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

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

**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

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

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

**Vladimir Fedorov**: *on* 2/24/18 at 13:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Branko, (copy to yours and mine) Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay...

**Branko Zivlak**: *on* 2/24/18 at 8:44am UTC, wrote Dear Colin, Thank you for your interest in my essay. Formula for CMB...

**Colin Walker**: *on* 2/24/18 at 3:09am UTC, wrote Hi Branko I am glad to see you have included your calculation of CMB...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 2/23/18 at 20:42pm UTC, wrote Branko, Nice original and well argued thesis. We start from a similar...

**Branko Zivlak**: *on* 2/21/18 at 21:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thank you for your interest in my essay. Regarding the...

**Vladimir Fedorov**: *on* 2/21/18 at 11:03am UTC, wrote Dear Branko, I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay. I...

**Christian Corda**: *on* 2/15/18 at 10:13am UTC, wrote Dear Branko, Thanks for finding interesting my Bohr-like approach to black...

**Branko Zivlak**: *on* 2/12/18 at 23:02pm UTC, wrote Thank you Christian for the quick and satisfying answer. I've read your...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Lorraine Ford**: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**John Cox**: "Lorraine, That clarifies, thanks. I'd be in the camp that argues for a..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**Steve Dufourny**: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Steve Dufourny**: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**John Cox**: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

**John Cox**: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM

January 21, 2020

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

TOPIC: Relationships are fundamental by Branko L Zivlak [refresh]

TOPIC: Relationships are fundamental by Branko L Zivlak [refresh]

Nothing exists for itself, everything is connected. Relationships are important in all sciences, both natural and social. Here we will focus on the most common interest of the participants in this competition, and these are the relations that are important for the functioning of the universe. The attitudes here are mostly expressed in math, which is due to the same comprehension for everyone due to translation problems, especially when it is a Google translate (as here).

Zivlak Branko is a retired meteorologist. Had been working in applied meteorology, climatology, computer science and ecology. He represented his country at the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC) and the “Global Climate Observing System” (GCOS). In the recent years, he became interested in the issues related to the functioning of the Universe.

Dear Branko,

Your essay is very deep with an extremely important dialectical-ontological conclusion:"Attraction and repulsion are the most important opposites that governs movements in nature."

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is very deep with an extremely important dialectical-ontological conclusion:"Attraction and repulsion are the most important opposites that governs movements in nature."

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hi Branko

You've sung the opposite relationship. Bravo!

I am skeptical about the smallest quantities of Plank and I believe it is better to apply the principle of irrationality, when the values exist even when they are infinitely small. There is a view that I also support that the fine structure constant depends only on PI.

Do you have a formula which contains the ratio of the Planck constant and the speed of light . So here it is in New Cartesian physics is quantum perceived as constant, which is equal to the product of mass and radius of the corpuscle, i.e., the mass depends on its radius and can not be a quantum, which is looking at the famous LHC.

Branko, you are a worthy successor of the teachings of Boskovica:"Attraction and repulsion are the most important opposites that governs movements in nature."

I will not distract you from earning points. I answered you symmetrically.

I wish you success

report post as inappropriate

You've sung the opposite relationship. Bravo!

I am skeptical about the smallest quantities of Plank and I believe it is better to apply the principle of irrationality, when the values exist even when they are infinitely small. There is a view that I also support that the fine structure constant depends only on PI.

Do you have a formula which contains the ratio of the Planck constant and the speed of light . So here it is in New Cartesian physics is quantum perceived as constant, which is equal to the product of mass and radius of the corpuscle, i.e., the mass depends on its radius and can not be a quantum, which is looking at the famous LHC.

Branko, you are a worthy successor of the teachings of Boskovica:"Attraction and repulsion are the most important opposites that governs movements in nature."

I will not distract you from earning points. I answered you symmetrically.

I wish you success

report post as inappropriate

Hi Boris

As it is written in Table 1. This is "lower limit" not smallest quantities. This does not exclude the principle of irrationality.

