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

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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

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

Previous Contests

**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

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 3/7/18 at 16:17pm UTC, wrote Hans, Thanks for your post on mine, though you diodn't comment on the main...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 2/23/18 at 19:43pm UTC, wrote Hans, I hope you get to read and comment on mine as I did yours. I'd value...

**Vladimir Fedorov**: *on* 2/23/18 at 14:07pm UTC, wrote Dear Hans, …(copied to your and mine) Thank you very much for your...

**Vladimir Fedorov**: *on* 2/22/18 at 6:09am UTC, wrote Dear Hans, I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay. It is so...

**Hans van Leunen**: *on* 2/17/18 at 11:36am UTC, wrote Philip, I combined a few papers in "Structure in Physical Reality";...

**Philip Gibbs**: *on* 2/17/18 at 10:46am UTC, wrote "The requirement that experiments must verify everything is sound-ready...

**Hans van Leunen**: *on* 2/8/18 at 21:55pm UTC, wrote James, Please read "Nature's Basic Dark Quanta",...

**James Hoover**: *on* 2/8/18 at 17:37pm UTC, wrote Hans, You cogently and economically describe a "Structure in Reality." You...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Anonymous**: "North Korea's unilateral action of announcing it was shutting down its only..."
*in* Whose Physics Is It...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Hi Heinrich I'm not convinced that prior knowledge or experience is..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Heinrich Luediger**: "Hi Georgina, I said ....one way or another. I'm sure you could have..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear FQXi.org Board of Directors, Irrefutable evidence exists that..."
*in* Whose Physics Is It...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Hellen jos, you probably only wanted to place a link, however FYI lots of..."
*in* Does Quantum Weirdness...

**Eckard Blumschein**: "There was perhaps not yet a third crisis of cosmology conference after..."
*in* The Quantum...

**Jonathan Dickau**: "For what it is worth... I was there! The paper by Louis Marmet cited..."
*in* The Quantum...

**Ashish Kochaar**: "No words for the Quantumology. As per their figures and Dates in the May..."
*in* Deferential Geometry

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein**

Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

**Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion**

Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

**The Complexity Conundrum**

Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

**Quantum Dream Time**

Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

**Our Place in the Multiverse**

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

FQXi FORUM

April 26, 2018

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]

TOPIC: Structure in Reality by Hans van Leunen [refresh]

TOPIC: Structure in Reality by Hans van Leunen [refresh]

This essay's rating: Community = 5.6; Public = 4.0

**RATE THIS ESSAY**

This essay is a candidate in FQXi's current Essay Contest,*What Is “Fundamental”.*
Please note that at this time, essay rating is restricted to public voters only.

If you would like to rate this essay: After logging in, you'll be able to rate this essay as well as other submissions in the current Essay Contest.

Would you like to rate this essay?

This essay is a candidate in FQXi's current Essay Contest,

If you would like to rate this essay: After logging in, you'll be able to rate this essay as well as other submissions in the current Essay Contest.

Study of the physical reality can happen in two different ways that meet each other at a certain point and then complement each other.

Hans van Leunen is a retired physicist. Born in 1941 in the Netherlands. MSc Applied Physics at TUE, Eindhoven Career in Hightech industry. Intensified imaging & software generation Initiator of https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project

wnload Essay PDF File

Hans,

Your approach is correct. The reason no one touch that is because it is the domain of Metaphysics. Without using the actual "M" word, this is what I did in my essay.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Your approach is correct. The reason no one touch that is because it is the domain of Metaphysics. Without using the actual "M" word, this is what I did in my essay.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

J.A.J. van Leunen,

After reading your essay - I think you may be interested in reading mine...

The Day after the nightmare scenario - Scott S Gordon

report post as inappropriate

After reading your essay - I think you may be interested in reading mine...

The Day after the nightmare scenario - Scott S Gordon

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the essay. I fully agree with your statement that “Observations and measurements cannot uncover everything. Only the application of deduction can expose the parts of the physical reality that resist observation. The interplay of measurements and deduction can bring about the necessary confidence. The requirement that experiments must verify everything is sound-ready crap. Much of the physical reality is inaccessible to measurement. In that case, deduction remains the only way of approach”. We are 3D rational beings. Our senses and instruments detect only 3D matter-bodies and their interactions. We are unable to appreciate existence and actions in lower spatial systems. We can only infer what happens in lower spatial dimensional systems. Such deductions can bring about continuity of development of universe from its most fundamental entity. For this, conceptual approach will be more suitable than mathematics.

