Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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

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/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

John-Erik Persson: on 3/13/18 at 18:31pm UTC, wrote Jonathan Dickau Thanks for discussions. Perhaps you are interested in my...

Jonathan Dickau: on 2/28/18 at 19:21pm UTC, wrote Thanks greatly Colin... Your insights are valued and valuable. I will...

Colin Walker: on 2/28/18 at 2:25am UTC, wrote Hi Jonathan I concur with your "all forces are the consequence of just one...

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/28/18 at 0:43am UTC, wrote I received seven 1 point bombs in the contest, with four of them in the...

Avtar Singh: on 2/27/18 at 18:08pm UTC, wrote Hi Jonatan: Thanks for your new comments on my paper. Rest mass is only...

James Hoover: on 2/27/18 at 6:42am UTC, wrote Jonathan, I think we are all contest hooked -- maybe more for the forum...

Jonathan Dickau: on 2/27/18 at 4:25am UTC, wrote I want to thank everyone... As the final hour draws nigh; I am excitedly...

Maxim Khlopov: on 2/26/18 at 23:20pm UTC, wrote Dear Jonathan, Thank you for interesting discussion of possible nature of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..." in First Things First: The...

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...


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.


FQXi FORUM
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Gravity is not fundamental; or is it? by Jonathan J. Dickau [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 19:56 GMT
Essay Abstract

When a stone falls to the Earth, there is no doubt its falling reveals a force we must all live with – throughout our lives. And yet, there is a debate among scientists as to whether gravity is a fundamental force of the universe or not. We know there is a hierarchy among the forces, but typically assume there is an anomaly with gravity – because it is the weakest force, yet thought to have split from the unified force in the early universe. The work of Jacobson, Verlinde, Padmanabhan, and others, suggests we should instead see gravity as a consequence of the remaining forces – rather than a fundamental force – and this view gives unique insights into possible quantum gravity theories and the nature of gravity itself. What if gravity is different because it comes mainly from asymmetry instead of symmetry? This paper explores relationships between entropic or dissipative forces and gravitation, in regards to whether gravity is indeed a fundamental force in Physics, is a residual or consequence of other forces that are fundamental, or if all forces are the consequence of just one unified field of interactions – and sub-ranges thereof. The author’s prior work involving the Mandelbrot Set and Physics analogues suggests this third case is the correct answer.

Author Bio

Jonathan Dickau has skills and pursuits spanning academic, artistic, and technical endeavors. With an inquisitive mind, since an early age; he never quite grew up. Jonathan won a Grammy award for recording Pete Seeger "At 89," and he continues to explore ways he can help the human race better harmonize with Mother Earth to heal our planetary biosphere. He lives in upstate New York, working mainly in Audio and Video production. Jonathan devotes increasing amounts of time to writing and to academic studies - especially Physics and Mathematics - and has presented his work at several international Physics conferences.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 20:14 GMT
Greetings to all!

I am thankful to once again be a part of this contest. I won't promise to read every entry, but I will try to get to as many of the other essays as I can, in the time allotted. I will try to answer any questions put to me here by the other participants, and I look forward to having some interesting conversations as a result. My main interest, this time around, is to share some ideas that might not otherwise be examined. But I am equally interested in examining ideas others might have about my topic.

I wish all of the participants good luck, and that you all find interesting comments worthy to respond to.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 20:19 GMT
Erratum:

There is a typo on pg. 6, just below fig. 1, where the capital M on the first line should be a script cap - signifying the Mandelbrot Set - like the other Ms in that paragraph.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 14:42 GMT
Jonathan,

The idea that asymmetry is significant seems very reasonable to me as an engineer. We are intensively taught thermodynamics and some of the things you describe are phase-changes in my opinion.

The Mandelbrot Set is new to me. You reference two coordinates when discussing this set but the figures you present do not appear to have marked axes. The left-right symmetry is obvious, so I assume that is the vertical axis. I'm less clear as to the location of the horizontal axis.

My undergrad Physics textbooks were Sears & Zemansky and Halliday & Resnick.

All in all this is a well written and thought provoking essay. Well done.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 01:58 GMT
Thanks greatly Gary,

Yes changes in phase are exactly the kind of transitions I am talking about. I would ask you to look at my slides from FFP15, but I will also post some supplementary notes relating to this essay to spell out some things relating to Mandelbrot Set Physics and other things I left out for brevity. I am so glad that you had quality textbooks to learn the basics from. I was lucky too, and had caring instructors who knew their subject well to learn from. I think it really makes a difference when someone loves their subject, because then they enjoy sharing it with others.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Geoffrey Dixon wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 16:34 GMT
Reading now. Will comment as I go along. By and large

liking what I'm reading. although gravity theory is not

my forte by a long shot.

