CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
Fundamental: Light, the Way by James Lee Hoover
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author James Lee Hoover wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 19:18 GMT
Essay AbstractThe fundamental is necessary for existence, whether real, imagined, animate or inanimate. It exists only if both the conscious being studying it and the subject are present. We must know that the fundamental evolves as its concepts and knowledge advance with discovery. The light of the world leads the way to the discovery of the fundamental and its updates.
Author BioJames Hoover is retired from the Boeing Company in Huntington Beach, California, working as a systems engineer. His career in aerospace stretches back over twenty years and involves cost analysis, cost modeling and logistics research. In that span of years he has taught college courses in education, economics, computer science and English. Before his aerospace career, he taught high school. He recently published a science fiction novel called Extraordinary Visitors and publishes essays on university websites regarding his scientific interests. His personal interests include studies in particle physics, cosmology and interplanetary technology. He has advanced degrees in Economics and English.
Download Essay PDF File
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 22:04 GMT
Dear Dr. James Lee Hoover,
In qualifying the aim of the ‘What is Fundamental?’ essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: “We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.
Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.
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
post approved
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 05:27 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover,
Thanks for letting us know about your SF book. It's now on my Kindle.
I believe your essay is the first to point out that
"
Fundamental … is irrelevant if a conscious being does not exist to point out that which is fundamental."
For another exploration of this theme see Laurence Hitterdale's essay. As you note, the basic symbol the sentient being uses is the
word, and this is projected into our fundamental creation story. This fits with your reminder of "all mysteries that defied the fundamentals of current scientific theories." I also like that you use recent history to show that "
for many disciplines fundamental truths changed". And I very much like your
"…
fed into supercomputers, humankind's means of building a universe."
Your discussion of "light" as key to consciousness is well done and rings true. The many examples are handled very nicely.
I believe my essay complements yours. It focuses on light and time. The consensus view of "fractured" time derived from Einstein's "
relativity of simultaneity", which fractured time as universal simultaneity. The philosophico-religious experience of the integrity and unity of the whole is severely challenged by the idea of attaching a new time dimension to every moving object. I review the historical development of this idea in my essay. I hope you find time to read it and comment.
Best regards
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 08:12 GMT
Hi James, I think you picked a really good fundamental to focus on and have shown, by the breadth of your discussion, a great many ways it is involved in physics, affects nature and human beings.
You mention photosynthesis, warmth and vision. The adaptions of plants ans animals to light and light variation is a related topic. I realize there is so much in your essay you would not have had room for more.
I wonder whether the biblical creation would have been different if we were a nocturnal species. In that case it would make sense to have brightness in the beginning followed by the addition of darkness.
I think there is an important distinction that can be made between what is considered to be fundamental by human beings, such as the constituents of our models and knowledge, and what is fundamnetal to the function of the universe whether or not there are people to observe or think about it.
Thank you for a good read. I liked the reminder of how many different ways electromagnetism is important. Kind regards Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 22:38 GMT
Dear Lee Hoover
You wrote: “Fundamental then is irrelevant if a conscious being does not exist to point out that which is fundamental”,
Nature produced one single real unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly contrived finite speculation about abstract fundamentalism ever became evident on earth.
Joe Fisher, Realist.
post approved
Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 11:07 GMT
It was a pleasure to read this well composed essay; change is indeed fundamental. The natural fundament of original light seems to be cosmic Vibration, concerning toe.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 19:46 GMT
Dear James,
I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 16:45 GMT
Dear James,
Since it is not possible to comment on all the worthwhile topics you discuss in your essay, I will say something about the relationship between fundamentality and consciousness. This is a key relationship, which you state at the beginning: “Nothing fundamental exists without its subject or the conscious being investigating it.”
As you are aware from your reading of my essay, I am especially interested in consciousness. I do appreciate the comment you made on that essay.
Thinking about your statement and about your discussion generally, I think that I would draw a distinction between objective fundamentality in things and the conscious appreciation of fundamentality. This is somewhat analogous to the distinction that might be drawn in order to deal with the old question, If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear the fall, does it make a sound? In one sense, Yes, because the molecules of the air vibrate in sound waves. In another sense, No, because there is no sound as perceived in consciousness.