Regards,

Nainan

report post as inappropriate

Regards,

Nainan

report post as inappropriate

As I read it your essay outlines the (two) standard approaches to reality - analyzing phenomena or building (synthesizing) models, and suggests a bridge between them. A concrete proposal turns it into a tangible asset. Using the insight that some structures are intinsically finite, that is, there are just a few 'number like' types, is also something I appreciate. There is point of personal interest that you might clarify perhaps: what about octonions? Work on their geometry and/or physics has appeared during the last decade.

Best.

a.l.

report post as inappropriate

Best.

a.l.

report post as inappropriate

Dear friend, As soon as you know that nature applies a Hilbert space as its repository for its data, then you know that it restricts its number systems to division rings. The most elaborate division ring is formed by the quaternions. The octonions and the bi-quaternions are not division rings. Quaternions are optimally suited to store dynamic geometric data in a Euclidean format that combines a time stamp and a spatial location. Observers can retrieve these data, but an embedding field acts as a transporter, such that the observers perceive in spacetime format. The hyperbolic Lorentz transform describes the corresponding coordinate conversion.

Greathings, Hans

Greathings, Hans

Hi Hans...

Your initial statement "The name physical reality is used to display the universe with everything that exists and moves therein." is appreciated as a attempt to clarify semantic interpretive errors... but what fundamentally constitutes Physical?... motion??... some theoretical minimum unit of Energy (QE)???

What fundamental property do we assign to any one of "everything"...

view entire post

Your initial statement "The name physical reality is used to display the universe with everything that exists and moves therein." is appreciated as a attempt to clarify semantic interpretive errors... but what fundamentally constitutes Physical?... motion??... some theoretical minimum unit of Energy (QE)???

What fundamental property do we assign to any one of "everything"...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

The Hilbert Book Model is a purely mathematical model that starts at a foundation which is an orthomodular lattice. This foundation emerges into a read-only repository that stores all dynamic geometric data of its discrete objects in the eigenspaces of dedicated operators that reside in separable Hilbert spaces that share the same underlying vector space. It is possible to sequence the time-stamps of the archived data and this corresponds with a subspace of the underlying vector space that scans the model as a function of a real number progression value. Observers travel with this scanning window, which represents the current static status quo of the model. Observers can only retrieve data that are archived with a historic time stamp. Elementary particles are the lowest form of observers and they figure in observable events. Further, they are elementary modules that together constitute all other modules and some of the modules constitute modular systems. Some of these modular systems are intelligent species. Two lower categories of super-tiny objects exist that constitute all other objects that exist in the model. These objects are shock fronts and they constitute the interaction between the living space and the objects that live in that space. The living space is a continuum. That continuum transfers information between the discrete objects.

At higher levels, this model will show resemblance to the environment that is perceived by intelligent species. Only a small part of the model is accessible to the perception by observers. That part may be called physics.

At higher levels, this model will show resemblance to the environment that is perceived by intelligent species. Only a small part of the model is accessible to the perception by observers. That part may be called physics.

Hi Hans...

Could you provide a link to a graphic geometry representation of the Origin Singularity of a "purely mathematical model that starts at a foundation which is an orthomodular lattice"?

Thanks Hans, for making details of your model available.

S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

report post as inappropriate

Could you provide a link to a graphic geometry representation of the Origin Singularity of a "purely mathematical model that starts at a foundation which is an orthomodular lattice"?

Thanks Hans, for making details of your model available.

S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

report post as inappropriate

Hi Hans...

There are an infinite number of Orthomodular lattice, any of which can be a Mathematical "foundation"... i.e. coordinate system... on which to derive concepts of Spatial geometry, and any geometry structural "foundation"... i.e. coordinate system... has elements that are more "fundamental"... e.q. origin, axis, dimension, base unit of quantization, singularity etc.... origin...

view entire post

There are an infinite number of Orthomodular lattice, any of which can be a Mathematical "foundation"... i.e. coordinate system... on which to derive concepts of Spatial geometry, and any geometry structural "foundation"... i.e. coordinate system... has elements that are more "fundamental"... e.q. origin, axis, dimension, base unit of quantization, singularity etc.... origin...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hans,

An interesting new view of the HBM. I still agree the 'interleaved pages' quantum logic view as my 'Red/Green sock trick' essay but this essay gave me a new insight into your use of Hilbert Space.

