are focused on the real issues confronting our collective scientific awareness.
I have many considerations which have not been made apart of this essay, so if you are interested to know more about my concept at some time or another, then your questions are welcome plz? I will read your essay and follow up on your page with comments soon.
Here are some inspirational videos you might enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvrOzYtnLMA
https://www
.youtube.com/watch?v=khySM1YBQvA
https://www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=DnQZoh_YG40&list=RDrnJ1kRWUuyg&index=9
Thank you once again
Kind regards
Steve
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 09:59 GMT
Dear Steve,
I thank you for the deep and inspiring response to my commentary, as well as for the wonderful links! Magnificent music and the majestic beauty of the Cosmos enable us, earthlings, to realize the necessity of unity in diversity for the preservation and development of life on Mother Earth - our
Common Space Home .
Kind regards
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 11:45 GMT
James
Here are a couple of diagrams that will help you to interpret the pole weight transition in comparison to photon probability curves.
The graph above, the length of the lines is proportional and represents the weight at that angle, 0, 22, 45, 67, 90 degrees. And so it shows the proportions of weight change through an arc of 90 degrees.
The graph underneath is an altered version of that wiki link. The way they set out the chart on wiki is not very conducing to visualizing what I wish to point out. The way I present it here, it does not matter if you visualize a pole at different relative angles to the ground, or gravitational field, or a photon at different angles to a light polarization filter. Please let me know if you have any questions?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w
eight%20transition.jpg?dl=0
Steve
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 11:48 GMT
Dear Vladimir
I have accidentally added the last message to the wrong thread. Just in case you were wondering what that was about.
Kind regards
Steve
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 05:54 GMT
Hi Steven,
1. This is an amazing essay. I have seen nothing like this taking Darwinian to the universe level. I like it and believe you are correct that "Life came to express aims and intention, in a universe of compounded complexity neither contrived not chance, but Darwinian".
2. You are much more than "an attentive student of nature". Out with it...how many degrees do you have.
3. Please forgive this criticism: Your abstract is not about this essay.... were you trying to mislead people?
Please take a look at my website, in particular the section: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/30_A_Tale_of_Two_Wavelength
s.html
Then go to the index and check out everything concerning gravity including: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/20_Dark_Energy_and_Mercurys
_Orbit.html
If you do this you will know why I support your thesis. I can see why others are having trouble rating your essay highly. They need to be trained in spotting good science and good art.
Thanks very much,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 04:16 GMT
Hi Don
I could not be happier that you are persuaded by my arguments. Seeing evidence that people can agree with my conclusions is a wonderful thing. Thank you Kindly.
Regarding your second comment, I dont want to make the essay about me. As far as I am concerned it is the quality of the evidence provided for me by others, that made my observations possible. I feel as though I...
view entire post
Hi Don
I could not be happier that you are persuaded by my arguments. Seeing evidence that people can agree with my conclusions is a wonderful thing. Thank you Kindly.
Regarding your second comment, I dont want to make the essay about me. As far as I am concerned it is the quality of the evidence provided for me by others, that made my observations possible. I feel as though I merely assembled a puzzle whereby the puzzle pieces were already well defined. You might expect me to be highly educated, but the truth will challenge this preconception. As it turns out, you dont need a formal science education to realize something new about nature.
Your third question, was I trying to mislead people? No certainly not. You feel I should have declared my conclusions at the start? I feel I needed to slowly turn up the heat and build something of an argument before delivering my most controversial conclusions. And besides I started assembling the essay a week out from submission closure, and by the time closure fell upon me, I could have spent another week refining my essay. With spelling errors and bad grammar unresolved, I submitted in the final hour. I just copy pasted the essay opening into the abstract, but actually I think it is relevant to my essay. We have need for a natural organisational principle to explain the world. That pretty much sums it up and was stated.
I am definitely going to follow up with your work, as I am very curious as to why you are receptive to my ideas. Do you have an essay submission? Please be a little patient as I need to contribute to peoples essay ratings as a priority, in the time I have between work and the pumping surf. But yes very keen to trade ideas with you.
Yes, it takes time for people to assimilate new ideas. If I was trying to win this competition with popular points of view, then I wouldnt have criticized peoples cherished ideas in the opening paragraphs, multiverse, anthropic principle etc. And I am quite aware that radical ideas are not automatically liked. So my expectations are somewhat tempered by this. But as it turns out, a couple of high ratings have done wonders for my score lately. Thank you everybody for this, I feel very fortunate.
Steve
view post as summary
Don Limuti replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 05:11 GMT
Hi Steven,
Appreciate your visiting my essay and your generous vote.
Yes, let's discuss gravity. My website has my e-mail in the about the author section. It is don.limuti@gmail.com
I should not have been able to make the calculation I made....something unexpected is going on. It would be really cool to see if we can create either a more complete theory or come up with some experiments that can be tried.
Thanks,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 06:55 GMT
Hi dear Steven,
You have represented one well written and attractive essay.
You have touched there large cognitive problems of the nature and concerning to humanity also that is very interesting to read as these pushed to thinking on too many things. I like your work because I feel there the logic as well as the morality, without these we hardly can go ahead - to our "bright future." So I think your work deserved to good rating and more large attention of readers!
Try please to open my work, its written a little bit in hard style and it concerned to somewhat short aspects, but I hope you can find there also something logic and morality.
I hope hearing your impression in my page, and I will completed to study your work within short time.
Best wishes
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 05:20 GMT
Dear George
Thank you kindly, I am delighted to receive these words from you. That there are people out there that follow my logic, and that realize it does have the promise of conforming to the observations of the world. That is everything I set out to achieve with my essay, and is what you have provided for me. Thank you once again.
I have read your abstract and have taken an immediate liking to it. I will make a start on your essay now and return to you soon with comment.
Best regards
Steve
Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 10:44 GMT
Steve,
I found that exceptionally well written, interesting, original, insightful and a very positive contribution to the subject. I also have some fundamental agreement with you hypothesis but suggest there's more underlying and different way to interpret the part Darwin identified.
I thank you for the comments on mine and look forward to more discussion when you've completed it. It builds to a powerful ontology and agrees Darwinism as a 'course grained' effect, so consistent in many ways.
I listened this morning to the brilliant Daniel Dennett interviewed by Jimal Khaleli on BBC Radio4 "The Life Scientific". Philosopher, scientist Darwin supporter and author of 'Darwins dangerous idea' as well as 'Conciousness Explained'. He'd also support both our approaches.
Other lines from yours I found particularly pertinent are;
"What is the anthropic principle, if not an effort to dismiss universal complexity as a needless discussion."
."..Progression is usually slowed by prior held expectations of what we think we are aware.
Are peoples eversions (sic. aversions) to Darwinian physics rational, or is it simply because no reasonable self-consistent hypothesis has been put forward?"
"...A feedback loop that drives toward ever increasing universal energy levels and fine-tuned purposeful structure Very well done. I'm glad James pointed you to mine, and he was also right on yours. I've just awarded it the top score it deserves (it also needs to be in the upper groups to be a 'finalist').
Keep up the good work.
Very best of Luck
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 00:28 GMT
Peter
Wonderful, I'm glad you liked it. Thank you for reading, reviewing and rating.
I am intrigued by your suggestion we have some fundamental agreement. A conversation I will certainly pursue with you.
I read you're essay last night and am just on my way over to your page to place review.
Thank you once again for your support and I look forward to continued dialog with you.
