FQXi Community

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Guidelines

FAQ

Essays: read and discuss

Latest FQXi news

Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Agnew: on 3/17/18 at 4:02am UTC, wrote You weave a nice story in your discrete field model. You use all of the...

Peter Jackson: on 3/16/18 at 12:06pm UTC, wrote Steve, I assume that was you. As that's my department (not maths!) I can't...

Peter Jackson: on 3/16/18 at 11:46am UTC, wrote Steve, Which maths? I don't do it! What time!? I remove all the physical...

Anonymous: on 3/15/18 at 4:16am UTC, wrote Mainstream science believes very firmly in an expanding spacetime universe,...

Steve Agnew: on 3/15/18 at 3:15am UTC, wrote I must admit that I had to once again look up the discrete field model...

Peter Jackson: on 3/11/18 at 12:30pm UTC, wrote Steve. (copied reply from mine) Thanks. I actually hit entanglement &...

Steve Agnew: on 3/3/18 at 22:49pm UTC, wrote The causal set gravity theory of Fay Dowker is really a theory of aether...

Steve Agnew: on 3/2/18 at 5:12am UTC, wrote Continuous spontaneous localization, CSL, is a very interesting conjecture...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Balybin Urievich: "As for me, teaching the younger generation is one of the main tasks of..." in The Present State of...

John Cox: "Okay. In Topology, all points on a sphere are vector positions and..." in The Quantum Identity...

Vending Ways: "Vending Ways is a UAE-based leading distributor of Coin Operated Washing..." in MCQST2021 | The universe...

Steve Dufourny: "David Bohm developed a method for comcrete dialogues rather than debates..." in Global Collaboration

Steve Dufourny: "One of the problems is the difficulty to unite and convice. The majority..." in Global Collaboration

Thomas Ray: "Kobi, You write as if information accumulates like physical grains of sand..." in Mathematical Models of...

Thomas Ray: "Nicholas, Indeed. This sums up pretty much what I had in mind when I..." in Mathematical Models of...

Thomas Ray: "I think of it this way: Just as the quality "color" is known not by the..." in The Quantum Identity...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Math of Consciousness: Q&A with Kobi Kremnitzer
A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

Can We Feel What It’s Like to Be Quantum?
Underground experiments in the heart of the Italian mountains are testing the links between consciousness and collapse theories of quantum physics.

The Thermodynamic Limits of Intelligence: Q&A with David Wolpert
Calculating the energy needed to acquire and compute information could help explain the (in)efficiency of human brains and guide the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

Gambling Against the Second Law
Using precision thermometry to make mini heat engines, that might, momentarily, bust through the thermodynamic limit.

Mind and Machine: What Does It Mean to Be Sentient?
Using neural networks to test definitions of 'autonomy.'

read & discuss all articles

FQXi FORUM

May 21, 2022

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Discrete Matter and Action as Fundamental by Steve Agnew [refresh]

Author Steve Agnew wrote on Dec. 20, 2017 @ 21:39 GMT

Essay Abstract

Although continuous space and time seem to be fundamental to our universe along with matter and action, there does seem to be a way for space and time to emerge from the fundamental action of matter. Such an approach does, however, seem to turn the universe inside out since quantum decoherence now drives the emergence of space and time.

Author Bio

Steve is a Modeler and supports nuclear waste modeling and technology development for various clients. He has 28 years experience in science and technology development in both the public and private sectors and is an internationally recognized nuclear waste scientist with over seventy publications. He did plasma technology development for 7 years and was project leader in at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Now Dr. Agnew just takes it easy...

Download Essay PDF File

Scott S Gordon wrote on Dec. 21, 2017 @ 00:55 GMT

I find it interesting that you are attributing space and time (aether) to your more fundamental components of "matter" and "action". I can interpret action as a form of energy but do you think that matter is fundamental? There are so many particles that are considered matter. Are you clumping all the particles as a fundamental ingredient? If so - how? and if not, that's a lot of fundamental ingredients!