I also support that the fine structure constant depends only on PI.

So I wrote in essay. 1. The fine structure constant is fixed in time and is the same in every part of the universe.

The problem is, that it is necessary to determine many other so far unknown relationships to understand this constant.

Regarding alpha you can read in my general science yournal articles.

Regards

Branko

As it is written in Table 1. This is "lower limit" not smallest quantities. This does not exclude the principle of irrationality.

I also support that the fine structure constant depends only on PI.

So I wrote in essay. 1. The fine structure constant is fixed in time and is the same in every part of the universe.

The problem is, that it is necessary to determine many other so far unknown relationships to understand this constant.

Regarding alpha you can read in my general science yournal articles.

Regards

Branko

Boris

the ratio of the Planck constant and the speed of light is also product of two opposites. You can see in my GS Journal article about opposites.

Regards

Branko

the ratio of the Planck constant and the speed of light is also product of two opposites. You can see in my GS Journal article about opposites.

Regards

Branko

Dear Branko

I have problems with proving that I am not a robot so this is the third time that I write this answer.

Out of an emergent reality there can emerge a new different point from where new realities are emerging. This new point is however always and everywhere in contact with the original point of creation.

In my model Planck area cannot be SEEn, because seeing is an emergent quality, the border of emergent and Planck is explained in the essay.

Time and Space in an emergent reality are "existing" as emergent phenomena.Infinite time and space means that they have no beginning and no end...Maybe there is areality where time and space SEEM eternal for the agent involved, however then it is an illusion...Time and space are both ETERNAL AVAILABILITIES as ETERNAL ROBABILITIES in the Point of Origin of our reality.

I will read an rate your essay now

thank you for making me think again

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

I have problems with proving that I am not a robot so this is the third time that I write this answer.

Out of an emergent reality there can emerge a new different point from where new realities are emerging. This new point is however always and everywhere in contact with the original point of creation.

In my model Planck area cannot be SEEn, because seeing is an emergent quality, the border of emergent and Planck is explained in the essay.

Time and Space in an emergent reality are "existing" as emergent phenomena.Infinite time and space means that they have no beginning and no end...Maybe there is areality where time and space SEEM eternal for the agent involved, however then it is an illusion...Time and space are both ETERNAL AVAILABILITIES as ETERNAL ROBABILITIES in the Point of Origin of our reality.

I will read an rate your essay now

thank you for making me think again

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko L Zivlak,

You wrote: “Our world seems to be a massive collection of opposites.”

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical 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.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: “Our world seems to be a massive collection of opposites.”

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical 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.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joe

Yes I have quote: “Our world seems to be a massive collection of opposites.”

Regarding: Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. I would say eternally before man…

Regarding the rest of your claim: If you carefully read my essay you would say that I show same by mathematic.

Good lack at competition

Branko

Yes I have quote: “Our world seems to be a massive collection of opposites.”

Regarding: Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. I would say eternally before man…

Regarding the rest of your claim: If you carefully read my essay you would say that I show same by mathematic.

Good lack at competition

Branko

Dear Branko,

In your approach, I miss the efforts of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann to establish a fundament that emerges into a suitable modeling platform. In their 1936 paper, they introduced a relational structure that they called quantum logic and that mathematicians call an orthomodular lattice. It automatically emerges into a separable Hilbert space, which also introduces a selected set of number systems into the modeling platform. Hilbert spaces can only cope with division rings and separable Hilbert spaces can store discrete values but no continuums. Each infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space owns a unique non-separable Hilbert space that embeds its separable partner. In this way, the structure and the functionality of the platform grow in a restricted way. After a few steps a very powerful and flexible modeling platform evolves. This model acts as a repository for dynamic geometric data that fit in quaternionic eigenvalues of dedicated operators. The non-separable part of the model can archive continuums that are defined by quaternionic functions.