Steve
Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 10:50 GMT
Steve,
after the contest do take a look at this; Identifying overwhelming evidence a recycling mechanism answering a lot of cosmological questions including evolution of galaxies and universes.
Jackson, P.A. Minkowski, J.S. A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars. HJ. Vol.36 No 6. 2013 pp.633-676. Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 01:12 GMT
Peter
Thank you, I will definitely look this over. Sounds fascinating.
Steve
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 09:13 GMT
Steve, (Copy);
Thanks. Yes there IS a video showing the visual dynamics
Classic QM Video.
I've posted the link many times but clearly should do it more. I hope you'll be delighted! My essays in 2014 and last year are helpful in precursing this, but only this year did I identify the final piece solving the puzzle; Interaction Cascades squaring the cos values in fields, consistent with QCD.
I watched Henry's video. Very professional graphics. He's largely right but missed identifying exactly what John Bell did, and didn't prove! (which recognized identified and stated!) He did NOT exclude a classical solution, in fact he pointed to it without being able to tie it down. He only excluded normal 'local hidden variable' theories, which ClassicQM is NOT!.
The problem is most beliefs about Bell are heresay (and ignoring the heresay is heresey!) Few have actually read the compilation of his works so it's widely poorly and 'mis'understood.
After seeing the video read the 2nd half of the essay again and it should all come to light. Let me know.
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 16:50 GMT
Steven,
I agree with James Putnam that your deductive skills are established. I would say that your essay title is unappealing to readings who like catchy titles like "Are we dust in the wind?" or something like that.
I really like your meaningful "turns of phrase" like: "The question of the emergence of goals and intentions, for the most part is not a question of how biology achieved it, but rather how a non-biological universal order and structure, achieve biology?" or "The multiverse hypothesis might be an answer a bad science teacher invented, to quiet his students ceaseless questioning. The shame!"
For the latter, especially, it rings of a lot of truth.
Keep up the good work. I will be your next rating.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 10:42 GMT
Dear Steven
I fully agree with you in the problem you raise and how you identify and characterize it. Namely, I fully agree that “ The question of the emergence of goals and intentions, for the most part is not a question of how biology achieved it, but rather how a non-biological universal order and structure, achieve biology?” I also agree that “...the universe and everything within...
view entire post
Dear Steven
I fully agree with you in the problem you raise and how you identify and characterize it. Namely, I fully agree that “ The question of the emergence of goals and intentions, for the most part is not a question of how biology achieved it, but rather how a non-biological universal order and structure, achieve biology?” I also agree that “...the universe and everything within it has one original cause, emergent from a simplest configuration and progressed towards a more advanced state.”
I have been analyzing the problem during all my life and I found solutions for many of the issues related with this magnum problem. For instance, the reason for the apparent “fine-tuning” is just that the universe evolves. As I mention in my essay, the cause of the apparent space expansion is the phenomenon no one though of, a kind of Columbus’ egg: it is not the space that expands but the matter that decreases in size, therefore standard length unit is decreasing. Although this may seem odd at first, it is easy to conclude that it is so and that current space expansion model is just a modern version of Ptolemy model, i.e., a model of what we observe assuming the invariance of an observer that is not invariant. Naturally, there are no such things as dark matter or dark energy, as there are no celestial spheres or epicycles.
This evolution of the universe implies also an evolution of Earth's climate and a very different – and better – understanding of what is required by life. What the values of constants imply is not this exact universe but an universe that evolves and passes by the present state. I don’t claim that the problem of the fine tuning is solved but it is transported to a more sophisticated level. The universe is much more sophisticated than we have been considering and we can only reach it by subtle reasoning, not by complex mathematics.
I appreciated very much the courage with which you dared to face the problem and the clarity of your analysis of it. My solution for it is totally different from yours (maybe you would like to see it) but my vote reflects the first part because that is the critical part, without recognizing the problem no solution to it can be presented.
All the best
Alfredo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear Alfredo
Thank you for your message of support and I do respect your limited agreement. I think too many people contingent the level of respect they show for others, on how much they agree or dont agree with that persons ideas or beliefs. Its almost an unconscious influence but something people should be more mindful of. You are a man with an unorthodox notion, so I know you know too what I refer.
I am glad to have your recognition that physics needs an explanation for the very particular order and structure observed of the world. Then our ideas diverge, but I would still find it interesting to rationalize your argument. I generally see how your idea conforms to known observations of the world, and I have to confess that my immediate thought is to a question, how much resistance to reason could that notion withstand? I think it would be fun to read your essay. I will be in touch.
Thank you once again
Kind regards
Steve
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 15:39 GMT
Hi Steven,
I have read with much attention your well written contribution.
Some points that I liked to comment on :
Indeed the extreme measure to "create" a new universe any moment a decision is made is also in my opinion toooooo much. I made a new interpretation regarding this choices in my work. The eternal availability of Eternal Now Moments in Total...
view entire post
Hi Steven,
I have read with much attention your well written contribution.
Some points that I liked to comment on :
Indeed the extreme measure to "create" a new universe any moment a decision is made is also in my opinion toooooo much. I made a new interpretation regarding this choices in my work. The eternal availability of Eternal Now Moments in Total Simultaneity.
The anthropic principle is very acceptable for humanity because of the fact that our senses are receiving information that only human beings are able to receive, the information that we cannot receive we cannot be implemented. See my Subjective Simultaneity Sphere.
About Complexity: The more information we are receiving for example of a billiard ball, the more complex it becomes. It is our consciousness that is arguing about information received, and our reality is becoming more and more complex each moment. Science is one of the reasons of consciouss complexity. The data received on our Subjective Simultaneity Spheres that were before not even perceived are becoming "recognisable".But the complexity always was there.
We have to try to find our consciouss way in this emerging complexity.
The origin of this complexity of our NOW lies in our consciousness. We are aware of a flow of time through our memory. The past is done and contains all the information , but it is just a MOMENT.
The reality is an emergent phenomenon that can change each Eternal NOW Moment. The closed system you mention is in my perception your consciousness.
The Darwinian approach is one of many and in my perception "truth" is only existing in each individual mind. The FINAL TRUTH we will maybe never be able to perceive but it is a goal, just like searching for the Reference of reference.
I liked very much your approach so I lifted you up a little in the list. I also hope that the above points will lead you to have a look, read and aso comment and rate
my esay : The Purpose of Life" that gives another view on our emerging reality.
best regards and good luck
Wilhelmus de Wilde
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 09:20 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus
Thank you for your message and rating. I have a feeling I will better understand what you have written above once I have read your essay. I like the notion that scientific instruments are broadening our range of senses, which broadens our awareness of the world. And that it takes time to make sense of the wider range of observations we have now made. How long before we know what the universe really is, and what it is doing?
Kind regards
Steve
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Steven,
To answer your question is easy : It will take an infinity of time.
I hope it will not take so long to read my interpretation, I will give you
the link.
Still little time left to rate.
thanks
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 00:12 GMT
Dear Steven Andresen,
You do an analytical overview of the 'fine tuning' problem and critique the invention of multiple universes and anthropic principle as weak solutions. Gotta agree there! You are, in my opinion, correct to tie the problem of complexity to the fine-tuning problem. It is hard to recognize and frame the big problems, and then to critique the "current" solutions. And, as noted above, you do it with a nice turn of phrase.