Similarly, we might say that without conscious beings, objective relations of fundamentality would still obtain. Before any conscious beings had any understanding or awareness of natural laws, there was still a difference between fundamental laws and the detailed workings of nature which depend on those laws. Nonetheless, something was missing. As you state at the beginning of your fourth paragraph, “Fundamental then is irrelevant if a conscious being does not exist to point out that which is fundamental.” Without a conscious being to be aware of the relations of fundamental-to-derivative, those relations remained in darkness. Only understanding brought the relations into light. This metaphoric way of speaking seems to fit well with your emphasis on light.
Thanks for a stimulating essay.
Laurence Hitterdale
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 14:37 GMT
James,
You identified an important fact often ill considered by theorists, that the most fundamental thing about 'fundamental' is that it's in a constant state of change, so a 'moving target'. (You saw my fundamental agreement in
"nothing exists without motion". )
You also draw in wide evidence to demonstrate the 'evolutionary' point, and identify light as the catalyst or 'discovery agent' for man to keep up;
"scientific knowledge and what we deem the fundamental evolve, requiring constant editing, revision and refinement."You know I'm concerned we little recognize that truth. We seem to fear and resist theoretical change and advancement of understanding too much. Very clearly written, on topic & currently undervalued I think so you can expect a boost when I apply my scores.
Best of luck.
Peter
post approved
George Gantz wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 17:24 GMT
James - I enjoyed your essay, and particularly it's play with the word "light". Humans are visual creatures, so it is no surprise that "light" and its opposite "darkness" are fundamental in the mythology of creation and being in many ancient traditions. Physics, has, however, carefully delimited the concept of "light" to the provenance of photons and electromagnetism - stripping away the depth and richness of its ancient mythological connotation. This is an example of the damage that reductionism can have on our ability to comprehend the universe as it is, and not simply as we want it to be.
Bravo - George Gantz
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 12:16 GMT
Hi James Lee Hoover
Your wonderful words in the OP “The fundamental is necessary for existence, whether real, imagined, animate or inanimate. It exists only if both the conscious being studying it and the subject are present” reflect nice philosophical thinking dear James Lee Hoover.
……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity. You...
view entire post
Hi James Lee Hoover
Your wonderful words in the OP “The fundamental is necessary for existence, whether real, imagined, animate or inanimate. It exists only if both the conscious being studying it and the subject are present” reflect nice philosophical thinking dear James Lee Hoover.
……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity. You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope you may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
post approved
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover
Thank you for your esteemed fine words on my essay. Thank you for saying that “frequency shifts should not be difficult to observe, given the right resources.” Can you please help me further? How to do that?
I am providing “ the fundamental relationships of mass and energy in dynamic settings with your proofs.” …. As in Dynamic Universe model is nothing but E=mC
2 only, which is nothing but Einstein’s mass to energy to mass conversion. Now Dynamic Universe Model proposes to have energy to mass conversion this time in this essay.
All my Published Books and essays are available at in “books published” and “papers published” tabs of ….
https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/
And on “Different effects of gravitational lensing as well” ……. “Multiple Bending of light produces multiple images for Galaxies on earth”, was published almost about 30 years back …. If you need further information I will give you
Thank you for your blessing words “An different but interesting approach. I am in the review phase of my readings.” I am hoping for the best…..
Best Regards
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 16:52 GMT
I hope my earlier papers and blog will provide sufficient proofs...
Best
report post as inappropriate
Henri Vonn De Roule wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 20:44 GMT
I love what you say about light and the fundamental. If there is not a sentient being to observe a thing does the thing exist? Would the universe exist if there were no beings to observe it? You approach the idea of fundamental from a unique perspective. As I said in my paper, I believe that we will continue to discover forever, pushing the boundaries of what we know and what we think we know for our entire existence. In some cases we will push too far and find ourselves in a blind alley. But such is the fate of science.
Good job, and I will get your book.