"Along the way; we saw the creation of space give way

to the production of particles, and then to nucleosynthesis,

while the universe was still an energy soup – where

matter and energy are interchangeable and ever...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 02:07 GMT
Wow thank you Geoff,

Some of those insights are valuable. It is always a nice thing to have someone who is more knowledgeable about your work than yourself, in some aspects, critique it - because only then do you get an idea of which items you think are obvious really come across that way. I am glad you caught me on the improper use of the word 'likely' because I don't always realize when I am waxing euphemistic, and such wordings have no place in academic writing - where the goal is to be crystal clear and precise.

I am pleased that you found something of value in my offering, as I did in yours. Things will continue to evolve of course, and it will be interesting to see the further evolution of our respective work to date. The neat thing is that, once an idea catches on, it develops legs then wings - so that other people's application of our thought forms becomes a whole new arena for their development. Let us hope that this essay contest forum have that effect. Best of luck!

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Jonathan J. Dickau,

Before the surface of any stone can fall to earth, it first has to be somehow hoisted above that part of the surface of the earth it is likely to fall upon.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 02:29 GMT
Hi Joe,

I do give some attention to this specifically, in the first paragraph of my endnotes regarding Entropic Gravitation. I admittedly could have been clearer about the stone striking the surface of the Earth, and that would have made the analogy with what was said earlier in the paper tighter, or more true to fact.

I will work harder at getting this right next time.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 21:27 GMT
Dear Jonathan Dickau,

This is (in my opinion) your best FQXi essay by far. You say "things from the Mandelbrot set … teach lessons in physics." I would say that you gain insight from the Mandelbrot set and teach yourself. Regardless, your focus on asymmetry is fruitful. I had not thought of the

"near perfect symmetry at higher magnification… [and] asymmetrical at...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 03:01 GMT
Thank you so much Ed!

Considering your own superb writing and presentation quality, your comments are high praise. I had the advantage, this time out, of having to prepare for a 45 minute talk at FFP15, which is the longest theoretical Physics presentation I have ever made. Truth be told; I had an extra 10 slides in case someone asked the what-if question, or I needed to stretch things out. Instead; my talk was the last one before the lunch break and I had to make due with rushing through my presentation in 40 minutes. But the circumstances assured that nobody was eager to ask a question anyway.

You are in good company to think that energy is a fundamental, and serves well in combination with an abstract organizing principle. Lee Smolin made a brilliant presentation about his minimalist theory Energetic Causal Sets at GR21, and I liked the idea so much I had to thank him for his cleverness to construct a minimalist gem. So yes; energy may well be fundamental, and I agree it stands alone as an organizing principle - taking the same role often ascribed to information. We will have to see how some things play out, when the experimentalists sharpen our view.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 00:00 GMT
Jonathan,

Welcome back. You opening greeting is graciously welcoming as well. Your essay poses and answers a lot of questions in physics, as well as indicating the paradoxical nature of physics and the subject we are treating.

"Determining what is fundamental in Physics, and what is derivative, has long been a subject of debate among physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers." Your introduction rightly ponders on the distinction of fundamental or derivative -- must be one or the other? The four forces are usually considered fundamental but are they derived from one force due temperatures > 1 billion Kelvin or consequences, so not fundamental? I think all of our essays should or do open a Pandora of other questions as we try to cover all the bases or options. One essay says that symmetry is fundamental, giving a good argument. I also mention gravity and EM forces as long range and weak and strong as short-range arising from one force, reciting the orthodox view, but point out that we need to keep open minds.

Your essay, as I said, keeps an open mind, indicating a preferential view that might change. I do the same.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 03:38 GMT
Thank you for your thoughtful comments Jim...

It is my pleasure to again be back among the participant here at FQXi. I have already put your essay on my reading list, or in the bin, but I will push it up a notch in the queue. I am happy my essay gave you something to think about, and I look forward to reading yours. I am sure, from past experience, that we will have some points of agreement to discuss, and I expect only a few differences but interesting subtleties to debate...

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 19:20 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Your question about the fundamentality of gravity is important, but there is a related question – what is gravity?

In my own essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”, I argue that gravity is not, as we have been taught, the curvature of spacetime. On the contrary, on the microscopic level, everything is comprised of oscillating waves. Gravity is simply the (very weak) modulation of the wave frequency by every other fundamental wave in the universe. Furthermore, there is no abstract spacetime. Instead, time and space are defined locally by the frequency and wavelength of fundamental quantum waves. This simple, unified picture states that the speed of light is NOT constant, but decreases in the vicinity of a star. This gives the accurate trajectory of a light beam bending near a star. This is simply refraction, not bent spacetime.