Of course I also agree your fundamental tenet, which also matches mine. Start from the simplest level and use deduction. I found it can achieve astonishing results.

I still haven't properly investigated the validity of quaternions in describing the structure I arrive at, with 2 different & orthogonal momenta pairs (each +/-) varying across 3 degrees of freedom (x,y,z, spherical axes). If you can see any rationale do explain.

My own rationale and finding is effectively coded by Declan Trail, including working from my recent essays etc. offering a quite sound proof of it's relevance. Of course it arose from the SR rationale so unification is implicit from re-emissions at local c. I'd value your comments from a very different perspective.

Though rather short I intend to score yours highly as it responds well to the scoring criteria.

One more matter, I've liked Alan Kadins recent work though he seems to have wandered off track with this one. He concludes; "There is no Hilbert Space"! Can you reconcile any of his argument?

Nicely written. Very best.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

An interesting new view of the HBM. I still agree the 'interleaved pages' quantum logic view as my 'Red/Green sock trick' essay but this essay gave me a new insight into your use of Hilbert Space.

Of course I also agree your fundamental tenet, which also matches mine. Start from the simplest level and use deduction. I found it can achieve astonishing results.

I still haven't properly investigated the validity of quaternions in describing the structure I arrive at, with 2 different & orthogonal momenta pairs (each +/-) varying across 3 degrees of freedom (x,y,z, spherical axes). If you can see any rationale do explain.

My own rationale and finding is effectively coded by Declan Trail, including working from my recent essays etc. offering a quite sound proof of it's relevance. Of course it arose from the SR rationale so unification is implicit from re-emissions at local c. I'd value your comments from a very different perspective.

Though rather short I intend to score yours highly as it responds well to the scoring criteria.

One more matter, I've liked Alan Kadins recent work though he seems to have wandered off track with this one. He concludes; "There is no Hilbert Space"! Can you reconcile any of his argument?

Nicely written. Very best.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter, you can find many highlights of the Hilbert Book Model in http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen. One, in particular, treats quaternionic differential calculus. "Mother of all Field Equations"; http://vixra.org/abs/1709.0324. You might also be interested in "Nature's Basic Dark Quanta"; http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0241.

Last weekend I visited Vigro in Italy together with 40 students and alumni of the TUE. It was quite enjoyable.

It is great fun to do this research and discuss with scientists like you.

Greathings, Hans

Last weekend I visited Vigro in Italy together with 40 students and alumni of the TUE. It was quite enjoyable.

It is great fun to do this research and discuss with scientists like you.

Greathings, Hans

Hans,

I do hope you may look at my complex sequence and advise if you think quaternions may apply & help express it. (It's rather like Diracs QM equation with 2 pairs orthogonally inverse).

Yes I still enjoy student interaction. In August with a Delft student crew I won a Race from UK to France, discussing physics much of the way, and the 6 inertial frames we were dealing with (4 evolving); Earth-centric, Sea Bed, Water, Ambient Air ('wind'), accelerated air flow, Boat. 'Apparent Wind' is a critical concept.

I assume you can't reconcile Alan Kadin's 'no Hilbert Space' comment?

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I do hope you may look at my complex sequence and advise if you think quaternions may apply & help express it. (It's rather like Diracs QM equation with 2 pairs orthogonally inverse).

Yes I still enjoy student interaction. In August with a Delft student crew I won a Race from UK to France, discussing physics much of the way, and the 6 inertial frames we were dealing with (4 evolving); Earth-centric, Sea Bed, Water, Ambient Air ('wind'), accelerated air flow, Boat. 'Apparent Wind' is a critical concept.

I assume you can't reconcile Alan Kadin's 'no Hilbert Space' comment?

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Sue,

The Wikiversity Hilbert Book Model Project contains a slide presentation that treats some highlights of the project

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project/S

lide_show

Similarly, the e-print archive http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen contains several documents that highlight aspects of the project.

The orthomodular lattice is treated in https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project/R

elational_Structures. "Diversity of floating platforms"; http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0242 treats the base model that emerges from the orthomodular lattice.