In other words, the foundation that was discovered by Birkhoff and von Neumann delivers a base model that can offer the basement of well-founded theories and that puts restrictions on the dimensions which universe can claim.

Multiple Hilbert spaces can share the same underlying vector space and form a set of platforms that float on a background platform. On those platforms can live objects that hop around in a stochastic hopping path. This adds dynamics to the model.

The orthomodular lattice acts like a seed from which a certain kind of plant grows. Here the seed turns into the physical reality that we perceive.

The Wikiversity Hilbert Book Model Project investigates this approach.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_

Project

http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen contains documents that treat some highlights of the project.

report post as inappropriate

In your approach, I miss the efforts of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann to establish a fundament that emerges into a suitable modeling platform. In their 1936 paper, they introduced a relational structure that they called quantum logic and that mathematicians call an orthomodular lattice. It automatically emerges into a separable Hilbert space, which also introduces a selected set of number systems into the modeling platform. Hilbert spaces can only cope with division rings and separable Hilbert spaces can store discrete values but no continuums. Each infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space owns a unique non-separable Hilbert space that embeds its separable partner. In this way, the structure and the functionality of the platform grow in a restricted way. After a few steps a very powerful and flexible modeling platform evolves. This model acts as a repository for dynamic geometric data that fit in quaternionic eigenvalues of dedicated operators. The non-separable part of the model can archive continuums that are defined by quaternionic functions.

In other words, the foundation that was discovered by Birkhoff and von Neumann delivers a base model that can offer the basement of well-founded theories and that puts restrictions on the dimensions which universe can claim.

Multiple Hilbert spaces can share the same underlying vector space and form a set of platforms that float on a background platform. On those platforms can live objects that hop around in a stochastic hopping path. This adds dynamics to the model.

The orthomodular lattice acts like a seed from which a certain kind of plant grows. Here the seed turns into the physical reality that we perceive.

The Wikiversity Hilbert Book Model Project investigates this approach.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_

Project

http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen contains documents that treat some highlights of the project.

report post as inappropriate

Mr. van Leunen

My suitable modeling platform is based on Plancks and Bošković efforts.

For the predictions and attitudes in my essay, which you ignore, the results of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann were not necessary.

I agree with your attitude:

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

I often used it to get to my predictions and results.

Regards,

Branko

My suitable modeling platform is based on Plancks and Bošković efforts.

For the predictions and attitudes in my essay, which you ignore, the results of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann were not necessary.

I agree with your attitude:

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

I often used it to get to my predictions and results.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Zivlak,

an interesting essay that worths an high rate. We have many point in common, since your conclusion is very similar to my absolute relativism. I start by Nagarjuna's idea of a relational reality without intrinsic existence.

Due my formation in philosophy, sadly I missed the mathematical part of your essay: I'm not sure if you consider the Planck's lenght being somewhat fundamental/constant.

Bests,

Francesco D'Isa

report post as inappropriate

an interesting essay that worths an high rate. We have many point in common, since your conclusion is very similar to my absolute relativism. I start by Nagarjuna's idea of a relational reality without intrinsic existence.

Due my formation in philosophy, sadly I missed the mathematical part of your essay: I'm not sure if you consider the Planck's lenght being somewhat fundamental/constant.

Bests,

Francesco D'Isa

report post as inappropriate

Dear Francesco

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

As you say: «My point is that despite being physical, [velocity] can’t exist by itself. It requires a relation with another physical system…What if all physical properties were like velocity.

I just came to that with mathematics thanks to Planck's units (not just Planck's lengths). Perhaps, as a philosopher, you can specify which philosophers have used the principle of opposites, might otherwise stated? In Nāgārjūn it is: „The determination of a thing or object is only possible in relation to other things or objects, especially by way of contrast“. BTW, I use the principle of opposites, thanks to a contemporary philosopher, but I do not find it in contemporary physics.

You have wrote:

2. Things are relationships. I have wrote relationship are fundamental, so basicly we agree.

Your is also an interesting essay that worths an high rate.