I further suggest that black holes and event horizons are not real, but are rather mathematical artifacts. There are certainly compact gravitational objects in galactic centers, but we know very little about their true nature.

This picture has no quantum entanglement, which has important technological implications. In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will people start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 05:25 GMT
Thanks for coming by Alan...

Unfortunately; I get the sense you only half read my essay, because I do address the question 'what is gravity?' in a large portion of this paper. But if I was unclear, I wish you were at my talk at FFP15 in Orihuela, because you would have heard me address some of the very points you raise in an explicit way. And reading your comments to Bill McHarris; I get the sense you and I are much more on the same page than your cursory reading would indicate. I hope I can absorb more of the depth in your essay, because I am already intrigued by the title and abstract, and I'd already added it to my reading bin. I intend to read your essay and comment.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 05:42 GMT
Let me further reply...

I am indeed wary of claims or assumptions that a vast range of astrophysical objects are indeed black holes. But I geared the presentation of material in this essay toward the terminology of generally accepted models, because I already have enough controversial things to say. I also find it difficult to be so dismissive after hearing so many lectures celebrating the detection of black hole mergers at GR21. There is more to the story about subtle deviations in the LIGO signal worth telling, but I do not have compelling evidence black holes do not exist.

I will follow up by posting some supplementary material below, and discussing further on your thread.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 04:28 GMT
Gravity is not fundamental; or is it?

Jonathan,

‘Fundamental’ is a descriptive term, an adjective. As to whether the term applies to a specific subject or is intended to reference a universally applicable element depends upon the context in which the term is used.

In 1916 Einstein amended his Special Theory of Relativity in the interest of drawing gravity into the scope of a more comprehensive or general theory. His means were to declare gravity a misconception, an effect rather than a cause, brought about by the uneven distribution of mass in the universe.

Thus we are led to the inevitable question: What is the cause of gravity? Vacuum is the dominant medium in the cosmos and so-called gravity is simply its means of filling voids. A kind of push-me-pull-you game that we interpret from the earth as a ‘pull’ but which seen from outer space would be recognizable as a ‘push’.

So there you have it, and there you don’t! The pull of what we call ‘gravity’ is ‘fundamental’ when considering earth-bound subjects, but not ‘fundamental’ where it is considered in the context of the greater force of vacuum.

“Reality” is place and time dependent. Thus dinner time in Timbukto on Thursday is breakfast time in Fiji on Friday; just as surely as ‘up’ in Timbukto points in the same direction as ‘down’ in Fiji.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 02:21 GMT
Thanks for reading Gary,

I am hoping this post doesn't end up looking like a big run on sentence, with the letter n everywhere I would want a carriage return or line break. I think they may be trying to get the posts to display more compactly, but it is obnoxious. I read your essay and commented earlier today. It deserves more appreciation than it has gotten. Good luck in the contest.

All the Best, JJD

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 15:18 GMT
Jonathan, with each essay contest you improve your ideas and they become increasingly interesting. The Mandlebrot set is a great example of how universality works when there are scaling laws, and how symmetry emerges. As you have explained in your own words the Mandlebrot set exhibits a self-similarity symmetry at Misiurewicz points which is approximate at large scales, but it gets more exact as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 10:11 GMT
Dear Jonathan

Intriguing Essay. Congrats!

Here are some comments:

1) Einstein's elegant vision of gravity is the reason for which I decided to become a researcher. Thus, it is very difficult for me thinking that gravity is not fundamental.

2) On the other hand, I agree with you that all forces could be the consequence of just one unified field of interactions and sub-ranges thereof. In that case, not only gravity but also the other forces should be “entropic and emergent”. This could, in principle, lead to a global geometric interpretation of physics where asymmetry and/or symmetry should be even more fundamental.

3) Like you, I am not sure of whether gravity actually is a fundamental force of physics or not, despite I am inclined to the positive answer. Paraphrasing Einstein, in any case it is a very interesting problem.

Congrats again and good luck in the Contest. Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss physics unification from another point of view with... Albert Einstein!

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 10:18 GMT
Sorry, here is the correct link to my Essay:

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3077.

The link help page seems to do not work.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Schroeder wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 16:05 GMT
Jonathan Dickau,

You begin to address the makeup of the universe mostly in your abstract. You ask if gravity is fundamental. In the process you summarize a mistaken analysis of gravity. Can you convert?