Sincerely yours, Hans

The Wikiversity Hilbert Book Model Project contains a slide presentation that treats some highlights of the project

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project/S

lide_show

Similarly, the e-print archive http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen contains several documents that highlight aspects of the project.

The orthomodular lattice is treated in https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project/R

elational_Structures. "Diversity of floating platforms"; http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0242 treats the base model that emerges from the orthomodular lattice.

Sincerely yours, Hans

Hi Hans van Leunen

Sue Lingo wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 02:04 GMT said …”Your initial statement "The name physical reality is used to display the universe with everything that exists and moves therein." is appreciated as a attempt to clarify semantic interpretive errors... but what fundamentally constitutes Physical?... motion??”

I am thinking of giving “Gravity” as...

view entire post

Sue Lingo wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 02:04 GMT said …”Your initial statement "The name physical reality is used to display the universe with everything that exists and moves therein." is appreciated as a attempt to clarify semantic interpretive errors... but what fundamentally constitutes Physical?... motion??”

I am thinking of giving “Gravity” as...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Satyavarapu,

Most of these claims require the support of a foundation from which these claims can be derived.

Most claims are quite a high level. It will be a hell of a job to derive them from fundamentals.

The gravitation field represents our living space. It is coupled to the electromagnetic field via the geometric centers of the platforms on which the elementary particles reside. The two fields differ fundamentally in their start and boundary conditions. Still, they both obey the same basic differential equations.

Our living space embeds the elementary particles and this embedding deforms our living space. The elementary particles inherit their electric charges, color charges and spin from the platform on which they reside.

Since the platforms couple the two fields in a very intimate way the "electromagnetic radiation DOES NOT PASS grazingly near gravitating mass".

Elementary particles are elementary modules. Together they constitute all other modules that exist in the universe. Some of the modules constitute modular systems.

report post as inappropriate

Most of these claims require the support of a foundation from which these claims can be derived.

Most claims are quite a high level. It will be a hell of a job to derive them from fundamentals.

The gravitation field represents our living space. It is coupled to the electromagnetic field via the geometric centers of the platforms on which the elementary particles reside. The two fields differ fundamentally in their start and boundary conditions. Still, they both obey the same basic differential equations.

Our living space embeds the elementary particles and this embedding deforms our living space. The elementary particles inherit their electric charges, color charges and spin from the platform on which they reside.

Since the platforms couple the two fields in a very intimate way the "electromagnetic radiation DOES NOT PASS grazingly near gravitating mass".

Elementary particles are elementary modules. Together they constitute all other modules that exist in the universe. Some of the modules constitute modular systems.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Hans,

Thank you for your reply…

……………Your observation……………

Most of these claims require the support of a foundation from which these claims can be derived.

Most claims are quite a high level. It will be a hell of a job to derive them from fundamentals.

………….. Reply……….

They are not claims, they are sort of assumptions of Dynamic Universe Model…. Based physical observational data in the universe

…………….your observation……….

The gravitation field represents our living space. It is coupled to the electromagnetic field via the geometric centers of the platforms on which the elementary particles reside. The two fields differ fundamentally in their start and boundary conditions. Still, they both obey the same basic differential equations.

Our living space embeds the elementary particles and this embedding deforms our living space. The elementary particles inherit their electric charges, color charges and spin from the platform on which they reside.

Since the platforms couple the two fields in a very intimate way the "electromagnetic radiation DOES NOT PASS grazingly near gravitating mass".

………….. Reply……….

Why not, Many experiments were conducted alredy for the last 100 years….You are confusing probably, Shall I say Light rays?

…………….your observation……….

Elementary particles are elementary modules. Together they constitute all other modules that exist in the universe. Some of the modules constitute modular systems.

………….. Reply……….

I did not understand your point…. Please clarify….

Best

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your reply…

……………Your observation……………

Most of these claims require the support of a foundation from which these claims can be derived.

Most claims are quite a high level. It will be a hell of a job to derive them from fundamentals.

………….. Reply……….

They are not claims, they are sort of assumptions of Dynamic Universe Model…. Based physical observational data in the universe

…………….your observation……….

The gravitation field represents our living space. It is coupled to the electromagnetic field via the geometric centers of the platforms on which the elementary particles reside. The two fields differ fundamentally in their start and boundary conditions. Still, they both obey the same basic differential equations.