If you've read my essay, you know that I accept the Darwinian narrative as the ideal mechanism for evolving complex living/ecosystems, but I do not believe this mechanism can produce awareness where none existed before. If it could, 'awareness' would have the status of
artifact, and conditional at that. For me, awareness is primordial, while the physical 'logic' that evolves leads to increased intelligence, which I define as consciousness plus logic. It is the physical logic structures that evolve. I believe consciousness predates evolution.
What I particularly like about your essay is your focus on water as key. From your comments I believe you surf and sail and spend a lot of time on water. You've put some of that time to good use. I agree with your analysis of bonding, etc., but one tends to forget the necessity to dissolve materials and make them readily available in the soup. As you point out:
"Wouldn't it be such a shame to have a dry universe full of chemical potentials, no water lying around to express them."
Absolutely!
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 02:24 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman
Thank you kindly for these words. Knowing something of your mind from having read your essay, I am thrilled to have this review from you. I have praise for your work, so will head on over to your page today to place it. But to say for the moment, you have written something most extraordinary. Perhaps I should read more of the contending top spot essays for...
view entire post
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman
Thank you kindly for these words. Knowing something of your mind from having read your essay, I am thrilled to have this review from you. I have praise for your work, so will head on over to your page today to place it. But to say for the moment, you have written something most extraordinary. Perhaps I should read more of the contending top spot essays for comparison, but it is hard to imagine they could present ideas more useful to human awareness and method of mind, that applied effectively will undoubtedly improve our general scientific method. Yours is an essay that will leave an ever lasting impression and is my favorite for winning.
I have been feeling a shift in my awareness these past few weeks, reading various ideas and opinions about the nature of universe and consciousness. I am influenced by several people here including James Putnam and yourself who have arrived at comparable opinion on this subject. The current scientific approach to physics doesn't have the tooling necessary to bring the subject of consciousness within its description. It needs to broaden its approach.
Question for you if you will please? In my scenario of Darwinian Universal, the material universe we observe exists to absorb the regenerative field of space which corresponds to Auv (Dark Energy), and therefore the Baryonic structures we observe in the universe make sense in terms of being structured optimized for this purpose, for what could be termed an efficient atmospheric interaction. So all characteristics of matter are evolved, and therefore nothing of matter physics can be considered fundamental. The functions of matter that lead to composite atomic structure, and matters response to gravitational fields that leads to cosmological structures, stars, galaxies etc, might then be termed as evolved "agencies". And now I need to emphasize for the benefit of my point. These evolved "agencies" of matter most extraordinary and articulated. Would it fit within your frame of mind, that these "agencies" of matter could represent the fragments of consciousness that when compiled within an elaborate structure such as the brain, could be the underlying source from which higher levels of consciousness are assembled?
Then it could be stated that the evolved agencies of matter are exploited by biology to manifest the compounded levels of agency of mind. The agency of matter that is aware of and responds to gravitational fields, would then be directly related to all agencies matter is capable of, including mind.
"Agency" is a useful word that is useful in describing the function of matter that is aware of and responds to gravitational fields, and agency is also useful in describing the capability of the mind we term consciousness. Consciousness could then be represented as a sliding scale that transgresses all levels of matter assembly, from individual photons and sub atomic structures, through to the extreme level of assembly and functions represented by mind. "Agency" my new favorite word.
This is my attempt to reconcile what I have learnt these few past weeks, and views such as you and James.
Thanks again and you will see me soon on your page.
Steve
view post as summary
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 03:33 GMT
Thank you for your kind words Steven. I like my ideas. I appreciate your appreciation for them. However, it is the case the Edwin Eugene Klingman is more seriously educated and more seriously experienced in science. He also writes better. When I write well, it seems to be in relatively short blurbs. I think that, in the few weeks I have known you, you are advancing at a pace that is to be acknowledged as talent. Perhaps it isn't so much a matter of advancing as it is a matter of having the opportunity for opening up. I will rate your essay in the last few minutes of the contest.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 03:44 GMT
Edwin
Yes I grew up in a fishing family in a fishing town, and make full use of the ocean in every way. Surfing, boating, sailing, fishing, diving, etc etc. My obsession with surfing has offered me a unique opportunity to tune into a dynamic of nature, of liquid matter and energy flowing through it. It is as you say, a direct experience I have had that I could express somewhat for people, but my expressions would become their indirect theory. A lot is lost in translation. But the variety of moods and different swell characteristics that come and go from day to day, is stupendous. Each surf break is unique to all others in the entire world due to a seaming endless array of subtle influences, or swell frequency and direction, bottom contour, current, tide, the list goes on forever. In addition to the determinable factors, there is also a phenomenon we refer to as the x factor. The characteristics of a given day for which we cannot determine the cause. Surfing has anomalous. There is something truly amazing about tackling a large piece of heaving ocean, driving under its curtain of heavy water, only to emerge with dry hair. It is a very intimate experience with nature, one which also translates to a useful lesson in physics.
Surfers have coined an expression. "Only a surfer knows the feeling".
Steve
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 07:05 GMT
Thank you James. I look up to you, so receiving these words from you is meaningful to me. Perhaps I am advancing but it might also be partly the case that I spend more time trying to learn from people than imposing my views. I knew the contest would be the time to share some of my ideas, so yes, opportunity to open up. I have the sense that what you refer to as talent is actually due to effort and practice. Talent implies making something difficult look easy, so it's a wonderful complement to receive. But perhaps an illusion.
Steve
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 07:24 GMT
James
What it comes down to, is that you represented an unprecedented opportunity to learn from. So i wasn't about to drown you out with the sound of my own voice. I learnt a lot from you very quickly, and still doing so. Thank you kindly.
Steve
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 08:43 GMT
Edwin
Once the results are in and you have gone through the rigmarole of thanking everybody for their support for your win. And then everything has quieted down a bit, I hope you will allow me a moment to bring up two items? I hope you will find of interest. And I'm sure James will allow me to draw him into the discussion also. They are not demanding subjects in any respect, but now just isnt the time to distract from the contest.
Kind regards
Steve
hide replies
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 04:49 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...
view entire post
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 19:19 GMT
Dear Steven Andresen,
Your essay and you are valuable new additions to the mix of physics enthusiasts and our free flowing parade of ideas taking place here at FQXi.org. Your essay deserves a higher rating. I encourage visitors to read and fairly evaluate your good ideas. I can vouch for the quality of your deductive abilities.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 02:26 GMT
James
Thank you for these kind words and petition. I am entirely satisfied with this experience of the past few weeks and score how it stands. It is not a highly polished piece of writing, but yes my hope was that people would find the ideas interesting. I have meet some interesting people, learnt some of their ideas and shared mine, and it looks like the conversation might continue post contest. My full expectations are satisfied.
Thank you for sharing in the conversations with me, and referring me to some genuinely interesting people and their fine works. You are a scholar and gentleman, and ally and a friend.
Yours sinserely
Steve
Don Limuti wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 22:27 GMT
Steve,
1. Yes the voting is over...thanks for your acknowledgment. I have a chance of taking a prize if the judges get fed up with the all the "emergence" essays and find my bit of dialog refreshing. And congratulations on your good showing in the contest.
2. The link to the 1968 Engelbart demo. It took me back nearly 50 years! (Thank you, Thank you) I never did see it till now. I never did know what happened to Doug until I heard Ted Nelson's Eulogy. Doug's goal was "group intelligence" ......nobody was that interested.