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Jan. 6, 2018 @ 21:57 GMT

Thanks for the very useful comment. Action is a form of energy and classically, action is the difference between kinetic and potential energies. Thus, for a bound system like an atom, action is zero and for a scattering interaction, action is nonzero.

Action therefore has a long history in physics, both classical and quantum. There are many particles that mainstream science considers fundamental as well as many constants...some 50 or sixty depending on if you count antimatter separate from matter.

Discrete aether has only one fundamental particle, the gaekron, with a very small mass, mae = 8.68e-69 kg. Everything including light is then made up of aether. In addition, there are only two fundamental constants from which all other constants derive. Thus aether in a bound state is what science calls matter particles. Two aether particles bound together are what science calls a dipole photon and four aether particles are a quadrupole biphoton, which is the graviton particle of gravity.

Quantum gravity follows nicely from discrete aether since the photon created at creation, the cosmic microwave background, entangles the binding photon of each atom of matter. This means that gravity force scales charge force as a biphoton with the size of the universe while charge force is local dipole photon exchange.

The approach of discrete aether seems much too simple compared with the complexities of stringy and loopy theories, but it is fun to have a final answer to one of the deep mysteries of science...

David Brown wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 17:38 GMT

""The universe is made up of discrete particles and collections of discrete actions and observers infer continous space and time from those discrete actions." If the preceding hypothesis is true, then is it likely that some mathematical lattice structure is involved in the foundations of physics? Is the Leech lattice essential in understanding the foundations of physics?

Leech lattice, Wikipedia

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Jan. 6, 2018 @ 22:07 GMT

You know, there are already 50 or sixty fundamental dimensions as particles and constants and replacing our 3 dimensions with a 24 dimension euclidean space would allow a lot of leeway. If you include 21 hidden variables it is very likely that you can solve any problem since you just have to adjust the parameters to fit the elephant.

Obviously, I am not a big fan of adding hidden variables since I like measurement most of all. That is why quantum phase decoherence is so important for any quantum gravity. Science is actually very close to measuring the fundamental quantum phase decoherence of 0.26 ppb/yr and when it finally does, it will prove discrete aether is true.

Before then, the various decays of matter, earth spin, and moon orbit will all be ascribed to chaos and tidal friction or just accepted as mystery.

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Dec. 23, 2017 @ 17:57 GMT

Steve,

I must have missed it, but I was not able to infer the meaning of CSL.

You argue that mass and action are fundamental. You also argue that aether is fundamental. Which is more fundamental in your opinion. I believe that the vacuum has properties and is therefore more than a void. This is my interpretation of aether.

I am not clear how a shrinking universe would explain what is observed at a large scale. It would create the appearance that the universe is getting larger. But it seems to me that everything would be BLUE shifted rather than red shifted.

All in all, an interesting read.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Jan. 6, 2018 @ 22:29 GMT

I appreciate your comments and they are very helpful to me. Continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) is a notion that there is some kind of jiggling in the vacuum that is what collapses wavefunctions and therefore is what makes quantum real.

In quantum aether, the motion of charge in neutral atoms leads to a gravity jitter that is only apparent at some radius from the atom. Unlike CSL, discrete aether has well-defined radius and times and that is the red X on the plot. Normally, CSL simply assume that there is a jiggling but does not yet measure it directly.

Mass and action are fundamental and the mass of the aether particle at 8.7e-69 kg is the one and only fundamental particle, Every other particle, including photons, are all made up of the bound actions of two or more aether particles.

Aether is what defines matter and along with action, is also what defines space and time. The shrinking universe does result in blue shifts, but early time have lower forces and therefore appear red shifted because they are lower force. Thus many physical constants evolve over the universe.

Nainan K. Varghese wrote on Dec. 26, 2017 @ 09:24 GMT

Thank you very much for the essay. I think you are almost right in stating that ‘discrete aether and discrete action are most fundamental’. Since discrete aether (mentioned by you) is structured by matter, matter becomes the most fundamental entity. I support this view.

However, an action is the difference between two states of a real entity and it is the effect of a cause. Hence, cause should always precede action (effect). As cause is the reason for action, cause becomes more fundamental, which itself is the product of real entities.