Our living space embeds the elementary particles and this embedding deforms our living space. The elementary particles inherit their electric charges, color charges and spin from the platform on which they reside.

Since the platforms couple the two fields in a very intimate way the "electromagnetic radiation DOES NOT PASS grazingly near gravitating mass".

………….. Reply……….

Why not, Many experiments were conducted alredy for the last 100 years….You are confusing probably, Shall I say Light rays?

…………….your observation……….

Elementary particles are elementary modules. Together they constitute all other modules that exist in the universe. Some of the modules constitute modular systems.

………….. Reply……….

I did not understand your point…. Please clarify….

Best

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Dear Hans

Dynamic Universe Model is totally based on experimental results or observations only.... They are not claims, based on observations.... any one can verify....

Predictions are on mathematically derived.... Many came true, This one is new...

Best

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Dynamic Universe Model is totally based on experimental results or observations only.... They are not claims, based on observations.... any one can verify....

Predictions are on mathematically derived.... Many came true, This one is new...

Best

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Dear Hans,

Your essay is well written, and I like that you approach the structure in reality. In particular the hierarchy of various mathematical structures one in top of another that you illustrate in the Hilbert Book Model is very close to how mathematicians view the things. Another thing I appreciate is your emphasis on Birkhoff's and von Neumann's quantum logic, and on quaternions, which seem to arise in the most diverse places in physics. I wish you good luck with the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is well written, and I like that you approach the structure in reality. In particular the hierarchy of various mathematical structures one in top of another that you illustrate in the Hilbert Book Model is very close to how mathematicians view the things. Another thing I appreciate is your emphasis on Birkhoff's and von Neumann's quantum logic, and on quaternions, which seem to arise in the most diverse places in physics. I wish you good luck with the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Cristi,

I thank you for your nice comment.

I do not claim copyright for my documents. So you can use what you want. The pdf files that occur at http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen will also occur as docx files on my website http://www.e-physics.eu .

Greathings,

Hans, retired physicist

I thank you for your nice comment.

I do not claim copyright for my documents. So you can use what you want. The pdf files that occur at http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen will also occur as docx files on my website http://www.e-physics.eu .

Greathings,

Hans, retired physicist

Another remark,

The orthomodular lattice emerges into a structure. That structure can archive dynamic geometric data. However, that structure does not hint at the origin of dynamics and to the fact that this dynamics is rather coherent. It appears that stochastic processes generate the hop landing locations and that the characteristic functions of these processes ensure the coherence of the dynamics. The fact that this characteristic function equals the Fourier transform of the location density distribution of the hop landings indicates that universe is controlled via quaternionic "holomorphic" means.

In odd dimensions, quaternionic functions feature impulse responses that are shock fronts. The spherical shock fronts integrate into a Green's function.

The orthomodular lattice emerges into a structure. That structure can archive dynamic geometric data. However, that structure does not hint at the origin of dynamics and to the fact that this dynamics is rather coherent. It appears that stochastic processes generate the hop landing locations and that the characteristic functions of these processes ensure the coherence of the dynamics. The fact that this characteristic function equals the Fourier transform of the location density distribution of the hop landings indicates that universe is controlled via quaternionic "holomorphic" means.

In odd dimensions, quaternionic functions feature impulse responses that are shock fronts. The spherical shock fronts integrate into a Green's function.

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

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 must consist 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

report post as inappropriate

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

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 must consist 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

report post as inappropriate

Good to hear from you again Hans!

Interesting - and short - read. I agree that a discussion (only) of fundamentals should be kept short!

I see that you are still very interested in Hilbert's work (e.g. Hilbert's Program) and of course Hilbert Space. I once gave a talk at MathFest 2011 on this general subject. I must then point out that his definition of completeness is not considerable, but that "consistency" is crucial. So in many ways we must consider Takeuti's proof that a consistent mathematical system must be finitary.

This opens up the discussion to include representation theory.

It is not at all clear to me what sort of finite particle a quaternion algebra might represent, though. And whether the formulation (or geometry) is causal. But it is clear that the No-Boundary Wave Function is causal and its variables easily assigned to finite-geometric metrics.