Regards,

Branko

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

As you say: «My point is that despite being physical, [velocity] can’t exist by itself. It requires a relation with another physical system…What if all physical properties were like velocity.

I just came to that with mathematics thanks to Planck's units (not just Planck's lengths). Perhaps, as a philosopher, you can specify which philosophers have used the principle of opposites, might otherwise stated? In Nāgārjūn it is: „The determination of a thing or object is only possible in relation to other things or objects, especially by way of contrast“. BTW, I use the principle of opposites, thanks to a contemporary philosopher, but I do not find it in contemporary physics.

You have wrote:

2. Things are relationships. I have wrote relationship are fundamental, so basicly we agree.

Your is also an interesting essay that worths an high rate.

Regards,

Branko

Thank you very much, I got your point now.Thank you also for reading and for your appreciation.

Best wishes and good luck!

report post as inappropriate

Best wishes and good luck!

report post as inappropriate

Hi Branko L Zivlak, Dzrastravite

Wonderful idea dear Branko L Zivlak…. “Nothing exists for itself, everything is connected. Relationships are important in all sciences, both natural and social. …these are the relations that are important for the functioning of the universe.” …..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

Here Dynamic...

view entire post

Wonderful idea dear Branko L Zivlak…. “Nothing exists for itself, everything is connected. Relationships are important in all sciences, both natural and social. …these are the relations that are important for the functioning of the universe.” …..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

Here Dynamic...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thank You Mr. Gupta

I was going to ask you a few questions. For now only one question: In meteorology we have these formations: cyclone, anticyclone, troughs, ridge, saddle. What would be the appropriate five formations in cosmology? What are the masses, speeds and acceleration at the transition between these formations? Or maybe you have link.

If you agree later I would have more questions on your post.

Regards,

Branko

I was going to ask you a few questions. For now only one question: In meteorology we have these formations: cyclone, anticyclone, troughs, ridge, saddle. What would be the appropriate five formations in cosmology? What are the masses, speeds and acceleration at the transition between these formations? Or maybe you have link.

If you agree later I would have more questions on your post.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko L Zivlak,

Thank you and you are welcome to ask questions…

The meteorology formations: cyclone, anticyclone, troughs, ridge and saddle you are asking are based on Fluid Mechanics, Heat and Gravity. The different formations in cosmology are based on Gravity, Universal Gravitation Force, Mass, Time and Distance. The laws of fluid mechanics are not applicable here as distance between star to star is in terms of light years. Heat and Brownian motion are not applicable here. For example the nearest star Proxima Centauri , which is at a distance of 4.5 Ly approx, will not show any heat on earth.

The speeds and accelerations of masses are dependent on Gravity, Universal Gravitation Force, Mass, time and Distance only. I have link for an introduction…..

https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.c

om/p/blog-page_15.html

Hope this clarifies….

You can have any more questions on my post, no problems….. You are welcome….

Regards,

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Thank you and you are welcome to ask questions…

The meteorology formations: cyclone, anticyclone, troughs, ridge and saddle you are asking are based on Fluid Mechanics, Heat and Gravity. The different formations in cosmology are based on Gravity, Universal Gravitation Force, Mass, Time and Distance. The laws of fluid mechanics are not applicable here as distance between star to star is in terms of light years. Heat and Brownian motion are not applicable here. For example the nearest star Proxima Centauri , which is at a distance of 4.5 Ly approx, will not show any heat on earth.

The speeds and accelerations of masses are dependent on Gravity, Universal Gravitation Force, Mass, time and Distance only. I have link for an introduction…..

https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.c

om/p/blog-page_15.html

Hope this clarifies….

You can have any more questions on my post, no problems….. You are welcome….

Regards,

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

I found it interesting that you mention the constancy of the product of mass and Compton wavelength. As you may know, this is often also expressed by saying that for a given mass m, the product of its Schwarzschild radius and its Compton wavelength is constant at the square of Planck length.