‘Fundamental’ describes something from which everything else is made. Therefore, the fundamental (entity) of universe is beyond definition (by its own products). We can only assume its existence and infer its actions to form everything else, including discrete aether, by its own grace. In material world, existence of matter is nearest to absolute truth. Hence, matter can be safely assumed to provide substance to all real entities. This makes ‘matter’ the ‘most fundamental’ entity of all.

Thanks for links to your blogs posts.

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Jan. 6, 2018 @ 22:43 GMT

Thank-you for your comment. All matter is made up of some structure or action of aether. Action is the difference between kinetic and potential energy and so for a bound state, action is zero. When there is an imbalance, there is action and matter changes.

Typically science calls this imbalance a cause and the action an effect, but here is where we must be careful. There is phase as well as amplitude for every action and the action of phase can be difficult to assign to a single cause. Although mass exchange means conservation of mass, phase exchange is a quantum property of entanglement.

This means that quantum effects may not be due to single causes but rather a superposition of causes. In fact, it may not be possible to actually know the cause of a quantum action except as a probability. This means that it is the action that is fundamental and not its cause since cause may be uncertain.

Matter is fundamental, but matter has no meaning without action and it is the duality of matter and action that is fundamental.

Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 00:32 GMT

Hi Steve, you have done a good job presenting your model, nice presentation. It was easier to read and comprehend than I had anticipated. You have very clearly indicated what you consider fundamental, addressing the topic question. Kind regards, Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Jan. 6, 2018 @ 22:44 GMT

Thank-you.

Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 16:51 GMT

Dear Dr. Agnew,

You discuss many things in your essay, not all of which I followed. But you talk about particles of a discrete aether which defines space and time.

You might be interested in my essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”, in which I argue that time and space are defined by the quantum frequency and wavelength of the electron. In a gravitational potential, these parameters are subject to gravitational time dilation and length contraction. The trajectories of general relativity follow from this, without consideration of any abstract spacetime. I argue further that Planck’s constant arises from spin quantization of these same quantum fields. But there is no need for uncertainty, superposition, decoherence, and entanglement that are present in the orthodox theory. This neoclassical synthesis is remarkably simple and unifying, and makes testable predictions that differ from orthodox quantum theory.

Furthermore, the advent of quantum computing takes this beyond obscure philosophy into the technological realm. Without entanglement, quantum computing will not work. There are billions of dollars being invested in this, and I expect an answer within 5 years. But when I have tried to discuss this with active participants in the field, they react as if I am killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs. No one wants to hear such a negative story, including funding agents. My prediction is that the failure of quantum computing will lead to a reassessment of the entire foundations of quantum mechanics.

Best Wishes,

Alan Kadin

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 04:55 GMT

Thank-you for your attention...attention is difficult to get in the FXQI cacaphony of opinion.

My fundamentals include a fundamental particle of aether and you seem to have a fundamental particle as an electron. Of course, mainstream science presumes electrons as fundamental as well and so it is not clear how your theory can use electrons and mainstream cannot.

The electron is simply to large to be fundamental and there are 1e38 or so aether particle in each electron. There are only two aethers in each photon and only four aethers in each biphoton or graviton.

Look...science will either measure phase decay in the next couple of years and validate discrete aether or they will not. In either event, it is has been fun...

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 20:44 GMT

Steve,

Great essay. Interesting, nice writing style. Short, but very sweet. For me a truffle beats the largest of plum puddings!

I think you hit most key points for successful rationalisation of the ever stickier plum pudding of doctrine. CSL, discrete ether, and constant electron spin rate, all well justified. At 3 points each just for those it's near max even though curtailed!

I would prevail on you to read mine, which employs those 3 concepts with a couple more new ingredients to surprising (for most but not for us) effect. I also commend Declan Trail's (even shorter!) giving the matching computer code.

Of course I don't agree all. I've published a cyclic cosmology model that appears to fit wider evidence very well, though it does have two opposing parts (as Quasar jets) an orthogonal axis for each cycle which could be said to be 'inverse'. But the scoring criteria doesn't include 'agreement'.