Regard,
Henri Vonn De Roule
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 23:09 GMT
James,
Thank you very much for your consideration, especially in Light of the fact we have different views on convention. I'm used to getting negative responses to this.
To offer up a few more observations, the point I make about time and how it is similar to temperature, goes fairly deep into our biology and consciousness. For instance, I would argue the left, linear, rational...
view entire post
James,
Thank you very much for your consideration, especially in Light of the fact we have different views on convention. I'm used to getting negative responses to this.
To offer up a few more observations, the point I make about time and how it is similar to temperature, goes fairly deep into our biology and consciousness. For instance, I would argue the left, linear, rational hemisphere of the brain is based on time, as in sequence, while the right, emotional, intuitive side is thermal, as in feedback with context.
Consider that as energy changes form, it goes past to future, while the form goes future to past. As such reality is this dichotomy of energy and form. Consider that over a few billion years of evolution, we developed a central nervous system to process form/information and the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process energy.
Form is top down, while energy and process is bottom up. Our minds are constantly trying to figure out how all those bits of information work together, but they often seem like post-it notes on the wind, as we condense out bits of information from the energy. Otherwise it would whiteout.
As they go opposite directions of time, consider how this describes reality. Consider a factory; The product goes start to finish, while the process goes the other direction, consuming material and expelling product.
Life is similar. As individuals, we go birth to death, our lives in the future to in the past. While the species goes the other direction, on to new generations, shedding old. This operates on infinite layers, as our bodies are constantly generating and shedding cells, as the the environment evolves new species, as old ones go extinct.
As for the relationship of light and consciousness, consciousness is like energy, going from prior to succeeding thoughts, as these thoughts coalesce and dissolve. Much like frames of a movie, going future to past, it is actually the light shining through them we see, but our minds focus on the details.
Since there is only this energy, it is constantly being recycled in never ending feedback loops. Sort of like a tapestry woven from strands pulled from what had already been woven.
Which gets around to the cyclical nature of thermodynamics. Consider a convection cycle, where heat radiates out, as precipitation falls in. Then consider this in relation to that energy constantly expanding and creating new forms, which coalesce and congregate inward.
Then consider galaxies, which consist of radiation expanding out, as mass falls in.
What if what Hubble discovered, with redshift, was Einstein's original Cosmological Constant?
Consider the rubber sheet analogy of gravity. Logically where there is no ball to weight it down, it wouldn't be otherwise flat, or this would ignore the essential premise of relativity. So consider that the rubber sheet is over water and when the ball weighs it down, the sheet pushes back up with equal effect everywhere else. This we would detect as the redshift of light crossing the more empty regions of space. Though it is an effect of the light expanding to fill that space, which we then extract point particles of energy from the field
The reason Dark Energy was proposed is because the Big Bang model assumes the universe began with that initial Bang, resulting in the universe expanding at the speed of light. It was then assumed it cooled off and slowed down at a steady rate, but what was measured is that it slowed rapidly to begin with, then leveled out to a more stable redshift. To use a ballistics analogy, it would be as if the universe were shot out of a cannon and after it slowed, a rocket motor kicked in. This presumed rocket is Dark Energy.
Yet consider what we actually see and measure. This redshift starts off from our point of view quite slowly, but then gradually builds and eventually goes parabolic. Wouldn't an optical effect, compounding on itself create this very same effect?
Now if redshift is an optical effect, the light from beyond this horizon line of the sources apparently receding at the speed of light would still be reaching us, but it would all be shifted entirely into the black body and radiological spectrums. Which is exactly what we do see, with the Cosmic Background Radiation. So the CMBR would be the solution to Olber's paradox.
As for Dark Matter, what if this is a cycle of expansion and contraction, with both sides logically balanced? Then gravity is not so much a property of mass, as mass is an effect of gravity, this contraction side. Then the contraction effect goes all the way through the entire spectrum, from light being quantized into photons out of a field, so mass spiraling into black holes, like the eye of a gravitational storm. The effect requiring Dark Matter is this overall contraction, through the entire spectrum, not just what qualifies as mass.
More heresy. Fortunately I don't have to make a living from cosmology.