The ‘weak’ definition of gravity in the current metaphysics of the standard model is just wrong. The reality is hidden by the definitions of gravity. It is an attraction via Newton or bent space via relativity. Neither of those forces surround masses as do the comparative forces. Attraction is the net result of gravity upon a point on the mass surface. Attraction is thought of as a non-physical linear pull toward the center of (earth) for example. There is a problem here. The physical solution is that gravity must be a push. The gravity source is a push, the resulting impression is attraction. With the source as a push, it pressures matter from all sides. The sum of all 3 dimensional pushes is not weak! As such it creates the spherical shapes of spatial bodies and holds them and us together. Gravity is the source of the other forces reversing your mention of gravity being the consequence of other forces.

It takes time to adjust your perspective. The hard issue is explaining unbalanced pushes that result in ‘attraction’. Gravity is EM radiation traveling in all directions throughout space at speed C. The radiation penetrates matter and is diminished within. The ‘net’ result on the other side results in unbalanced gravity. The push downward there exceeds the push up from the surface by the exiting radiation.

One revelation is how gravity becomes unbalanced allowing the ‘net’ force to push orbitals forward in their orbits while simultaneously pushing them downward. The idea of eternal motion goes away. There is much more to learn for those that are interested.

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 04:50 GMT
Jonathan,

Good to see you in another contest. I took a scan of your essay and will take a closer look soon. I do like your emphasis on asymmetry.

I went after gravity as an aspect of space-time that is closely (asymmetrically) related to the photon.

It is possible we are approaching a fundamental via different angles.

All the best.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 02:56 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

The Mandelbrot Set a source of gravity....I don't think so.

But I do agree that a form of asymmetry is at gravity's source. We may be converging on some interesting insights on gravity. Thanks for your thought provoking essay.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 13:33 GMT
It is interesting to note that the four known forces emerged at the start with a Big bang of creation. It is quite feasable to imagine that the strengths of these forces were about the same to start with. But all these strengths decayed with differnt rates with the passage of time.It may well be due to the dominance of vacuum over sparsely spread out masses of steller objects. I wish we succeed in doing a cosmology experiment where one measures the speed of light or gravitational strength way back a few billion years. It may well result in the Inconstancy of the Physical Constants over the cosmic scale. Our science has started only in the past 500 years or so. Hence measurements on Earth will not show such a scenario.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 15:38 GMT
Hi, Jonathan.

Einstein thought much of what inertia might be. Gravitation is also a polarization, one might ask - of what? I have my own thoughts of that, and some day I will share them.

Asymmetry is important, yes. I have learned that also Einstein thought of this non-commuting system, giving asymmetric outputs also. The problem for Einstein and so many other is the symmetric approach is like a brain meme, the basic assumption...

Look at my essay, where you see asymmetry as the ruling force. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093 What is Life? A theory of 'More than everything' :)

I value your comments (and rates too). Nice to see you here again, hope we some day can collaborate more.

Ulla Mattfolk

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 15:56 GMT
You have a nice take on the asymmerty related to gravitation. Have you thought of the polarization as a force between symmetry and asymmetry? Can you then link asymmetry to imaginary side of our 'reality' and gravity then as mostly imaginary force, related to all on that side, also dark matter? Have you thought of why we experience our 'reality' as non-imaginary?

Also, your take on the ER=EPR debate?

Mandelbrot is chaotic, expressing some emergence. The same as an harmonic oscillator, and Lie-Groups. They are guiding rules maybe most of all? Does it makes gravity to the most important of our forces?

Yes, I have not changed, too many questions...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 14:21 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

I scored your essay a week or two ago. It makes a bold proposition about how fractal geometry, and Julia/Mandelbrot sets enter into physics. I will in the ensuing year or so be introducing concepts along these lines. This does play a role in renormalization group flow, and in one sense time is a form of RG flow.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 05:38 GMT
Fascinating to note that you too are inclined to attribute gravity to arise from assymmetry rather than any su=ymmetry that leads to strong forces. Space is all empty except for sparse stellar matter. Vacuum dominates over matter. Looking at atom itself, it too is empty except for the nucleaus to have all the mass of matter.The Creator has followed this as the logic in Nature. Man has not and can not add anything to the Universe, except to study it. Randomness of natural events shows that it dominates overwhelmingly over order. In my post on our essay, i mentioned an Experiment graduate students performed , testing Chi-Square test on mixing regular or 'orderd' events to the natural or random pulses due to radiations being detected in a sensor! We went down to around 1 in over 10,000 and more and the conclusion was random dominates over order by far.