I look forward to discussion. Very well done on yours.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 04:37 GMT

Well...you have been around the block way before I was...but thanks. Not too many essays seem to actually state what is fundamental and so that is a little disappointing to me.

Also, not too many essays deal with gravity unification and that is too bad. I do read essays that address the theme, but many unfortunately do not seem to address what is fundamental...

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 12:40 GMT

Steve, Of course all essayists address what they SEE as fundamental, but I agree gravity is high on gravitas! Then if there is 'no matter' at all then it's no matter! so I go to creation of matter (so gravity) itself, where gravity seems able to simply emerge as a reduced energy density distribution in the condensate from whence the matter came. But as always logical consistency isn't enough.

Best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 04:24 GMT

Steve, Descartes idea of identity of space and matter stronger ideas of ether, which he imagined tiny particles that fill the interstices between large particles, to make the space without voids. He said that the void spaces are filled immediately and they do not exist. New Cartesian Physics, the principles of which I developed according to the modern view that the voids in the filled space with the speed of light, and this is the reason perpetual motion of a physical space which is matter. Steve, I urge you, take over in his papers the mythological air of the notion of physical space and they'll soon become more attractive. Read my essay and see how radically you can change physics. I give you my highest rating.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 05:31 GMT

Thank-you very much for your kind words. Descartes and most early scientists believed that there was a fundamental aether particle that actually filled all of space. Einstein, in fact, mentioned aether many times in his early work but abandoned aether in lieu of spacetime.

However, modern science has created aether many times over and yet call aether vacuum oscillators or strings or quantum loops or any number of other things. Aether is not a particle that fills all voids...voids and space are notions that we use to separate aether particles from each other. We keep track of the action of aether by a combination of space and time...both of which emerge from the action of aether...

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 13:39 GMT

Hi Steve Agnew

Wonderfully matching ideas dear Steve Agnew…. The concept “Although continuous space and time seem to be fundamental to our universe, Discrete Matter and Action is Fundamental” you are correct…. Very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

On the similar principles the Dynamic Universe Model also emerged….

I request...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 05:36 GMT

Thank-you for your comments.

You do not mention quantum phase decay nor do you say anything about quantum gravity. You do have a long list, but without quantum phase decay, there can be no quantum gravity. You also do not seem to believe in the fundamental aether particle of the universe and that is a key to both quantum phase decay and quantum gravity...

DIOGENES AYBAR wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 13:24 GMT

Dear Steve;

I like your critique of the concept of continuous space and time. You have good intuitive insight when you say that “It is the collection of discrete wavelengths of light that define space from the discrete actions of that light”; but you have to go a bit deeper to find the reason for that fundamental discreteness. I think your line of thought can converge with mine. I invite you explore this possibility by reading my essay.

Yours truly;

Diogenes

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 05:26 GMT

Well...the universe is the way that it is because it is the way that it is...there is no more fundamental reason. All that we can every hope is to understand the universe as the way that it it...

Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 21:51 GMT

Dear Steve Agnew,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

post approved

Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:25 GMT

Dear Steve,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

It is so close to me. «In s ummary, for matter and action to be the fundamental things from which all else emerges, the universe must be made up of a very large but finite number of particles of matter called aether. Instead of aether existing in continuous space and time, though, continuous space and time both emerge from the discrete actions of discrete aether. Since both gravity and charge derive from the decoherence of quantum aether, they become in effect scaled versions of each other and the discrete action of aether provides a fundamental framework for a rational universe».

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 04:46 GMT

You have a very good intuition and I have actually visited Krasnoyarsk and K-26 and I liked Siberia very much. You suppose that a torroidal gravity wave is fundamental and that certainly sounds a lot like aether. Now...you also need a discrete action to complement that gravity wave and you will have it all.

Do include some differential equations in your model and do show the Shrodinger equation and how it affects your work...keep the faith...

Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 10:55 GMT

Hello Steve,

Congratulations for your essay about these actions and this aether, I liked a lot your general analyses of this aether and these actions.

I wish you all the best in this contest.

Best Regards

post approved

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 07:14 GMT

Dear Steve Agnew, you wrote a wonderful essay, I put 10. However, it would be even better if you replaced the concept of aether by the concept of physical space in the stat of physical vacuum. Should be distinguished physical space from geometric space. According to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes physical space is matter and matter is a physical space that is moving. Time is a synonym for the total movement. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which can to be the theory of everything OO.

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 04:53 GMT

I resist the notions of space and time because they both lead to infinitely continuous media that are then subject to annoying singularities. With discrete matter and discrete action, there are no annoying singularities and so physical space and time no longer pose the singularities of mainstream science.

Measurement already confirms the existence of slow decay of matter, but electromagnetic and gravity noise confuse the analysis. Discrete matter and action mean that there is both a decay of matter along with an expansion of force and that is what confounds mainstream science...

Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 20:56 GMT

Hello Steve,

There is a large measure of agreement that time, space, energy (that you refer to as ‘action’) and matter are fundamental constituents of the universe.

I thought that there was also general agreement that ‘aether’ is a misconception.

Regarding your references to the ‘shrinking universe’ and an ‘expanding universe’, physicists are inclined to define...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 05:08 GMT

Interesting. Thanks for the detailed remark. Space and time are very useful notions and indeed, it is difficult to imagine a universe based solely on matter and action...and yet mathematically, it is easy to imagine.

You speak of "what is beyond" the universe, but that question presupposes the notions of space and time. You note that:

"Discrete events arise from the interaction between energy and matter. They are enabled by the prior existence of time and space that function as context. Only increments of time ‘emerge’ between events, which fact helps us distinguish each event from all others."

First of all, you use words that presuppose space and time. An event is necessarily defined by time and has no meaning otherwise. Once you accept the notion of an event, you accept the basis of space and time. If instead you say that matter and action define change, time and space emerge from that action of matter, not the other way around.

Since the math seems to work just fine, the simple approach of matter and action does seem to describe a simple fundamental duality.

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 04:55 GMT

Nice essay Steve,

Very short but well presented. Not adequately explained was CSL, which I understand well but could have been summarized in endnotes...

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 05:12 GMT

Continuous spontaneous localization, CSL, is a very interesting conjecture that supposes that there is an inherent decoherence rate for quantum phase entanglement. My point here was very simple: The current CSL estimates are consistent with the intrinsic decoherence of aether entanglement. Aether entanglement decoherence is what drives and therefore unites both charge and gravity force...

Author Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 3, 2018 @ 22:49 GMT

The causal set gravity theory of Fay Dowker is really a theory of aether and action. There are three axioms that the universe is transitive, non-circular, and finite.

This is a granular theory of spacetime and concludes that there are 1e240 aether atoms in the in universe. Discrete aether supposes that there are 1.2e125 that make up the aether universe. The causal set universe seems to have a lot more aether.

Also, moments of time in causal sets are creations of aether but it is the decay of aether coherence that determines moments in discrete aether. Evidently granular spacetime has not been very well received because of some kind of edge effects that should show up in the CMB. There was a grant to Rideout in 2012 but not much since then on granular spacetime...too bad...

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 11, 2018 @ 12:30 GMT

Steve. (copied reply from mine)

Thanks. I actually hit entanglement & superposition head on. but didn't dwell; Superposition is REAL, as the experiment confirms, but not what we expect. It's Maxwell's 'curl' with in inverse distribution to linear 'up/down', so NOT 'singlet' states!

'Entanglement' only needs to be retained parallel polar axes of the pairs. A,B 'measure' with rotatable field electrons; so each output is actually either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE' at some amplitudes. Think hard; non-locality is then NOT REQUIRED!

The only thing I've found at all limited about "classical intuition of space and time" is my ability to get it's logic across to those with different beliefs embedded or their own focussed viewpoint. SR was fully logically resolved in past (top 10) essays with the discrete (space/'time') field model (DFM) of nested spaces defined by relative motion and bounded by 2-fluid plasma interaction. i.e. your 'action' concept is indeed at it's heart.