I, as well as other researchers, have been inspired by this fact to propose a new length scale, as for instance discussed in these two papers [new length],[newlength2].

Perhaps this might be of interest to you.

My thanks and best regards,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

I found it interesting that you mention the constancy of the product of mass and Compton wavelength. As you may know, this is often also expressed by saying that for a given mass m, the product of its Schwarzschild radius and its Compton wavelength is constant at the square of Planck length.

I, as well as other researchers, have been inspired by this fact to propose a new length scale, as for instance discussed in these two papers [new length],[newlength2].

Perhaps this might be of interest to you.

My thanks and best regards,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

You are writing: “Universe is all that exist.” and “Nothing exists for itself, everything is connected.”

Questions: What is connected to the Universe? What is opposite to the Universe?

report post as inappropriate

Questions: What is connected to the Universe? What is opposite to the Universe?

report post as inappropriate

Universe is all that exist by definition. If not, what is the other word that defines all that exist? Everything is everything that emerge in the universe. Universe is not a single feature that could have the opposite. The universe is a collection of all the features. So one of the features of the universe is that it has a final mass. Opposite of that mass is the smallest mass. The opposite of the age of the Universe is Planck time. The quantitative and qualitative features and phenomenon of the universe have their domains, not the word universe. I do not know what's the opposite of a man, but I know what's the opposite of a tall man.

Dear Branko,

I suggest you to use a new name – omniverse. It may contain at least two items: Universe and opposite Antiverse. The Antiverse contains only antimatter. It is solution for problem of missing antimatter in the Universe.

The opposite to man is woman :-)

Best regards,

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

I suggest you to use a new name – omniverse. It may contain at least two items: Universe and opposite Antiverse. The Antiverse contains only antimatter. It is solution for problem of missing antimatter in the Universe.

The opposite to man is woman :-)

Best regards,

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ilgaiti,

Very well, you started to think about the opposites.

Omniverse is a very good proposal, but I quite fit the definition from Wikipedia:

„The Universe can be defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.“

I have to admit that you well noticed problem of antimatter as opposition to matter. I really do not have an attitude on the issue of antimatter, which I could support mathematicaly.

I also agree with you that an independent part of the universe with a dominant antimatter is possible, such as our part with the dominant matter. I just do not understand if you think there is one universe and one antiuniverse, or more. I speculate that there are thousands of both. BTW Bosković wrote about the universe within the larger universe, almost three hundred years ago.

Yes, the opposite of a man is a woman, it does not matter that I thought of the other meaning of the word man.

Best regards,

Branko

Very well, you started to think about the opposites.

Omniverse is a very good proposal, but I quite fit the definition from Wikipedia:

„The Universe can be defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.“

I have to admit that you well noticed problem of antimatter as opposition to matter. I really do not have an attitude on the issue of antimatter, which I could support mathematicaly.

I also agree with you that an independent part of the universe with a dominant antimatter is possible, such as our part with the dominant matter. I just do not understand if you think there is one universe and one antiuniverse, or more. I speculate that there are thousands of both. BTW Bosković wrote about the universe within the larger universe, almost three hundred years ago.

Yes, the opposite of a man is a woman, it does not matter that I thought of the other meaning of the word man.

Best regards,

Branko

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

Dear Branko,

I attached a xls file in my essay on your request. For your kind perusal please...

Best

=snp

report post as inappropriate

I attached a xls file in my essay on your request. For your kind perusal please...

Best

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko

I read your essay with interest because of your supposition that the world is made of ‘opposites’. Of course the mass of the universe and your “hypothetical quantum mass (2.723388288 * 10^-69 kg)” are not opposites at all, which seems to undermine your argument, which in part seems to ride on the back of work by Nichmachus where he says, “Everything that is...

view entire post

I read your essay with interest because of your supposition that the world is made of ‘opposites’. Of course the mass of the universe and your “hypothetical quantum mass (2.723388288 * 10^-69 kg)” are not opposites at all, which seems to undermine your argument, which in part seems to ride on the back of work by Nichmachus where he says, “Everything that is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Stephen

There are many attempts to quantize the mass, for example:

Paul. S. Wesson - Is the mass quantized, minimum mass is m = 2 * 10 ^ -65 g.