Regards,
John
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 23:10 GMT
Ack. Not sure why that didn't do paragraph breaks. Hopefully it's legible.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 23:08 GMT
James,
Thanks for the review and scoring. I haven't been as diligent, because my brain has trouble dissecting all the various thoughts, models, assumptions, worldviews, etc, flowing through these essays. It is quite a collection. The one trend I did sense is that some of the regulars are starting to concentrate on the presentist, versus eternalist views of time as a significant issue. Obviously I'm biased on that, but I do see it as the primary point where the realist, versus the platonically mathematical worldviews are in most direct conflict. Not holding my breath though.
Regards, John
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 09:26 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover,
Good to meet again in yet another FQXi contest.(I especially liked your essay “Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice”). We retired researchers are never tired, aren’t we?
““The word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” iii suggesting that God and Jesus are identical but with a human connection and existence.” indeed but the...
view entire post
Dear James Lee Hoover,
Good to meet again in yet another FQXi contest.(I especially liked your essay “Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice”). We retired researchers are never tired, aren’t we?
““The word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” iii suggesting that God and Jesus are identical but with a human connection and existence.” indeed but the beginning of the gospel of John said: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”. So it means the connection with human consciousness and God in my perception. This is also my approach to the relationship with what I call Total Consciousness and the human consciousness that is restricted by Time and Space.
“Light is the advent of consciousness, the proof of our existence, a kind of a first cause.” I perceive light as the upper limit of our reality. Go faster and the “information” can no longer be detected. Because our “material state” cannot go follow it any longer and according to Einstein the information is going into the past, and that cannot be reached neither. For the rest, light is a photon that in my perception is an emergent phenomenon.
“the theory of everything (ToE) is thought to be tied up in the first few seconds of the Big Bang (BB) when the four fundamental forces – the weak, the strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational – were thought to be united into one force at high energies, the ultimate beginning of existence, when the universe was Planck size”. I agree with you that the ToE is behind the Planck length and time when there was a minimum of entropy because time and space don’t exist “there” when there is no time everything is simultaneous. So the expression “first two seconds” is in my humble opinion not right. Both time and Space are emerging from the Planck area including the “four” (maybe there are more) fundamental forces as you are mentioning also in your essay : “The BB is a time when the whole universe was thought to expand from a Planck size to macro size, forces of equal strength differentiating into four forces, two in the Planck range and two, long-range.”. Only the two in the Planck range are not inside but > as the Planck range.
I thank you for a well written thoughtful essay, that I valued and brought up a little in the contest results. I hope that the remarks I made can be a trigger for you to read, comment and maybe rate
my essay “Foundational Quantum Reality Loops” where I also TRY to find an answer not only on the HOW but also on the WHY.
Best regards and good luck
Wilhelmus de Wilde
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 09:31 GMT
Hi James,
AS you indicated to have "liked" my essay" I do not understand why you rated me a 2.
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 21:06 GMT
Wilhelmus,
Having been a victim of a 1 and a 2 score already w/o comments, I keep track of my own scoring. I am now checking my spreadsheet and find that I scored you on 2/7 with a 7.
Regards,
Jim Hoover
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 10:32 GMT
Jim
I do the same thing as you.
I posted you on 02/07
on 02/07 I received my 13th rating (the former being on 02/02) being a 2.
my 14 rating on 02/08 was a 6
so I cannot see how to change this....
Wilhelmus
(I also posted this on my thread)
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 07:24 GMT
James,
I came to score you, but the machine tells me I have already done so.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 17:28 GMT
Hi James,
I find your essay very readable and important. Us and light and fundamentality an evolving structure. I am reminded of Max Planck's dictum that the sciences advance one funeral at a time. The Hindu's have a saying that echoes your though "we move from truth to truth never from error to truth.
Question to you: Why have you not responded to any of the posts on your blog?
You were commenting to George Gantz that the voting was sparse and I agree. Could it be that author responses are being removed by marking them "inappropriate" by some demon?
I am concerned that the contest is being undermined. What do you think?
Thanks for yor spot on essay.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 17:47 GMT
Don,
I always respond in the threads of those that comment after I review their essays since that is where they are notified by email.