Just identify what parts you don't recall resolved in the DFM and I'll run though it again. Not sure we can now access long posts, (yours?) so I'll stop here.

Best, Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 15, 2018 @ 03:15 GMT

I must admit that I had to once again look up the discrete field model (DFM) in order to better understand where you are coming from. First of all, you intuition is really great...but your maths leave much to be desired.

It is confusing to say that a discrete field model is something new since quantum electrodynamics is a discrete field model as well. Feynmans's QED is the epitome of a discrete field model and yet you do not seem to acknowledge Feynman in your writing.

Anyway...you do propose a discrete plasma as the basis for a DFM, but you do not say much about space and time. Do space and time exist first and then the DFM fills space and time?

The universe is made up of discrete aether and action and now there is a theory of causal sets that seems to show how space and time emerge from matter and action. The notion of the universe as a causal set is really intriguing and allows the emergence of space and time for the simple causal principles of matter and action.

That to me is really cool...

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2018 @ 11:46 GMT

Steve,

Which maths? I don't do it! What time!? I remove all the physical traits we endow 'time' with, so it's just a consequence of my fundamental relative 'motion', whereon 'space' emerges, not 'space/time' but ANY one or more fermions - re-emitting at local c. I see QED well founded but parked up a cul-de-sac, & blame Feynman for our "shut up and stop thinking" era of zero progress. I answered your post on mine viz;

Thanks, but I'm not sure where I've gone smooth. I confess I never really understood causal sets theory and didn't see how could be 'fractal'. To explain, In the 'Discrete Field' Dynamic all apparent 'smooth' Lagrangian behaviour is granular at the next scale down, naturally recursive, rather like the amplituhedron. Rotation is what DEFINES a discrete state or 'granule'

So; The 'vortex' state of a (Majorana?) fermion ('electron/positron pair') as the smallest 'condensed matter' state, is made of many smaller vortices, the 'pressure' distribution of which around the fermion (etc) is what we call 'gravity'. I feel that's more in line with granularity than continuity. No?

If you feel the two can combine for something greater than the sum... do advise.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 15, 2018 @ 04:16 GMT

Mainstream science believes very firmly in an expanding spacetime universe, but discrete matter and action are actually what make up the universe, not continuous space and time. Both charge and gravity forces emerge from the collapse of discrete aether and that is why gravity and charge expand over time. The red shifts of galaxies go back in time all the way to the very cold (2.7 K) CMB creation (cosmic wave background).

The increasing red shift of ever younger galaxies and the very cold CMB creation are both consistent with the weaker forces and increased matter of the younger universe. The collapse of the cold CMB creation is actually at the speed of light and instead of the being a constant for all time, the universe collapse is what determines the speed of light in every epoch. Thus the very cold CMB creation will always be visible and will steadily warm up as the universe collapses. The Hubble constant shows the mass of the shrinking universe from a cold creation.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2018 @ 12:06 GMT

Steve,

I assume that was you. As that's my department (not maths!) I can't help comment & question; "The Hubble constant shows the mass of the shrinking universe from a cold creation."!!?

I'm not wedded to doctrine, and can agree a shrinking universe, but from the Hubble constant? (I think unnecessary anyway) and with a 'cold' start? (I think NOT unnecessary!)

Just so's you know, the DFM suggestet a dead simple derivation of redshift over time as a natural function of the OAM of light and the Schrodinger sphere expansion. A recycling cosmology also emerges by the way. (videos ^ & published papers on both available if you wish)

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 17, 2018 @ 04:02 GMT

You weave a nice story in your discrete field model. You use all of the right words like Schrodinger sphere and fraunhofer diffraction, but then your maths leave much to be desired.

Intuition is an important part of our subjective reality, but we must be able to agree with others about our objective reality as well as our subjective reality.

Your DFM seems much too subjective and does not give us the entropy of a black hole, for example. Any cosmology must give us the entropy of a black hole or it is not even work considering...