But with Wesson everything is approximate, or unverifiable.

Even with Wesson's values, the geometric mean is very close to Planck's mass.

You claim: the universe has 6.5 * 10 ^ 121 bits, without any explanation.

My value is very close to yours. That's 2 ^ q. Even in this essay, you can explain why your value for q = log2 (6.5 * 10 ^ 121) = 404.6537392 is better than mine (see page 1 of my essay)?

Lloyd’s 'A computational universe' is a big step towards the truth. But you can see that all values at Lloyd are approximate.

Kepler and Newton's law are approximations. As such approximations they will be valid forever. Maybe you know a better formula than Newton's approximation.

As for whether the Planck values were constant over the life of the universe, do not be confused by units of measure. What you said, the Planck values in Planak's units are exactly equal to 1, just and only in this moment. What kind of coincidence. Second, there is no life of the universe, which is a time cycle of the universe. There are registered Galaxies with age more before 13.7 billion years.

I cannot convince anyone that the use of terms such as singularity, the radiation-dominated universe, dark matter, black hole, more dimensions, scaling factor, new forces and new parameters to support the wrong theory are inconceivable. In my concept, all this is simply not necessary. I urge you to find errors in my calculations on the GS Journal published articles.

Regards,

Branko

There are many attempts to quantize the mass, for example:

Paul. S. Wesson - Is the mass quantized, minimum mass is m = 2 * 10 ^ -65 g.

But with Wesson everything is approximate, or unverifiable.

Even with Wesson's values, the geometric mean is very close to Planck's mass.

You claim: the universe has 6.5 * 10 ^ 121 bits, without any explanation.

My value is very close to yours. That's 2 ^ q. Even in this essay, you can explain why your value for q = log2 (6.5 * 10 ^ 121) = 404.6537392 is better than mine (see page 1 of my essay)?

Lloyd’s 'A computational universe' is a big step towards the truth. But you can see that all values at Lloyd are approximate.

Kepler and Newton's law are approximations. As such approximations they will be valid forever. Maybe you know a better formula than Newton's approximation.

As for whether the Planck values were constant over the life of the universe, do not be confused by units of measure. What you said, the Planck values in Planak's units are exactly equal to 1, just and only in this moment. What kind of coincidence. Second, there is no life of the universe, which is a time cycle of the universe. There are registered Galaxies with age more before 13.7 billion years.

I cannot convince anyone that the use of terms such as singularity, the radiation-dominated universe, dark matter, black hole, more dimensions, scaling factor, new forces and new parameters to support the wrong theory are inconceivable. In my concept, all this is simply not necessary. I urge you to find errors in my calculations on the GS Journal published articles.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko,

Nice and provocative Essay, congrats. Here are some comments:

I appreciated your stressing the importance of opposites in our Universe. Remarkably, sometimes opposites coincide.

I usually use Planck units in my research work. I think that they are the real “natural” units. They indeed make equations simpler and more elegant.

Your definition of singularity is correct.

Your statement that “"matter dominant universe" and "radiation dominant Universe" coexist in every point in time” is correct, but the reason for changing them during the history of the Universe is substantially due to mathematical difficulties. Analyzing them simultaneously is very complicated. Thus, separating them through two different equations of state permits to work with two good approximations in different eras of the Universe.

I do not completely exclude that physical laws and physical constants can change in distant places of the Universe.

In any case, your Essay was a pleasant reading. It deserves my highest score.

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I use Planck units while I discuss ... with Albert Einstein!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Nice and provocative Essay, congrats. Here are some comments:

I appreciated your stressing the importance of opposites in our Universe. Remarkably, sometimes opposites coincide.