Thank you for the kind comments regarding my essay and my comments elsewhere.
Jim HOover
Don Limuti replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 22:47 GMT
Apologies Jim!
Faulty logic on my part.....
Trying too hard to figure why this contest seems "goofy"
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 18:56 GMT
Respected prof James Lee Hoover
Thank you for the Excellent observations and questions with nice words...on Dynamic Universe Model...Your essay is also very good sir....
I am giving maximum appreciation to you for your essay 10... Best wishes for the essay... Now it became 6.4...
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 19:47 GMT
Satyavarapu,
You are very kind.
Jim Hoover
Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 10:03 GMT
Hi Jim,
Intriguing Essay, from both of the physical and philosophical points of view. Congrats!
You have read my Essay, so you know that I completely agree with you that ToE is the ultimate Fundamental (admitting that a ToE really exists!)
Concerning that LIGO and similar instruments can track back to the BB, you can be interested to
this paper of mine, where I show that such a fundamental signal is a direct measure of the primordial Inflaton field.
In any case, I found your Essay interesting and entertaining. It deserves my highest score. Good luck in the Contest!
Cheers, Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Flavio Del Santo wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear Mr. Hoover,
thanks for commenting on my essay. It so happens that I have read and rated your already on Jan 20th, when there were a way less essay availalble, and it was still possible to go through all of them with a sense. I found it interesting. The main concern I have is actually your positive conclusion towards a ToE, that I don't think is close to come, and honestly not possible in principle.
I wish you the best,
Flavio
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 20:58 GMT
Flavio,
I think you are right about the ToE, perhaps even on the scale of cosmic time.
Jim
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 06:14 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover, light is the vibration of space, which is the matter, so said Descartes. You due That's interesting. my essay
FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. The principle of identity of physical space and matter allows us to extend physics to living matter. For this we need to pay attention to the fact that matter within the body is the same as outside it. Our brain creates an image of the outside world not within themselves and in the space around themselves. This image of the outside world has an active nature, as it controls the body.
Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating after becoming acquainted with the Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, it is end of some questions.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 10:33 GMT
Jim Hoover, many researchers use the concept of ether, which in fact is a physical space, but which according to Descartes is matter. I say these researchers – replace your mythological ether on the physical space, and would be fine. New Cartesian Physics consider these researchers as asset.
For Descartes the physical space is a physical environment, the movement of which can only be a rotation. The transition of rotational movement from one orbit to another is possible when the pull or push. Like a rocket on the ground when she not pushed, she remains.
Newton was not right when he said that he sees further Descartes so as standing on his shoulders. For him, space is an empty in which flying body possessing mass. Descartes physical space is a matter, in which there are no empty. But if they are formed, then closes instantly. Taking into account modern concepts, the speed of light is the limit for any real movements, in the New Cartesian Physics the empty in the space closes to the speed of light. For intelligent people from this moment begins the real physics.
In my essay I showed the relationship between the probability of quantum States and the factor of Lorentz. I believe that this is the first step toward synthesis of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. More show I not could , as it requires a lot of effort which must be highly appreciated.FQXi основополагающих в Новой Декартовой физики Dizhechko Борис Семенович
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 05:15 GMT
Jim Hoover, direct line on which a body is moving uniformly accelerated if operates a force exists only in our imagination. In the real world, such a movement is observed only in a small area and as a component of the real movement. Thus, the Newton was considered a ideal movement in a small area, and Descartes considered real motion, where the uniform motion is in a circular orbit, where it is also necessary to pull the body to the center. Look at my essay,
FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich and leave a rating.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris .
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 06:22 GMT
Dear Jim Hoover, I appreciate your paper. Light makes the world tangible, as it is a wave of space, which according to Descartes is matter. Moving the waves of space gather information about the objects that they are unable to penetrate.