3. Digital Physics suggests that there exists, at least in principle, a program for a universal computer that computes the evolution of the universe. Could be ....however, the concept makes for very good movies :)
4. My digital wave theory starts from the premise that uncertainty and superposition were bad guesses and a better approach (my guess) is that reality is discontinuous (wavelength hopping) at the quantum level. Now this pisses off mathematicians because their precious tools become useless (the Schroedinger equation).
5. The one thing that I've done that bites is the calculation of the precession of Mercury. When I do this dark energy and dark matter become understandable as gravity. Space and gravity may be identical. You would think that this would clobber GR ....it does not. However, the link to GR is not complete.
6. That's why I invite you to look at my work. I have just spotted this really good wave, I think you may enjoy riding it. Bike riding is my thing.
Don Limuti (don.limuti@gmail.com)
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 9, 2017 @ 08:24 GMT
Thank you Don
Yes good luck on taking a prize. Its a little hard to estimate judges discretion.
Yes, space, dark energy, gravity all being the same substance. It sounds like we are testing some similar views. So you have identified a pattern, a correlation? You mentioned having a formula that corresponds to Mercury's procession, which then extends corresponds to dark energy and gravity considerations. That is the kind of thing I could appreciate. I look for the proportions between things. Where is the best place to open this discussion?
I would be interested to hear about your idea in simple terms and then expanded if you will please?
Thank you
Steve
Don Limuti replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 03:07 GMT
Steve,
Here is my recommendation, browse my website in the following order:
1. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/15_Planck_Units_and_Numerol
ogy.html
A bit of a background.
2. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/29_Visualizing_Spin.html
Thi
s will give you a notion of how I visualize a graviton. Not quite the standard model.
3. ...
view entire post
Steve,
Here is my recommendation, browse my website in the following order:
1. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/15_Planck_Units_and_Numerol
ogy.html
A bit of a background.
2. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/29_Visualizing_Spin.html
Thi
s will give you a notion of how I visualize a graviton. Not quite the standard model.
3. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/17_The_Case_for_Gravitons.h
tml
Here is where it starts to get interesting. I make a wild guess that the graviton (even thought is not light) is ruled by the Planck-Einstein equation. Now we know the energy of each graviton. The graviton now looks like a Compton wavelength and it has a mass. From there I use good old Newton's law of gravitation force to get the number of gravitons connecting two masses. The mass of a graviton bundle is the mass of each graviton times the number of gravitons.
4. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/19_Dark_Energy-Curved_Space
Time.html
Here it is shown how extragalactic gravitons (as opposed to intergalactic gravitons) cause the accelerated expansion of the universe. The simple diagram is mindblowing!
5. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/20_Dark_Energy_and_Mercurys
_Orbit.html
This is the icing on the cake! I can calculate the mass of graviton bundle connecting Mercury to the Sun.
I make two assumptions:
a. The mass of the graviton bundle is distributed linearly along the length.
b. The mass of the graviton bundle has a center of mass that is halfway between Mercury and the Sun
Said another way: The graviton bundle connecting Mercury and the Sun looks like a planet halfway between Mercury and the Sun (Vulcan lives!).
I make a ratio to show how this (dark matter) planet causes mercury to precess. It is just relatively boring math to show that this precession agrees with measured values and Einstein's predicted values.
6. At this point go to: http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/1188/1163
This is a paper I wrote on this theory, and at the end it speculates how this theory is not that different than GR.
I think you will enjoy this, keep in mind that it is just a theory, and ask me questions.
Honestly, I think this is as close to explaining dark matter and dark energy as has been accomplished to date.
Run with it.
Don Limuti
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 11, 2017 @ 02:31 GMT
Don
Taking this at face value, I think it and you are exceedingly clever. Please dont take this as agreement, because I havent nor probably could validate your work on my own. But I like the parameters you play with, and I respect the skills you need to build those associations. Its great that such a short explanation of yours can bring the vision to my mind.
I think the following is especially ingenious.
"I make a wild guess that the graviton (even though is not light) is ruled by the Planck-Einstein equation. Now we know the energy of each graviton."
What I also find interesting about the parameters you play with and the associations they deliver, is how they can be interpreted within my framework. Would you be open to a brief explanation why I think this works? It might be helpful for us to know each others minds.
Steve
Don Limuti replied on Apr. 12, 2017 @ 05:12 GMT
Hi Steve,
Yes, give me your thinking on physics and we will start a conversation.
Do this on my blog.....this way I get a heads up that I got a message.
Don L.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Don Limuti wrote on Apr. 20, 2017 @ 06:13 GMT
Hi Steve,
I believe Gluons have have short range and do not get out of the atom. They are not like Photons that can travel long distances.
But I do not know much more that this on nucleus phenomena. Sorry I cannot be of any help on your concept.
I have made a diagram of how I think gravitons (my goofy variety) can cause unanticipated accelerating expansion:
I tried to paste it here with no luck. So take a look at section 3c of "The Geometry of Dark Energy" paper.
http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/110
1/1089
Or just see the same thing on my website:
http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/19_Dark_Energy-Curv
ed_SpaceTime.html
Also, take a look on my website: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/29_Visualizing_Spin.html
The
re is a diagram that shows visually how gravitons differ from photons. Gravitons look like photons that are trapped between mirrors, that is why they have mass.
Best of Luck with the sailboat. My brother in Florida had a 43 Mooney. Every time I called he was in the boat doing something.
Greetings from Missoula MT USA
Don L.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Jun. 28, 2017 @ 08:10 GMT
Darwinian Universal
The nature of the interaction between space and matter, what causes gravitational acceleration? is a question forefront in people’s minds. But also the nature of the universal orders we observe, atomic and cosmological structures being very non-random and articulated. I will speak briefly to these now, but please bear in mind that I can corner these considerations with diverse justifications, if you should seek to test?.
In simplest terms. What is the nature of the interaction between space and matter? The one we are going to consider now is arguably the simplest conceptual possibility. That Tuv (matter) is embedded in, and in the business of "metabolizing" a field of Guv (space). Guv and Tuv share equality, so it would make sense in terms of an energy transfer and conversion flowing from space to matter. So A. where does this Guv energy potential originate from? and B. what is it converted into that explains atomic process? A. Space possesses a cosmological expansive property which takes its measure as Auv cosmological redshift, which enables us to speculate that space that is metabolized by matter is a renewable resource. B. Conventional theory does not attribute a cause for the work actions of the fundamental forces, so we speculate that the energy potential derived from Auv space is converted to the mechanical actions of Gluons and Photons, and both taking their measure as magnitudes of velocity C.
Summarizing
Cosmological Auv represents the emergence rate of a universal energy field, which is then metabolized by matter on a local basis represented by the equation Guv = Tuv, enabling the atomic mechanical actions attributed to Gluons and Photons. So this is a really simple conceptualization, and an effective test would be to ask, do the following values possess equality, Auv = Guv = Tuv? Yes they do.
Thats so far pretty brief and simple. I've put forward a hypothesis which relies on the extraordinary equality of various universal measures as evidence. But also provides an appealing chain of cause and effect that takes us beyond the notion of photons and Gluons being fundamental force. The theory of fundamental force being that of “force without a prior cause”. The idea that Gluons and Photons are energy conserved systems, which somehow perform “work” functions as by-product, is aesthetically displeasing. It ascribes to theory of causeless work, and the actions of electron bonds being good example. Electron bonds manifest a property we can appreciate at the human scale of existence, evident as the glue that binds objects together. We can directly sense these bonds as we wrap our hands around objects and apply force against them, which hold resistant against our efforts. How can their persistent resistance to your forceful actions, be described in terms other than that of “work action”? We need to move past the notion of “causeless work actions”.