Gravity is illusive in the same way as it arises in a very fundamental way than the other three known interactions. Their unification could be accomplished but not for the gravity with the other three. Looking at dark matter and its interaction with visible matter, same sort of anamoly arises as the constituents appear to be basically different. Look the interaction shows a reverse of gravitational attraction. In other words a sort of repulsion exists rather than attraction!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:09 GMT
Jonathan,

I swore this time I wasn't going to 'clear form', but your essay provokes so much questioning that it simply overwhelms my level of ignorance. What can I say? There seems to be some ineffable principle inherent in even rudimentary operations when arranged in a correct way applied to a physical concept, that can leave one in wonder at how it almost visibly 'works right'. How does it do that? Perhaps mentally it is no more than a co-incidence of converging metaphors and we are humanly equipped to be bound to do so, but I prefer to think it is a process of real discovery.

If I try to say more I would only detract, other than certainly for me you have fundamentally addressed the essay question. Very best wishes, Jonathan. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear Jonathan J. Dickau

Thank you for visiting my page, I am waiting for your valuable comments.... You did a wonderful discussion “we should instead see gravity as a consequence of the remaining forces – rather than a fundamental force – and this view gives unique insights into possible quantum gravity theories and the nature of gravity itself.” You gave a nice introduction to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 20:22 GMT
Respected Prof Jonathan J. Dickau

…………..Reply…….

I posted the revised abstract on Jan 2, I was travelling and I posted an earlier essay by mistake. I was in Bhilai for few days then. I know FQXi will not change the essay

…..May please see… sorry for the error….

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 04:50 GMT
Dear Jonathan J. Dickau

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 15:02 GMT
Jonathan,

Perhaps I missed it. I see no mention of the chief characteristic of the Mandelbrot set -- self-similarity.

What's interesting about this characteristic is that it emerges from an arbitrary function in the complex plane, to become a completely coherent object at any choice of scale. In other words, the global set looks like any local subset. This being so makes it the most symmetric object in mathematics. Just as a see-saw depends on weight distribution to induce an oscillation, so does symmetry depend on a compensating factor -- time in this case -- equal areas in equal times, as Kepler formulated it for planetary orbits. Nonequilibrium states of asymmetry therefore, are due to a symmetry principle. To know this, however, we have to appeal to a measure space -- and the 2-dimensional measure space of the Mandelbrot set is infinite.

If gravity is subject to self-similarity, then it is fundamental.

My opinion. Though I find your essay well argued and well written, I have to disagree. Let's debate.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 15:05 GMT
Is anyone else experiencing this loss of format? Is it my computer only?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 16:03 GMT
Thanks greatly Tom, | As it turns out, I could probably argue some of your points using my diagrams with different identifiers. And the FQXi system appears to be turning all carriage returns into the character n; maybe they wanted to replace them with en-dashes, but this formatting glitch is pretty obnoxious. For FFP15; I showed that any of several different constructions lead to the same conclusions. Absolutely; self-similarity should be added to the list. In fact; I used self-similarity as part of my explanation in a recent reply to Christian Corda. | The attached image file illustrates that variations on either side of the Misiurewicz point are self-similar but appear in opposite phase! This makes the gravitational horizon like a mirror in reverse. In the diagram; the Schwarzschild event horizon is seen to correspond with the virtual ground or amplitude null at the summing junction of an inverting feedback amplifier - a common op-amp configuration. But perhaps we can think of the feedback resistor as sitting at the surface and bringing those reverse-phase variations across the BH event horizon. I tried to add a second attachment, arXiv:1610.08518 - but it was too large - and I had to create a text file because it would not let me delete it without losing my message. | Ahh, computers... | All the Best, | Jonathan

attachments: 1_MandelAmp2.jpg, null.txt

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 16:53 GMT
I can include a link, however... | The paper I unsuccessfully attempted to attach above is Entanglement area law in superfluid 4He. | Enjoy! | Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 17:02 GMT
I also wish to announce this... | Just published in Prespacetime is the paper I wrote for last year's Gravity Research Foundation contest for essays on gravitation, entitled "How Simple Can Gravity Be?," which outlines and further discusses some of the ideas presented in my FQXi contest essay. | I am also working on Supplementary Notes for my essay, which specifically address some of the things not understood by my readers, and which provide more background for the ideas presented therein. | All the Best, | Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 18:53 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Another good essay and interesting thesis. I also read your Gravity paper. Of course all very speculative but speculation is essential to find the way round present barriers to understanding (your; 'Impasse'). John Bell said of QM it would take an 'astonishing leap of imagination.. which would amaze'.

Actually I do hope you'll get to my essay (and Declan Traill's short code & plot) as after trying many such leaps, amazingly one seems to have worked! And yes, it came from a more complex partial symmetry of momentum on a condensed electron than the imaginary 'spin up/down' Bohr allowed for.