Thank you for your questions to my Essay. Do not allow
FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 17:36 GMT
James,
I always look forward to your thoughtful and poetic essays. This one put me in mind of something Kevin Brown (
Reflections on Relativity)wrote: “This image of a photon as a single unified event with a coordinated emission and absorption seems unsatisfactory to many people, partly because it doesn't allow for the concept of a ‘free photon’, i.e., a photon that was never emitted and is never absorbed. However, it's worth remembering that we have no direct experience of ‘free photons’, nor of any ‘free particles’, because ultimately all our experience is comprised of completed interactions. (Whether this extends to gravitational interactions is an open question”.)
In other words, though the world being bathed in electromagnetic radiation gives us the means to view time backward, it doesn't tell us anything about the creation moment. We don't know if a photon was ever emitted.
A delightful, sensitive essay. Thank you.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 00:24 GMT
Thanks, Tom, for reading my essay and your kind comments.
Jim
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 05:44 GMT
Dear James,
Here we are again all together.
With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.
I am glad for our mutual understanding «most likely will continue to redefine the meaning of fundamental, knowing that scientific knowledge and what we deem the fundamental evolve, requiring constant editing, revision and refinement».
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
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 10:31 GMT
Dear James,
I read your wonderful essay with great interest. You give deep ideas and make important conclusions aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. To "grasp" the original structure of the Cosmos today, it is necessary to maximally support competitive ideas, primarily in
cosmology .
“In the Beginning Was the Logos …/ Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος ... " and Philosophy together with Science should give the deepest constructive interpretation to the "Logos / λόγος". Physicists and
poets should have a single picture of the Universum as an holistic generating process, filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E. Husserl). That's right: The Way. It means Meaning. Meaning is the basis of being (Hegel). The Universum is filled with meanings from the "Beginning". Light, the Way, Meaning, Structure are fundamental. The logical structure of a language is identical to the ontological structure of the world. (Wittgenstein). My highest score.
Best wishes!
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 19:46 GMT
Thanks, Vladimir, for reading and commenting on my essay.
Jim
Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 12:34 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover,
I enjoyed reading your interesting and informative Essay. It reflects on your vast and varied experience. I will continue to be in touch with you even after this contest is over.
QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3
.pdf
Kamal Rajpal
report post as inappropriate
Avtar Singh wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 19:01 GMT
Dear James:
I enjoyed reading your essay and agree with the main theme that understanding light is fundamental. However, as I show in my paper, to understand light (photon), one must answer the question as to how a photon accelerates to the speed of light from zero when it is born. This understanding then changes the whole picture of reality - big bang never happened, universe is eternal, light is the source of dark energy, time is only a relative reality in the frame of matter etc.
This new picture of reality then shows the light, the way, providing a basis for purpose and meaning to the universe and life in it.
Best Regards
Avtar
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 05:32 GMT
dear Lee
I began to read your interesting article and initially note the sincerity and truthfulness of your thinking. In my opinion these are the main qualities that we have lose in our aspirations to achieve to a perfect and reliable natural science. I sure now that fundamental science has come to a final crisis that is unlikely to be overcome without a deep moral re-education of thinkers. However, I very much doubt that this is a solvable problem for the near future.
I just laugh to invite you to look at my work to exchange our visions on this subject. I hope on your answer.
Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 05:09 GMT
I am sure you mean well, but Eccles. 3:7.
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 07:08 GMT
Dear Jam,
You says very important thing: // Fundamental then is irrelevant if a conscious being does not exist to point out that which is fundamental.// From above just derives that the "fundamentality" is a category for the human, so that it can be in development, change with time etc. That I see is very right definition as it also has reflected many times in the history of science. (Maybe you remembering Einstein's exercises with the "card houses!")
I mean the science goes not on the straight line to the known target, but we are forced often to destroy all of almost finished buildings and start again at the very beginning. This opportunity seems in your essay (as I am trying to say the same.) And the idea of starting everything with the light seems to me just as a Great!
Then I can you say welcome and try to support only.
Be well my Dear!
George
report post as inappropriate
corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 10:00 GMT
Nicely written MR. Hoover
Very nice way of putting things together. Your argumentation is clear and I think further words are useless. Read and rate it accordingly.