In addition to this, I will briefly mention a prospective explanation for atomic and cosmological structure, order, complexity, fine tuning. The code for which is written in photon and Gluon mechanics, a product of a long standing Co-evolution between two universal elements, Auv and Tuv. Auv being a regenerative elemental field of space, and the elemental aspect of Tuv being the Photons and Gluons that form the material universe.
This hypothesis paints Auv as a regenerative field, and it can be speculated that anything that is continually regenerative, is capable of compounding changes, evolving, advancing its physical state. Tuv (matter) also demonstrates a capacity suggestive of re-generation, in the form of quark separations that generate identical copies of themselves. Not conceptually dissimilar to biological cellular divisions, which we understand leads to compounded changes we identify as Darwinian process. The standard theory of matter synthesis holds that photons created by a big bang event will spontaneously condense and precipitate to form atoms. This prescribes a whole lot of givens without adequate explanation. Atoms are wonderfully complex articulated machines, their properties evidenced by the universe they collectively build, including the form that makes you. The “given” that you must currently except for lack of an alternative explanation, is that “this can occur purely on basis of chance”. However that is no longer the case as of the realizations presented here within, that allows for compounded changes to occur, leading to ever increased levels of complexity and fine tuning, an explanation for the world around us.
This hypothesis brings to mind a scenario whereby the universe first emerges as a simplest possible configuration field quanta, and through continual regeneration compounded changes, evolved through ever shifting circumstances that eventuated as the universe we observe. A scenario like this might not easily come to mind, however I have begun to uncover a possible interpretation which can be judged for merit. And there is a persuasive case that can be made that the structure of the universe we observe around us, is evolved optimally for a purposeful interaction between space and matter, in terms of matter being spread out across space, optimized for atmospheric interaction.
I opened this post with a question towards the nature of the interaction between space and matter. And I wouldn’t really be doing the subject justice without prescribing cause, the motivation for gravitational acceleration. The main aspect of the puzzle of gravity, that holds us all spellbound. The before mentioned prescribes a scenario whereby natures forces are mediated via Photons and Gluons, which are enabled via a process of metabolism of the Auv elemental field of space. This being the case, it informs us where the motivation for universal force originates, and how it is mediated and subsequently expressed. The conventional take is that the strong nuclear force and gravity are two independent forces or phenomenon. But that ignores the rather obvious association between the two, that Gluons are the strong nuclear force from which mass is an emergent property, and it is the mass that responds to gravitational fields. So it is basic deduction that the (strong nuclear force) (Gluons) and (Mass) are all representative of one and the same property of matter. It is Gluonic Mass that both responds to gravitational fields and also possesses the capacity to mediate force, which is expressed as gravitational acceleration. In simplest terms, Gluons mediate the force that causes gravitational acceleration. If you want to qualify this possibility, then study the similarities that are known to exist between Gluons and Photons, and ask the question (if Photons can express motion, then could it be that Gluons can also express motion via the same general mechanism as Photons?
These associations are made trivial within the wider context of the theory I refer to as Darwinian Universal, which theorizes that the differences between Photons and Gluons are mainly that of structural complexity, from which Gluons manifest the additional emergent properties of matter, being mass, nuclear and molecular bonds, heat process etc. Gluons that form matter are evolved Photons. My contest essay, which I should have titled Darwinian Universal, elaborates beyond what I have mentioned here.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2890
I would like to engage this subject with the FQXi community please? I propose that my essay discussion page would be the right place to hold such a discussion, so I invite you to join me here please? Nobody would stumble across it otherwise, so I’ll sprinkle a couple of these invitations around the forum. Please keep in mind that I will only be notified of your reply, if you post it here on my essay page.
Thank you kindly for your considerations
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Jun. 29, 2017 @ 05:22 GMT
Here is another way to put it
I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received, and for the community score that tallied. However I havent engaged with the community in discussions about it yet, either in a sense that might test it or allow me to elaborate further. I have added a post to my essay thread titled Darwinian Universal, which presents an explanation for why the concept of...
view entire post
Here is another way to put it
I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received, and for the community score that tallied. However I havent engaged with the community in discussions about it yet, either in a sense that might test it or allow me to elaborate further. I have added a post to my essay thread titled Darwinian Universal, which presents an explanation for why the concept of fundamental forces is flawed, in terms of being considered an energy conserving system which undertakes perpetual work effort. Electron bond persistency in binding matter for example. Having framed it in terms of what conventional approach is conceptually missing, I then present a solution in terms of my concept. That the question of what the nature of the interaction is that exists between space and matter that would marry quantum mechanics and general relativity, is the same question as "what is the prior cause for the fundamental forces that enables their work effort?. I propose that photon and gluon activity is the product of the interaction with space, and this is why the terms of Guv and Tuv share equality. Its an energy transfer and conversion. So matter being in the business of consuming an elemental field of space that enables photon activity, dictating the rate of causality which we interpret as time. This is how it corresponds to the theory of spacetime.
This raises the question, if space is a resource matter is dependent on to maintain activity, then how can the resource remain persistent over time. Why is it not finite and subject to depletion? Auv cosmological emergence of space to the rescue. I cannot present the physics that would answer the how of Auv's continual emergence, but I can point to the observation and values attributed to its emergence, and the equality they share with universal values of Guv and Tuv. That their equality is highly suggestive they share a relationship that is causal. That Auv is a renewable resource which enables photon activity, and that Auv and Tuv are both elements of a universal system that allows for compounded changes and evolved purposeful structure and complexities to emerge. That all the activities on both atomic and cosmological scales, are evolved and optimized for their reason for existence, which is for efficiency of interaction between the Auv elemental field of space, and Tuv matter.
This theory prescribes cause, purpose and meanings to aspects of the world where there has been nothing of the sort presented before. I would like the opportunity to demonstrate to people that this concept is deserving of discussion. Are you willing to join me please and help me kick it off?
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2890
Thank you for your consideration
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
view post as summary
Anonymous replied on Jun. 29, 2017 @ 09:09 GMT
The following concept has not been vetted by peer review
The concept of “fundamental forces” including the strong nuclear force which gives rise to mass, is flawed, in terms of being considered an energy conserving system which undertakes perpetual work effort without a cause being assigned. The question of what the nature of the interaction is that exists between space and matter, that...
view entire post
The following concept has not been vetted by peer review
The concept of “fundamental forces” including the strong nuclear force which gives rise to mass, is flawed, in terms of being considered an energy conserving system which undertakes perpetual work effort without a cause being assigned. The question of what the nature of the interaction is that exists between space and matter, that would marry quantum mechanics and general relativity, is the same question as "what is the prior cause for the fundamental forces that enables their work effort?. I propose that photon and gluon activity is the product of the interaction with space, and this is why the terms of Guv and Tuv share equality. Its an energy transfer and conversion. So matter being in the business of consuming an Auv elemental field of space that enables Tuv photon activity, dictating the rate of causality which we interpret as time. This is how it corresponds to the theory of spacetime.