You identified; 'Condensation is a natural consequence of thermodynamic cooling that also arises in the context of emergent gravity theories'. Yet for Higgs and 'pair production' it seems to relate more to an additional macro spin state in the dark energy or 'sub matter condensate' whatever that is (smaller fractal spins?). I don't think the thermodynamic view has born fruit (or maybe now will), have you seen advances?

But I vote Yes & No, Gravity is a fundamental effect but as a consequence of the process condensing matter, which just any relative 'motion' seems to do. Then isn't the real question; what is the Mandelbrot set, and matter, 'made of'?

Very nice job & best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 19:06 GMT
Jonathan Dickau

I forgot to ask what you mean by 'pedigree', as you said on my page. (English is not my normal language.)

Regards from ____________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 19:29 GMT
Oh.. I understand..

I was saying that the good Dr. Herr Einstein himself had written about some of the things you conjecture years ago. Even though the model was set aside since the Michelson-Morley experiment claimed to be a disproof; many esteemed scientists considered similar notions, at one time.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 20:35 GMT
Jonathan Dikau

Thanks for clearifications.

I have proved why Michelson and Morley's tests and stellar aberration cannot give any indications regarding the ether wind. You can see this also at my blog page at:

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/

Regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 20:42 GMT
Jonathan

See My blog

John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 12:26 GMT
Jonathan Dickau

I agree to the statement that gravity is fundamental. However, gravity is a property of the ether and the ether is even more fundamental.

Your reference to Osheroff is important. An important hindrance to making discoveries is the illusion that we already know.

Einstein added mistakes to an already confused situation. He realized that when he was older. One mistake was to assume clocks without errors.

Thanks for many links.

Unfortunately I am not qualified to give an opinion regarding Mandelbrot's fractals in relation to physics.

Best regards ___________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 17:04 GMT
Hi Jonathan:

Your statement is intriguing - "And yet, there is a debate among scientists as to whether gravity is a fundamental force of the universe or not. "

Stretching your logic further, my research shows that anti-gravity is fundamental reality that explains 96% of the missing universe from the current mainstream theories. I would like to draw your attention to the missing fundamental physics governing - “What causes a photon to accelerate to the speed of light?” I would like to invite you to look into my paper – “What is Fundamental – Is C the Speed of Light”. that describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell’s theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The paper not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 05:16 GMT
I'm happy to see you here Avtar!

I have downloaded your essay and started reading.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



William C. McHarris wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 20:24 GMT
Dear Jonathan

What an intriguing, thought-provoking essay! I really liked it. Asymmetry ought to be an important factor and should be investigated thoroughly, especially since nonlinear systems can generate it rather easily. I also appreciate your use of the Mandelbrot Set as an alternate to standard group theory. I have posted a more extensive reply after your comments on my own essay, so I won't repeat those ideas here.

Keep up the good work.

Best wishes,

Bill

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 05:13 GMT
I greatly appreciate your respect of this work Bill!..

I am so glad that this essay has earned your approval, and also that my work with Mr. Seeger was also enjoyed. One tries first to get it right, to set out things exactly as they need to be, and to nuance every phrase or transition. Only then can we wonder about whether our message was communicated or is worthy of recognition. Your apt message was elegantly well said sir, so I will take your approval as high praise.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 07:31 GMT
If a Misiurewicz point refers to the Mandelbrot set and this refers to topological isomorphism which on its part refers to point-set-topology (PST) then I am not sure whether it is fundamentally anchored in the logic Archimedes infinity or just in the pragmatic mathematical Bernoulli/Leibniz infinities.

As to say it blunt: A child with scissors is able to perform a symmetrical cut while PST struggles with a Dedekind point.

Exact self-similarity in the sense of mirror symmetry is rarely, if at all, found in the fundamental frog's perspective.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 00:47 GMT
Jonathan,

Do you have a particular working conception of how the Mandelbrot set relates to the distinction between *average* and *constant* ? I can arrive at an average value across a region of changing values, but anywhere in a region of constant values will also be the average value. This goes to energy density and how fields can conduct valued quantity exchanges between domains, and the problem I (at Least) always have in contemplating how wave dynamics alone can create definite "domains that remain". Thanks for your thoughts. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 23:39 GMT
Jonathan,

As time grows short, I recheck those that I have commented on to see if I've rated them. I find that I have not rated yours and am correcting that now.