Feel free to investigate these fundamental ideas further

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092

best,

Wayne

report post as inappropriate

Interesting - and short - read. I agree that a discussion (only) of fundamentals should be kept short!

I see that you are still very interested in Hilbert's work (e.g. Hilbert's Program) and of course Hilbert Space. I once gave a talk at MathFest 2011 on this general subject. I must then point out that his definition of completeness is not considerable, but that "consistency" is crucial. So in many ways we must consider Takeuti's proof that a consistent mathematical system must be finitary.

This opens up the discussion to include representation theory.

It is not at all clear to me what sort of finite particle a quaternion algebra might represent, though. And whether the formulation (or geometry) is causal. But it is clear that the No-Boundary Wave Function is causal and its variables easily assigned to finite-geometric metrics.

Feel free to investigate these fundamental ideas further

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092

best,

Wayne

report post as inappropriate

Hans,

You cogently and economically describe a "Structure in Reality." You paint a vivid picture of a creator leaving us alone in the words: "After the creation, the creator leaves his creatures alone." My concern is that those elementary particles we have discovered might not include dark matter and dark energy, that is if they really exist. I like the way you have concisely put together this imagined dynamic creation on a bed of Hilbert space. Worthy of a good score.

Good luck.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

You cogently and economically describe a "Structure in Reality." You paint a vivid picture of a creator leaving us alone in the words: "After the creation, the creator leaves his creatures alone." My concern is that those elementary particles we have discovered might not include dark matter and dark energy, that is if they really exist. I like the way you have concisely put together this imagined dynamic creation on a bed of Hilbert space. Worthy of a good score.

Good luck.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

"The requirement that experiments must verify everything is sound-ready crap. Much of the physical reality is inaccessible to measurement. In that case, deduction remains the only way of approach."

I agree, this is undoubtedly true although many people find it more convenient to deny it. Thanks for an excellent essay. My only criticism is that it is a little too short.

report post as inappropriate

I agree, this is undoubtedly true although many people find it more convenient to deny it. Thanks for an excellent essay. My only criticism is that it is a little too short.

report post as inappropriate

Philip,

I combined a few papers in "Structure in Physical Reality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0086 which is a 10-page document. Further, https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project contains all details of the project and that comprises the mathematics, which is applied by the Hilbert Book Model.

I combined a few papers in "Structure in Physical Reality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0086 which is a 10-page document. Further, https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project contains all details of the project and that comprises the mathematics, which is applied by the Hilbert Book Model.

Dear Hans,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

It is so close to me. «From the ground up. The other way suggests the existence of a potential candidate for the foundation of physical reality. The method supposes that this foundation has such a simple structure that intelligent people have already added this structure as an interesting structure to the list of discovered structures. For them, there existed no need to seek the foundation of reality».

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

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

It is so close to me. «From the ground up. The other way suggests the existence of a potential candidate for the foundation of physical reality. The method supposes that this foundation has such a simple structure that intelligent people have already added this structure as an interesting structure to the list of discovered structures. For them, there existed no need to seek the foundation of reality».

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

Dear Hans, …(copied to your and mine)

Thank you very much for your attention and explanations.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

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

report post as inappropriate

Thank you very much for your attention and explanations.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

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

report post as inappropriate

Hans,

I hope you get to read and comment on mine as I did yours. I'd value your assessment, but if you do so please read the last half carefully to reconstruct the classical mechanism.

I generally manage to ensure I assess & score all who do so on mine. Hope yours get into the finalist group.

Very best.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I hope you get to read and comment on mine as I did yours. I'd value your assessment, but if you do so please read the last half carefully to reconstruct the classical mechanism.

I generally manage to ensure I assess & score all who do so on mine. Hope yours get into the finalist group.

Very best.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hans,

Thanks for your post on mine, though you diodn't comment on the main classic QM finding.

I replied as follows;

Hans,

Does the orthomodular lattice of quantum logic not share the same simple construction as the rules of brackets in Arithmetic and my argument for discrete field in realtivity, in my (scored top) 2015 'Red/Green sock trick' essay?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your post on mine, though you diodn't comment on the main classic QM finding.

I replied as follows;

Hans,

Does the orthomodular lattice of quantum logic not share the same simple construction as the rules of brackets in Arithmetic and my argument for discrete field in realtivity, in my (scored top) 2015 'Red/Green sock trick' essay?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.