This raises the question, if space is a resource matter is dependent upon to maintain activity, then how can the resource remain persistent over time. Why is it not finite and subject to depletion? Auv cosmological emergence of space provides the solution. I cannot present the physics that would answer the how of Auv's continual emergence, but I can point to the observation and values attributed to its emergence, and the equality they share with universal values of Guv and Tuv. That their equality is highly suggestive they share a relationship that is causal. That Auv is a renewable resource which enables photon activity, and that Auv and Tuv are both elements of a universal system that allows for compounded changes and evolved purposeful structure and complexities to emerge. That all the activities and structures on both atomic and cosmological scales, are evolved and optimized for their reason for existence, which is for efficiency of interaction between the Auv elemental field of space, and Tuv matter.
Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a Darwinian circumstance of emergence. Take early oceanic life for example, algae invented a way to exploit the suns energy in a process known as Photosynthesis, which then founded the base of a food chain that blossomed through a diversified range of organisms of increasing levels of character and complexity. Krill that eat the algae, in turn eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, eaten by tuna, sharks, birds, dolphins and whales.
Auv cosmological emergence is a like circumstance of Darwinian emergence, as a result of an as yet unidentified natural energy potential. Like the algae, this Auv elemental field of space foundations the base of a system that has compounded ever higher levels of universal order and complexity, in the form of atomic and cosmological structure. This is how elaborate Gluon and photon characteristics have emerged in the universe, and the circumstance whereby their activity is enabled by a metabolism of an Auv elemental field of space.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steven Andresen replied on Jul. 1, 2017 @ 05:27 GMT
Within this context, an explanation for anomalous galaxy motions?
The relationship described above whereby Tuv Gluons and Photons have a relative value, dependent on the variable local energy density of Auv elemental field, space. Gluons give mass, so variable Gluon values equate to a variable Baryon mass theory which allows the redistribution of mass densities throughout galaxy disks. And...
view entire post
Within this context, an explanation for anomalous galaxy motions?
The relationship described above whereby Tuv Gluons and Photons have a relative value, dependent on the variable local energy density of Auv elemental field, space. Gluons give mass, so variable Gluon values equate to a variable Baryon mass theory which allows the redistribution of mass densities throughout galaxy disks. And I want to state the following in a particular way that also identifies how the exacting mathematical description can be formulated. Variable baryon mass corresponds to a Auv volume of space.
Based on galaxy luminosity profiles it is judged that on average, star densities fall off by square of the radius from galaxy center. So that indicates that galaxy mass declines by square of radius from galaxy center. However judging from flat galaxy rotation curves, the galaxy motions indicate that the mass density of galaxies it constant at increasing radius. The mass profile remains constant. The relationship I have described between Auv and Tuv details an inter-dependence on one another that can be stated as so. The Gluon activity which gives rise to variable Baryonic mass, is inversely proportional to the density of matter within a given volume of space Auv field. It can be understood simply as, Gluons place a load on Auv field to enable their activity, however they lower the local energy value of Auv, which in turn lowers the potential for Gluon activity. If you crowd additional Gluons into a given volume of space, the energy value of Auv varies proportionately to the increasing density of Baryons.
All I have to do to match Baryonic mass values to observed galaxy motions, is state that Gluon activity, and therefore variable Baryonic mass values are proportional to their density in a particular volume of Auv space. If the density of stars falls of by square of radius from galaxy center, then Gluons are increasing the activity that gives rise to mass proportionately. Galaxy mass distribution now matches observed motions.
view post as summary
Author Steven Andresen wrote on Jul. 2, 2017 @ 07:59 GMT
Dear Pavel and Marcelo
This video is a wonderful discovery. So impressed by Pavel Kroupa’s cosmological work, that every once and awhile I punch his name into the search engine to see if anything new is available. And so having found this video I’m introduced to Marcelo Gleiser, another wonderful thinker who’s work I must investigate. Nice to meet you Marcelo.
I have...
view entire post
Dear Pavel and Marcelo
This video is a wonderful discovery. So impressed by Pavel Kroupa’s cosmological work, that every once and awhile I punch his name into the search engine to see if anything new is available. And so having found this video I’m introduced to Marcelo Gleiser, another wonderful thinker who’s work I must investigate. Nice to meet you Marcelo.
I have something I would very much like to communicate to both of you, I hope you are paying attention to these video comments? I’ll post it below soon
There are many mysteries of the world still beyond explanation. Of those attempting to progress our awareness of the world, I think there are few doing it as effective as Pavel Kroupa. Why is he effective? I think he has done a better job than most in rationalizing conventional scientific understandings for himself, is better aware of the theoretical shortcomings, and is therefore more willing than most to second guess preconceived scientific ideas.
Pavel, please give the following more than just a passing glance. I know there is a lot of noise on the net, vying for our, your attention. Just how I might introduce you to an idea that you will recognise a value, I can only guess. But I’ve decided that the question of how fundamental forces exist and operate, while convention assigns no theoretical cause for them? This question becomes particularly interesting in respect of fundamental forces being considered energy conserved systems, when they are clearly imparting a work effort in the world. Molecular bonds are a good example of this work effort, because we can appreciate their properties at the human scale in terms of them binding objects together, which we can then wrap our own hands around and directly sense their ability to resist pressures we can place against them. Is it reasonable that a system can conserve its energy state while imparting force to the world, as a free or causeless by product? So I hope you will appreciate the value of that question, that you will take the time to hear what I have to say on the subject.
The concept of “fundamental forces” the strong nuclear force and or electromagnetic force for example, is flawed in terms of them being considered energy conserved systems which can miraculously undertake work effort, and while no cause being assigned. Moving along, the question of what the nature of the interaction is that exists between space and matter, that would marry quantum mechanics and general relativity, might have the same answer as the question "what is the prior cause for the fundamental forces that enables their work effort? Could it be that photon and gluon activity is the “product” of the interaction with space, and that the terms of Guv and Tuv sharing equality is evidence of this relationship? An energy transfer and conversion for which an element inhabiting space is paying the cost. So matter being in the business of consuming an Auv elemental field of space that enables Tuv photon activity, dictating the variable rate of causality which we interpret as times passage. This being how environments of space correspond to the theory of spacetime.
This raises the question, if space possesses a physical resource matter is dependent upon to maintain activity, then how can the resource remain persistent over time. Why is it not finite and subject to depletion? Auv cosmological emergence of space provides a possible solution. I cannot present the physics that would answer the how of Auv's continual emergence, but I can point to the observation and values attributed to its emergence, and the equality they share with universal values of Guv and Tuv. That their equality is highly suggestive they share a relationship that is causal, and the possibility outlined as above is not excluded from. That Auv is a renewable resource which enables gluon and photon activity, and that Auv and Tuv are both elements of a universal system that is continually regenerated, allowing for compounded changes and evolved purposeful structure and complexities to emerge. That all the activities and structures on both atomic and cosmological scales, are evolved and optimized for their reason for existence, which is for efficiency of interaction between the Auv elemental field of space, and Tuv matter. This will sound like a stretch on first appraisal, however I’ve had time to tease out possible interpretations that correspond to the real world, which are available for your assessment.
Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a Darwinian circumstance of emergence. Early oceanic life for example, algae invents a way to exploit the suns energy in a process of Photosynthesis, which then foundations the base of a food chain that blossoms through evolution of diversified range of organisms of increasing levels of character and complexity. Krill that eat the algae, in turn eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, eaten by tuna, sharks, birds, dolphins and whales. Natures organisational principle that builds articulated complexity.