Hope you can get a chance to look at mine.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 13:25 GMT
Hi Jonathan, beautiful essay, Mandelbrot is in you and the octonions and its not commutativity also, Klee and garreth and cristic d like your essay :) best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Schroeder wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 16:41 GMT
Hello Jonathan Dickau,

You are correct that all forces are the consequence of one unified field of interactions. Its called GRAVITY!

My opinion of physical reality is as straight forward as possible and gravity is the specific topic which current theory must address first. There are others here at RQXi that focus on gravity but they complicate it. My system inverts much current...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 19:26 GMT
Hi Jonathan:

Thanks for remembering the prior acquaintance and interactions at the CCC-2. It all comes to cherishing the sweet memories of the past.

I read your essay and enjoyed it fully agreeing with most of your conclusions. I also gave the highest rating it deserves. I fully agree with your assertion that forces including gravity are not fundamental and – “…if all forces...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jochen Szangolies wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 12:06 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

as a quantum information scientist by training, many of your ideas play right into my own prejudices. You mention quantum thermodynamics, and the way entanglement 'spreads out' information of a physical system across everything it interacts with; there is actually an interesting way in which that plays into emergent gravity that you didn't mention (but maybe are aware of).

The basic observation is that many-body quantum states often obey an area law: if one traces out a certain part of the state, the entropy of that missing part scales with the area of the boundary between it and the rest. This is very reminiscent of the physics of black holes: there, too, you sort of 'forget about' the part of the spacetime beyond the horizon and, as a result, obtain the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy scaling with the horizon area.

It's this scaling that was instrumental in Jacobson's recovery of the Einstein equation as a thermodynamic 'equation of state' for spacetime. That it seems to fall out of quantum entanglement suggests an interesting connection between that and spacetime, and indeed, subsequent work has uncovered extremely interesting connections, leading to what is sometimes called the 'entanglement as glue'-paradigm. Perhaps most strikingly, Mark van Raamsdonk et al could show that, under the AdS/CFT correspondence, if one 'disentangles' states of the conformal field theory, the associated regions of spacetime in the AdS-bulk 'pinch off', with the amount of entanglement being given by the area of the cross section of the connection between both spacetime regions.

There are many other deep connections that you only gesture at and that need to be formulated more carefully, I think---but dinner is ready, so I'm out of time for the moment. I'll return if I can think of something else I think might be useful, though!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 13:58 GMT
Buddha is a plumb bob.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wayne R Lundberg wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 01:37 GMT
Dear Jonathon,

Your writing of questioning and exploring modern theoretical physics constructs was indeed amusing. I suppose that a 'map' such as what I wrote about would be helpful...

You wrote "It is fairly well-known in the Physics community that the Standard Model can be encoded in the symmetry group formula SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), but it is not understood how to derive this formula from a deeper underlying structure. There are objects in Mathematics possessing deep and great symmetry, which are already known to be relevant to Physics and are obvious candidates for the seed of a unifying theory."

It turns out that the geometry of a quark, such as the green down quark illustrated in my essay, has a quantum state algebra that is one-to-one with a subgroup of a cross product of two wreath products. This also allows for causality, which is missing in the Std Model.

"I’m still unsure of whether gravity actually is a fundamental force of Physics or not, so I leave determining that up to you." well, good. It _is_ one of several fundamental properties of particles as well as in cosmology.

The central issue of consistency is imposed by observing that the universe is merely the sum of its particles. So the form of each equation must be the same, at least the mass terms must add up to yield macroscopic gravity. A foundational formula is presented for FQXi group review toward the end of my short descriptive essay.

best wishes,

Wayne Lundberg

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 05:35 GMT
Jonathan,

Now I at least know what the Mandelbrot Set is and know a tiny bit about fractals and self-similarity.

So, has anyone ever argued either for or against the idea that physical laws should be scale independent? I know the empirical evidence is that the strong and weak forces are short range only whereas gravity and electro-magnetism are long-range.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 07:51 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Here we are again all together.

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

«all forces are the consequence of just one unified field of interactions – and sub-ranges thereof». Great!

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

Vladimir Fedorov

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 09:08 GMT
Dear Jonathan

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anil Shanker wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 21:18 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You beautifully discuss the nature of gravitational force and its impact on biological evolution. Your argument that the gravitational force may simply be a mathematically consistent basis or simply an exercise of imagination has a value. Thus, I will add that the complete comprehension of fundamentalness will entail a deeper journey into the worlds of biological and physical evolutions. I believe they intricately co-exist, co-evolve and are co-dependent to define what we term "absoluteness".