I usually use Planck units in my research work. I think that they are the real “natural” units. They indeed make equations simpler and more elegant.

Your definition of singularity is correct.

Your statement that “"matter dominant universe" and "radiation dominant Universe" coexist in every point in time” is correct, but the reason for changing them during the history of the Universe is substantially due to mathematical difficulties. Analyzing them simultaneously is very complicated. Thus, separating them through two different equations of state permits to work with two good approximations in different eras of the Universe.

I do not completely exclude that physical laws and physical constants can change in distant places of the Universe.

In any case, your Essay was a pleasant reading. It deserves my highest score.

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I use Planck units while I discuss ... with Albert Einstein!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Christian,

Do you have an example for: „Remarkably, sometimes opposites coincide.“

Regarding: „Your definition of singularity is correct.“ It is not my definition, that is well known definition that everyone should respect.

Regarding „mathematical difficulties…“ Just to say, solving these mathematical difficulties with a scallin factor is mathematically incorrect.

Regards,

Branko

Do you have an example for: „Remarkably, sometimes opposites coincide.“

Regarding: „Your definition of singularity is correct.“ It is not my definition, that is well known definition that everyone should respect.

Regarding „mathematical difficulties…“ Just to say, solving these mathematical difficulties with a scallin factor is mathematically incorrect.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko,

General relativity and quantum mechanics are opposites. I hope that they will coincide in a final unified field theory

Mathematical difficulties are not solved with the scale factor. The scale factor is introduced through the cosmological principle and becomes the variable of the FLRW equations. Mathematical difficulties are due to simultaneously analyze two different equations of state or to attempt to merge them.

I hope you will find the time to read my Essay.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

General relativity and quantum mechanics are opposites. I hope that they will coincide in a final unified field theory

Mathematical difficulties are not solved with the scale factor. The scale factor is introduced through the cosmological principle and becomes the variable of the FLRW equations. Mathematical difficulties are due to simultaneously analyze two different equations of state or to attempt to merge them.

I hope you will find the time to read my Essay.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Thank you Christian for the quick and satisfying answer.

I've read your essay several times already. It's really an interesting Bohr-like model. Much has inconclusive on the issue of black holes. I surely do not fall into those who can say with certainty: There are black holes or Black holes do not exist. In any case, I consider you as someone who can objectively clarify this issue, so I have rated you.

Perhaps, on another occasion, I will read your text again to better understand the problem of black holes.

Regards,

Branko

I've read your essay several times already. It's really an interesting Bohr-like model. Much has inconclusive on the issue of black holes. I surely do not fall into those who can say with certainty: There are black holes or Black holes do not exist. In any case, I consider you as someone who can objectively clarify this issue, so I have rated you.

Perhaps, on another occasion, I will read your text again to better understand the problem of black holes.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko,

Thanks for finding interesting my Bohr-like approach to black hole quantum physics and for rating my Essay.

Concerning the existence or non-existences of black holes, I paraphrase Einstein on the existence or non-existences of gravitational waves:

“If you ask me whether there are black holes or not, I must answer that I do not know. But it is a highly interesting problem".

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for finding interesting my Bohr-like approach to black hole quantum physics and for rating my Essay.

Concerning the existence or non-existences of black holes, I paraphrase Einstein on the existence or non-existences of gravitational waves:

“If you ask me whether there are black holes or not, I must answer that I do not know. But it is a highly interesting problem".

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

I agree with you. «Attraction and repulsion are the most important opposites that governs movements in nature».

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.

I agree with you. «Attraction and repulsion are the most important opposites that governs movements in nature».

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 Vladimir,

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

Regarding the view in your essay.“The gravitational constant reflects Kepler's third law in the solar system and is not fundamental constant for other planetary systems.

In my essay, the opposite view is obtained by my calculations.