Auv cosmological emergence is clearly associated with some kind of natural energy potential, which conceivably may be the bases for a circumstance of Darwinian emergence that leads to complex structure building. Like the algae, this Auv elemental field of space foundations the base of a system that compounds ever higher levels of universal order and complexity, in the form of atomic and cosmological structure. This is how elaborate Gluon and photon characteristics may have come to emerge in the universe, and the circumstance whereby their activity is enabled by a metabolism of an Auv elemental field of space.
The varied associations drawn above are reasonable. It enables us to make statements like, the property of gluonic mass is an evolved purposeful function of matter that builds cosmological structure, planets, stars, galaxies, with the theme of purposeful and efficient interaction with Auv. Its ability to undertake work functions accounted for in terms of cause and effect, by the Auv elemental field of space, rather than resorting to the causeless theory of fundamental forces. Similarly, we can point to molecular bonds and the functions of chemistry that build them, as evolved properties of matter with the purpose of cementing objects together. Creating optimised structures that persist in a highly kinetically energetic universe.
I could move in the direction of any number of tangents at this point, but I want to indicate something of possible value. So I give you a possable antidote for anomalous galaxy motions.
A key insight presented here within, is that gluon and photon activity are dependent on the variable energy density of their environment of space Auv. Gluons are generators of force that gives the property mass, so gluon variable activity theory, is a variable baryonic mass theory. What’s more, there is a function of proportionality evident between gluon variable activity and volume of space.
Based on luminosity profiles it is judged that an average galaxy possesses a star density profile that declines by square of the radius from galaxy centre. So we assume a galaxies baryonic mass distribution follows like kind. However the observed galaxy rotation curves operate in such a way as to indicate, the galaxy mass distribution is constant from centre to rim. To precisely remedy this situation, we invoke a function whereby variable gluon activity (mass) is coupled, proportionate to volume of Space. The magic becomes apparent when you conceptually add additional masses within a given volume of space, and you hypothesis that gluon activity (mass) declines proportionately. In the case of a galaxy whereby star density declines by square of the radius from galaxy centre, it prescribes an increasing gluon activity (mass) by square of the radius from galaxy centre, redistributing galaxy mass in such a way that predicts galaxy rotation curves.
This theory honours the measured values of Auv = Guv = Tuv, provides a contextual explanation that relates them to one another in terms of cause and effect, that portrays meaning and purpose, as well as moving beyond the idea that fundamental forces can act without cause. Explains how purposeful structures and complexities can arise within a system that regenerates and compounds change, evolves. And it provides a prospective simple formula relating variable mass and volume of space, that might be easily tested against observed anomalous galaxy motions. A variable baryonic mass theory.
I hope I will be offered the opportunity by you, to add further justifications. I have many. And perhaps have your assistance in testing the idea.
Thank you for your consideration
Steve
view post as summary
Author Steven Andresen wrote on Jul. 7, 2017 @ 05:19 GMT
An interesting idea, that Gluons are much the same as light, and light has the capacity for motion. That Gluons might be the force provider that motivates gravitational accelerations?
I would like to discuss the question of the origin of force? Again lets focus on gluons and photons, which is to say, strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force, whos actions are ascribed to the theory of “Fundamental Forces”. Within this context, the word fundamental might be interpreted as a theoretical “first cause”. Or force with no prior cause.
There are some basic problems with the theory of “force with no prior cause”. It raises the same general criticisms we might have for the notion of perpetual energy machines. But are these same general criticisms rightly directed towards the function of atomic forces? Fundamental forces do a lot of different things, but we want to identify an action which is clearly in the business of undertaking “work action” and therefore cannot be interpreted as energy conserving. So let us focus on EM electromagnetic electron bonds which glues matter together. I select electron bonds because they manifest a property of matter which we can appreciate at the macro scale of human existence, and which we can wrap our own hands around an object, and directly sense the “work effort” these electromagnetic forces are responsible for mediating.
The question is, how can perpetual work effort exist without prior cause? If we try to excuse this situation, as fundamental forces being energy conserved systems, then how do you extract work from such a system without affecting its internal checks and balances?
I know it seams as though I’m leading us toward an intangible circumstance, for which the activities of matter cannot be provided a rational explanation. But I’m not. I’m leading us down a well considered path, which I hope gives reason enough to entertain the novel solution I will provide. It is a solution which prescribes a prior cause for atomic forces, while solving a number of further problems confronting scientific understanding.
Let us consider the possibility that the following two questions have the same answer. What is the nature of the interaction between space and matter, that would marry quantum mechanics and general relativity? and what is the prior cause of atomic forces?
Let us envision, space containing a physical element which matter is in the business of consuming, to enable matters forceful activities. Guv = Tuv is the conventional interpretation of the interaction between space and matter. If it is indeed an energy transfer and conversion to atomic force, then the equality demonstrated of each of these terms bodes well. However, a conceptual challenge to this notion, would be as follows. If space contains an elemental field that is consumed by matter, then wouldn't it be a finite resource that would eventually be depleted? And on the face of it, you might think that presents an end to this conjecture. But it doesnt.
Space isn't only described in terms of Guv. Space also has a property which is described as cosmological expansion, and termed as Auv. For the benefit of this conjecture, I’ll ask you to consider the possibility that Auv is a measurement that corresponds to a regenerative process undertaken by an elemental field inhabiting space, which continually replenishes the potential, that in turn drives atomic forces. For this hypothesis to have any prospect, there would have to be a link between the value of Auv (cosmological expansion) and Tuv (atomic forces) that demonstrate an equality. And indeed, such a measure has been known about for many years. Those interested please quiz me?
Auv = Guv = Tuv.
This line of conjecture provides something further. Entities which continually regenerate have the prospect of compounding changes over time and evolving. Generationally compounded change, conceivably can lead simple systems toward heightened levels of order and complexity. The character of structures that evolve in such a system, as exampled by life, can be used to infer the circumstances of their evolution, revealing motives and purpose, which in turn convey reasons and meanings. Does this conjecture lead to an interpretation of universal emergence that explains for its very particular style of order, complexity, fine tuning? It does, and I am part way through the process of uncovering an interpretation of it.
It goes something like this. Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence which leads to heightened levels of complexity. Whether that is Algae which evolves the ability for photosynthesis, which exploits the freely available natural energy potential of the sun, which then becomes the basis of a food chain that leads to diverse organisms of increasingly complex character. Algae eaten by krill, eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, eaten by tuna, sharks, dolphins and whales. Could this be how all complexities evolve in the world, including atomic and cosmological structure?
Could Auv cosmological emergence be the result of a natural energy potential, ( as yet unidentified physical process), which has lead to a Darwinian cascade that provides circumstance, reason and purpose for the structures, complexity, fine tuning, we observe in the world around us? I am building the case so that people might be able to judge merit. Writing to you now provides me an opportunity for practice.
Author Steven Andresen replied on Jul. 7, 2017 @ 05:22 GMT
The physicists in the room are all going to give you an answer straight from the text book. But thats not what you want, because you could have found that for yourself on wiki. Boring! I will point you in the direction of original insight which is all together far more interesting. But framing it for you in simple terms, you will still have to verify the connections I will join for you.
Electromagnetism is considered one of the four fundamental forces of nature.
Another force considered as fundamental is the strong nuclear force, for which the Gluon is the mediator, which importantly is the generator of “mass”, which is the property of matter which responds to gravitational fields. Or I could have said it like this “The strong nuclear force makes the “MASS” which motivates the gravitational acceleration”.