Best regards,

Anil

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 07:08 GMT
Hello Everyone,

I have been very busy but I am taking the time to read as many essays as I can before the close of ratings. I was working on some supplementary materials for my essay, to share on this forum, but the deadline already grows nigh. And now I must also finish my proceedings submission for FFP15. I value everyone's opinions, and I wish I could comment individually in a timely manner. I will instead respond briefly to only the recent comments above, and I'll attempt instead to get to the essays of all those who came to this page with comments before the rest.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 23:20 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your comments, and for reminding me to comment and rate your essay. I see you got bombed, I was too, especially in the last 24 hours I went from 1 to 11, now I see it's a bit better. Please tell the organizers about the bombs you received, it is against the rules (and also dishonest without comments explaining that it indeed deserved to receive an 1). It is important to read and rate accordingly as many essays as possible, to make the one bombs less relevant, so if you forgot to rate my essay when you commented please do it now according to your evaluation. Nice thoughts about entropic gravity and the fractal properties, about which I replied to you more when you commented on my thread. Good luck in the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 00:43 GMT
I received seven 1 point bombs in the contest, with four of them in the last 24 hours.

A pure abuse of this system. I have protested at length to the organizers as to this harassment.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Maxim Yurievich Khlopov wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 23:20 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for interesting discussion of possible nature of gravity, which I hav enjoyed. It deserves sufficiently high estimation

With the best regards

Maxim Khlopov

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 04:25 GMT
I want to thank everyone...

As the final hour draws nigh; I am excitedly reading as many more essays as I can squeeze in, hoping to find one or two undiscovered gems. At the same time; I can see that I and others have been 'bombed' by folks who gave the essay a very low rating with no comment to indicate why they might be dissatisfied with what was written here.

At the urging of Cristi above; I have chosen to report this behavior. I am sure I am not alone in receiving this treatment or in reporting that the unwelcome hit-and-run behavior has happened again. I still have high hopes for this contest and all the participants, because the folks who interact in the forum here at FQXi have a higher intellectual and moral purpose than most.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 06:42 GMT
Jonathan,

I think we are all contest hooked -- maybe more for the forum and the exchange of great ideas. Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 18:08 GMT
Hi Jonatan:

Thanks for your new comments on my paper.

Rest mass is only possible or definable when photon is at rest. This is the biggest and most serious inconsistency in the mainstream or Maxwell’s theory that Photon has energy and momentum but no rest mass and that a photon is born with V=C.

I agree with your assertion that the gravitational pull of nearby masses effect the speed of a photon (bending of light). However, this also is possible if photon has a non-zero mass. A zero mass photon cannot be impacted by the gravity pull of other masses.

Regards

Avtar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Colin Walker wrote on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 02:25 GMT
Hi Jonathan

I concur with your "all forces are the consequence of just one unified field of interactions – and sub-ranges thereof", although our scenarios differ. In the Machian scenario, as I see it, the universe is not expanding, and the energy lost from redshifted tired light forms a coherent field at the zero-point of electromagnetic radiation. This field is the origin of material energy, and matter is carried along by waves in the field - i.e, gravity. The waves would have a speed given by the radial escape velocity of a gravitating object.

By the way, I found the way you rotate the Mandelbrot figures a bit disorienting at first, but I also found that matching the symmetry with our natural left-right symmetry is far more pleasing to the eye. In contrast to your parallels between Mandelbrot and big bang cosmology, I confess to some uneasiness about a universe whose origin apparently cannot be known.

Oh yes, I wanted to mention the symmetry of the circle mapped to the line, but it turns out to be trivial and is complicated by having separate cases for odd and even number of points. O,A,..., etc. are points on the circumference of a circle. On that circle, 0 would be diametrically opposite E.

Symmetry: 0 A B C D E D C B A ... has bilateral symmetry about the diameter 0-E

Antisymmetry: 0 A B C D E d c b a ... where a,b,c,d are the negatives of A,B,C,D. A is laterally accross from a

Antipodal Antisymmetry: 0 A B C D E a b c d ... does not have bilateral symmetry. A is diametrically across from a, etc.

Who knows, this last one may not even be considered symmetry. I saw it in the residual of the Gill-Pearle method of quantum correlation, which really should not have been surprising since it amounts to a directed projection through the center of a circle, having opposite value in the opposite direction. Previous models of quantum correlation had resulted in bilateral symmetry in the residual, and that may be the greater curiosity.

Cheers,

Colin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 19:21 GMT
Thanks greatly Colin...

Your insights are valued and valuable. I will have to come back to this, though. I have somewhere to be!

Regards, JJD

Bookmark and Share



John-Erik Persson wrote on Mar. 13, 2018 @ 18:31 GMT
Jonathan Dickau

Thanks for discussions. Perhaps you are interested in my last blog at:

blog

Regards from ___________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.