„Each planet and star have its final lifetime, but Kepler's laws describing relations between them are eternal. The same applies to Newton's, Maxwell's and Planck's laws ... and the phenomena to which they relate.“ Still, I appreciate your efforts and the opposite views with a good score.

Regards,

Branko

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

Regarding the view in your essay.“The gravitational constant reflects Kepler's third law in the solar system and is not fundamental constant for other planetary systems.

In my essay, the opposite view is obtained by my calculations.

„Each planet and star have its final lifetime, but Kepler's laws describing relations between them are eternal. The same applies to Newton's, Maxwell's and Planck's laws ... and the phenomena to which they relate.“ Still, I appreciate your efforts and the opposite views with a good score.

Regards,

Branko

Branko,

Nice original and well argued thesis. We start from a similar principle in some ways, mine is 'motion' itself, an entirely relative concept.

Hope you get to read mine, but prepare for a shock result from two rotating electrons meeting (at any relative angle)! Do read the 2nd half slow & careful though!

Best of luck in the contest. (As it's getting close I'm scoring yours up a bit now).

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Nice original and well argued thesis. We start from a similar principle in some ways, mine is 'motion' itself, an entirely relative concept.

Hope you get to read mine, but prepare for a shock result from two rotating electrons meeting (at any relative angle)! Do read the 2nd half slow & careful though!

Best of luck in the contest. (As it's getting close I'm scoring yours up a bit now).

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Branko

I am glad to see you have included your calculation of CMB temperature, which I find exceptionally interesting. The CMB is a bit of an enigma without the big bang. I like the idea of an average temperature, but the Sunyaev-Zeldovich seems to indicate that the CMB is at a higher temperature when observed at a distance. It is very puzzling.

Cheers, Colin

report post as inappropriate

I am glad to see you have included your calculation of CMB temperature, which I find exceptionally interesting. The CMB is a bit of an enigma without the big bang. I like the idea of an average temperature, but the Sunyaev-Zeldovich seems to indicate that the CMB is at a higher temperature when observed at a distance. It is very puzzling.

Cheers, Colin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Colin,

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

Formula for CMB temperature is just another proof that the theory of Big Bang is not required. My formula is not an idea, it is the result of the application of the theory of the unity of the whole and the parts, that is applicable to all levels of the organization of matter in nature. The above formula does not contradict the attitude: „CMB is at a higher temperature when observed at a distance“. My formula can be written in a developed form so that it is dependent only on proton and electron. Such a formula could be analyzed in relation to small changes in parameters. I'm not a specialist in that area to do that analysis myself.

Regards,

Branko

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

Formula for CMB temperature is just another proof that the theory of Big Bang is not required. My formula is not an idea, it is the result of the application of the theory of the unity of the whole and the parts, that is applicable to all levels of the organization of matter in nature. The above formula does not contradict the attitude: „CMB is at a higher temperature when observed at a distance“. My formula can be written in a developed form so that it is dependent only on proton and electron. Such a formula could be analyzed in relation to small changes in parameters. I'm not a specialist in that area to do that analysis myself.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko,

(copy to yours and mine)

Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay page.

Each of our work is valuable in that it is information for thought.

I do not exclude the fact that the gravitational constant is valid for many stars, for example, for all yellow dwarfs. But I have doubts about other classes of stars, because they are in other quantum states and can reflect other levels of matter with a different gravitational coefficient.

I'm against using the gravitational coefficient everywhere. I proposed a formula for calculating it, to check whether can be used it to the system in question or not.

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

(copy to yours and mine)

Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay page.

Each of our work is valuable in that it is information for thought.

I do not exclude the fact that the gravitational constant is valid for many stars, for example, for all yellow dwarfs. But I have doubts about other classes of stars, because they are in other quantum states and can reflect other levels of matter with a different gravitational coefficient.

I'm against using the gravitational coefficient everywhere. I proposed a formula for calculating it, to check whether can be used it to the system in question or not.

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

Login or create account to post reply or comment.