Why do people believe gravity is a forth fundamental force independent of the other three, when clearly the strong nuclear force generates the property of matter “mass” that responds to gravitational fields? Why dont they acknowledge that Gluons mediate the force that drives gravitational acceleration? Because they are not trained as detectives to follow evidentary clues.
But your question is about connecting magnetism to gravity, and it appears I have connected Gluon activity to gravity instead. What you have to realize is that Gluons and electromagnetism (EM) are very very similar entities as one another. So to relate gravitational interaction with EM, I show you that Gluons and EM are closely related.
How are Gluons and EM related? They are related in every way! Electromagnetism is light (photons), and a useful value we can attribute to light is its velocity C. Mass is a measure of Gluon activity, and mass is a very tidy sum multiple of the speed of light kg x C x C. Or famously E=MC2. So it can be said that Gluon activity and Photon activity are correlated via proportionate magnitude of one another. Gluons and Photons also perform very similar roles as one another, in much the same way as one another. Gluons create the bonds which hold the nucleolus together, and photons create the bonds that hold electron bonds together. The theory of charge applies to both the Gluon and the Photon in the mediation of their bond interactions. You can visualize them as operating in very much the same way as one another. I could go on all day long about the similarities between Gluons and Photons, but that should be enough to make my point of their relation.
So anyway, the key point to take home is that Gluons operate very much the same way as light (EM) does. Light can propel itself through the voids of space, so why couldn't Gluons be responsible for a similar capability of generating motion? Gluons generate mass, and mass motivates gravitational acceleration, so this is indeed how it can be interpreted.
Magnetism and gravity are related, because an entity which is very closely related to magnetism, that is to say “Gluons” are the driving force for gravitational acceleration. Simple! Why dont people realize this? Because they are to confused by the idea that somehow the concept of “spacetime” will inform them how, why objects are set to motion. How can time motivate motion? is a question which leads nowhere!
Author Steven Andresen wrote on Jul. 18, 2017 @ 05:06 GMT
Halton Arp's observations that demonstrate an association between quasars and a galaxy of their apparent origin. They are visually evident. At face value, its reminiscent of life's process of cellular division. Quark separation which spontaneously generates new quarks is also reminiscent of life's process of cellular division. Highly suggestive observations that imply matters ability to replicate...
view entire post
Halton Arp's observations that demonstrate an association between quasars and a galaxy of their apparent origin. They are visually evident. At face value, its reminiscent of life's process of cellular division. Quark separation which spontaneously generates new quarks is also reminiscent of life's process of cellular division. Highly suggestive observations that imply matters ability to replicate itself.
When cells divide in the process of replicating themselves, it allows for genetic drift, which compounds changes over many generations and allows for the process of natural selection and evolution. This is how highly complex systems emerge within biology. The question of complexity in physics is a huge problem to answer, and for which SMoC doesnt have the slightest grapple on. Thats why there is speculation about multiverses, to attempt explain complexity of the world. Could this be the mechanism that explains our fine tuned universe, and the emergence of articulated structure on atomic and cosmological scales? Let us dare to speculate.
Life on earth builds complex ecosystems, but all these ecosystems have one thing in common. It is the simplest life forms which tap into and exploit a "natural energy potential" which then becomes a food chain for organisms of increasing complexity. Such as oceanic Algae which exploits the suns energy potential, Algae eaten by krill, krill eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, and in tern eaten by highly complex organisms like tuna, sharks, dolphins, whales, birds etc etc. Give nature a natural energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence.
Now I jump to a concept that on first appraisal seams bonkers. But given a chance it achieves things you wouldnt expect.
I reiterate. Give nature a natural energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. With this in mind, space is thought to contain an emergent energy, which takes its measure from cosmological redshift and referred to as Auv within theory of general relativity. Pop media refer to as mysterious Dark Energy. Presumably whatever Dark Energy is, it is exploiting a natural energy potential to preliterate itself. So let us speculate that DE might serve as the foundation of a system from which complexity has arisen, complexity in the form of the material baryonic universe that we are made of. If this were to be the case, then what clue can we assume from it that we might be able to conceptually test?
The link that stands unbroken between Algae and organisms of higher complexity within Earth ecosystems, is the passing of the suns energy from one organism to the next. One organism eats another, and I emphasize the term "metabolism" as the process that enables the energy transfer. So if we're looking at this circumstance with a view to obtaining insight that we might test, then let us test the idea that atomic forces are enabled by a process akin to "metabolism". A metabolism which converts Dark Energy into atomic activity. Could this be the nature of the interaction between space and matter that would marry quantum mechanics with general relativity? The conventional approach to atomic force is "fundamental force". The term "Fundamental" can be interpreted as "first cause" or "original cause" but of course there is no prior cause attributed to the work effort that fundamental forces are capable of. This amounts to it being a "causeless work effort". So by ascribing the ability for atomic forces to undertake work actions, to a process of interaction that is a metabolism between Dark Energy and Baryon matter, it gives us a concept to test further.
For this hypothesis to yield anything further of interest, it would have to be demonstrated that there was a prospective link between Auv and Tuv. That is to say, the value assigned to the emergence of space Auv, and the value assigned to universal Baryons Tuv. And whats amazing, is that this connection is clearly identifiable and has been known about for decades. But the conventional cosmological model couldn't make sense of these connections between the equality of Auv and Tuv, and so has been put aside as a mere curiosity. Rather than listen to me going on about them, here is a short 9 minute video of Paul Dirac making a muddle of these associations by trying to interpret them within the conventional model. But pay attention to where he derives the parameters of his hypothesis from and you will see they are indeed an indication of the associations needed if atomic forces originate from an interaction with space, that in term originates as Dark Energies emergence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o8mUyq_Wwg
Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. Dark Energy might be the result of just such an energy potential, and which serves as the basis of an integrated system able to compound changes, leading to ever higher levels of order and complexity of the world. Atomic and cosmological structure provided an explanation.
view post as summary
Author Steven Andresen wrote on Jul. 19, 2017 @ 11:18 GMT
I was asked this question!
Aside from the word "evolution" what parallels are there between a process occurring on a vast scale involving predictable nuclear processes, and one at a small scale involving random chemical mutations selected for and against by environmental pressures?
To which I answered!!
Nuclear fusion is a process occurring on a vast scale, involved in the process of generating heat within stars, providing the force that keeps stars buoyant against gravitational collapse. Whats interesting is that if fusion rates were other than what they are, stars wouldnt exist. To sensitive a reaction and stars explode as they form. Not sensitive enough and stars dont generate enough heat, gravity wins they collapse. This is one of the parameters attributed to the universal fine tuning problem.
Within my hypothesis, Stars are of an optimized physical state evolved for efficiency of interaction with Auv space. So the agency of matter we refer to as fusion is selectively calibrated to serve the purpose it is observed in the function of. The conventional approach by contrast, can only ascribe this agency of matter to being the product of lucky chance. As in, lucky the universe accidentally created this unlikely circumstance or else the universe would be dark, and wouldnt give rise to life.
You want a contrasted example concerning evolved biology.
Take your pick. Thats what typifies an evolved state, its calibrated state that enables the necessary agencies for an organisms survival. It is evolved as a state, that is also its reason for existence. A birds aerodynamics that enables it to fly. A dolphins hydrodynamics that enables efficient swimming. Human ability for comprehension which enables us to adapt, but also listen and rationalize new and novel ideas ;)
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.