According to your last words, which say that the concept of "Fundamental" must keep evolving, I will appreciate your opinion, regarding this
essay on such a proposal
Respectfully,
Silviu
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 13:24 GMT
James,
As
'nothing exists without motion' I'm pleased to say I'm now now helping move your score along and up a bit (with an 8) as my initial comments (which I can't now seem to find here!??) I believe you did score mine. Thanks.
Best of luck in the run in.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 03:42 GMT
Hi James
I am sorry it has taken me so long to form a reply for you. I had read your essay some time back, however neglected to reply at that time. I am presented with a delema of sorts. On the one hand I greatly appreciate your writing and descriptive style. This aspect of your work I rate highly. The delema I face is that you're highly focused on describing a conventional scientific...
view entire post
Hi James
I am sorry it has taken me so long to form a reply for you. I had read your essay some time back, however neglected to reply at that time. I am presented with a delema of sorts. On the one hand I greatly appreciate your writing and descriptive style. This aspect of your work I rate highly. The delema I face is that you're highly focused on describing a conventional scientific basis, certain aspects of which I have come to doubt. You have read my essay, so you will appreciate the reservations I hold toward big bang theory. So when you write toward so many aspects of the world within implication and context that big bang is assumed correct, it is misaligned with my prejudices.
However, my theory is misaligned with nearly every-bodies prejudice, for I cant be right if big bang is correct. So I hope people will suspend their prejudice, and judge my essay in terms of a whether it is a well formed argument, or novel or creative. Which is what you must have done to provide a favorable rating for me. And I thank you for. So I can judge you highly on the same basis.
It was difficult to know how to express this. I had to think on it before I could reply. I did believe in the big bang theory, but once I began puzzle solving I had to map where the limits and challenges where to conventional theory. And through this process I came to view the conventional approach as a patchwork quilt tied together with loose stitching. And there were patches which needed adding that the conventional approach couldn't accommodate, like complexity and order of the world.
The conventional approach carries to many contradictions for me. I cant look at it now without them being glaringly obvious. I did not write about them because thats a sure way to write a poor rating essay. But That doesn't mean I cant form their argument. If you start looking for contradictions, and cataloging them. You discover there are many
I judge you are a person who can hear this point of view and understand. Thank you for your patients James
Kind regards
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Bauch wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 22:38 GMT
Dear James,
The rule that the speed of light cannot be exceeded is the driving factor in my cosmological concepts so your choice of light as fundamental resonates with mine. Your essay is informative and well written (your English skills show) and deserving of the highest rating I gave it.
Good luck,
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 00:07 GMT
Thank you, Peter for taking the time to read my essay and for your kind words.
Jim
Member Noson S. Yanofsky wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 03:48 GMT
Dear James,
Thank you for a nice essay. Your essay is a nice update on some recent advances in cosmology and astronomy.
Thank you.
All the best,
Noson
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 05:53 GMT
Noson,
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Jim
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 05:28 GMT
James,
There are not many essays that can encompass the bible and recent discoveries in science and find an interconnection between all. The only fault is that a theme is used instead of a true thesis, but with this topic that might be the best choice. This is written for a general science readership and stays on topic, that alone should give it high points.
All the best,
Jeff Schmitz
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 05:53 GMT
James A Putnam wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 18:07 GMT
Dear James,
Your thoughtful probing analysis is attractive reading. It made me consider my own essay by contrast. I always seem to be dealing with nuts and bolts. Or, perhaps I write like I am laying bricks. You write more like a poet. Your style of communication has a rhythm to it. I appreciated reading your ideas. I will vote late.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 00:46 GMT
Cool Beans Jim,
I enjoyed this essay greatly. You could have gone into more detail about the distance ladder and how we know how far we are... The article cited by Ethan Siegel does a good job of that, and Ethan is a cool dude whom I met back in November at FFP15. Fun reading, more to say later, but I want to grace a few more essays and forum threads before the deadline.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 00:58 GMT
James Lee Hoover
Thanks, Jim, for pointing our similarity in thinking.
Feel free to contact me directly, if you feel like.
Chandra.Roychoudhuri@uconn.edu
I will read your essay soon.
I am an experimental optical physicist. May be we can collaborate in some form.
Sincerely,
Chandra.
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.