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

Thomas Ray: on 2/22/18 at 14:31pm UTC, wrote Sunk lower. Point validated.

Thomas Ray: on 2/22/18 at 12:31pm UTC, wrote Steven, With all due respect, I am down here in the sewer of "ratings" for...

Steven Andresen: on 2/22/18 at 6:49am UTC, wrote Dear Thomas If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Thomas Ray: on 2/19/18 at 21:59pm UTC, wrote Lost my log-in.

Anonymous: on 2/19/18 at 21:31pm UTC, wrote Juan, Thanks for your careful reading and generous critique. To answer: ...

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 2/19/18 at 17:26pm UTC, wrote The relation between the theories of the possible and the real is Phi...

James Hoover: on 2/18/18 at 0:28am UTC, wrote Tom, Your pulse and the pulse of the universe is strong. Thanks for...

Peter Jackson: on 2/16/18 at 12:01pm UTC, wrote Tom, Nice to read such a clear well written essay, carefully argued to...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Lorraine, I have difficultties to understand why you are against the..." in More on agency from the...

Kevin Pryor: "I agree with you. Panpsychism (particles are conscious) and cosmopsychism..." in More on agency from the...

Georgina Woodward: "Re."To explain why time only flows in one direction, physicists often..." in First Things First: The...

Anonymous: "The confrontation between different viewpoints is always an interesting..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

emma jio: "in your printer have any issues like printing issues or anything which..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Steve Dufourny: "I must insist on a global crisis inside the sciences Community. It is due..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, first to accept the quantum superposition, it is necessary to accept..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


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
November 12, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: THE PULSE OF THE UNIVERSE. by Thomas Howard Ray [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 21:36 GMT
Essay Abstract

All life has a pulse.

Author Bio

Independent Researcher, complex systems.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 22:46 GMT
Good to see you here Tom..

This essay looks very interesting and quite cogent, on first pass. More to say after a careful reading.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 22:58 GMT
Thomas,

Good to see you back.

Your title, "All life has a pulse" is symbolic and perhaps scalar. In simplistic, even sparse terms, you are metaphysically and theoretically profound: "In a living universe, what could be more fundamental than a simple harmonic oscillation? In a dead universe, what creature could experience it? Will the metaphysical questions never cease—and will we cease running away from them?" I'm gathering that the metaphysical questions only cease when there are no sentient creatures to pose them. My essay notes that these sentient creature must be present to determine the fundamental and utilize light to discover the fundamental ultimately and curiously combining the four forces to achieve the basic and fundamental knowledge.

Hope you get a chance to check out mine.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 17:51 GMT
Hi James,

I only meant to ask, when will scientists will get hip to metaphysical realism -- i.e., that which makes a metaphysical question tractable to Popper falsification, thus scientific.

Your essay, you betcha.

Tom

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 23:16 GMT
Tom,

You make a beautiful point, but I have to ask, doesn't +1 and -1 imply 0?

Yes, “no space is empty of field,” but doesn't that still mean space is foundational to field?

Isn't space the modern equivalent of zero, in that math went a very long time before realizing it is a necessary concept, now physics seems to think space is just a byproduct of geometry, not its foundation?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 17:57 GMT
Hello John,

1. Doesn't (- 1) (+ 1) = - 1?

2. No. Spacetime is the foundational field.

3. I have no idea what you mean, but I enjoy passing time with you. ?

Tom

Bookmark and Share


Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 19:23 GMT
Actually, John, that ? was meant to be :-). System won't accept emoticons.

Bookmark and Share


John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 21:52 GMT
Tom,

This life business just keeps bubbling along.

Though my intuition is that it is a bubble and when it pops, we just smear out across the universe.

I've become pretty diffuse already.

Best.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 11:40 GMT
Dear Tom,

It is a pleasure meeting you here in the Contest again.

You wrote a very interesting Essay, despite it is a bit speculative.

I did not know Einstein's definition of quantum as a singularity surrounded by a large vector field. Thanks for raising it.

I find very intriguing your final statement that “In a living universe, what could be more fundamental than a simple harmonic oscillation?” It remembers me a famous statement of Sydney Coleman that that “The career of a young theoretical physicist consists of treating the harmonic oscillator in ever-increasing levels of abstraction”.

In any case, this is a very entertaining which deserves the highest score that I am going to give you.

If you are interested to further interact with Einstein, you could read my Essay, where I discuss an approach to the fundamental issues in physics ... exactly with him!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 13:57 GMT
Hi Christian,

Actually, I have read your essay and loved it. Time is short for me now, but I expect to be free in a couple of weeks, and have time for thoughtful comment.

This essay was abstracted from many pieces of my research into neutrino behavior, the most comprehensive being "Dynamic spacetime imposes a matter continuum." It is from that paper that I quoted Einstein:

We conjecture that, having this potential for self-interaction, the beam can create two separable neutrino fields interacting harmonically with the superconducting field. This is a unified field—in the same way that the electrical and magnetic fields are unified in the electromagnetic field—through a simple harmonic oscillation. Suppose the resulting soliton is a quantum (quantum bit). This accounts for Einstein’s definition: “One should not think that radiation consists of quanta that do not interact with each other; this would be impossible for an explanation of the interference phenomena. I think of a quantum as a singularity, surrounded by a large vector field. With a large number of quanta a vector field can be composed that differs little from the one we presume for radiation. I can imagine that when the radiation hits a boundary there occurs a separation of the quanta by processes at the boundary, say according to the phase of the resulting field at which the quanta reach the separating surface. The equations for the resulting field would differ little from those of the previous theory.”*

* Physikalische Zeitschrift Vol. 10. No. 22, pg. 817 (discussion section)

So I appreciate very much the Sidney Coleman quote, which I was not aware of!

Looking forward to productive dialogue. See you around the quad. :-)

Best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share


Christian Corda replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Tom,

Thanks for your kind reply and for clarifying the origin of your Einstein's citation. Can you insert a link on your research into neutrino behavior?

Thanks also for reading my essay and loving it. I am honoured by this and I look forward to read your comment(s).

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 15:42 GMT
Thank you, Christian.

Do you use ResearchGate? Link is in references. Secure link--must copy and paste. Look for title, "Dynamic spacetime imposes matter continuity."

And besides, I am Emailing it to you. :-)

Cheers,

Tom

Bookmark and Share



John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 17:46 GMT
Tom,

I took me another read and some headwork to get the criteria of "Popper-falsified" fixed in my mind which is essential to grasping the algebraic argument, but then it comes together. There are a number of ways to go with it, and I've saved it on my reader for that purpose. I like especially the simultaneous approach of -S and +S toward s, as the fundamental real behavior of covariant physical length contraction, which would place s in motion with a corresponding amplitude of lateral (orthogonal) extension at half-time cycle to c.

(Well, everybody comes looking for something that might expand their mind and maybe provide a citation to further their own grand designs.) Look what they've done to my song, Ma. Best wishes, my Friend. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 19:13 GMT
Hey John,

Popper falsification is simply this: theory is correspondent to result IFF theory is primary. IOW, theory always stands on its own, and result never stands on its own; result is never interpreted outside theory. A single negative experimental result can falsify a theory, though any number of positive experimental results cannot verify a theory. Let's see if we can express this in symbolic language: let TT' represent the two states of a theory, stand alone and stand with result, T0 and T'R; let RR' represent the two states of an associated result, unfalsified, R0, and R', falsified. Then the relation allows only one meaningful match, T'R' -- the rest do not contain enough information for a closed logical judgment.

I think you've got a kinesthetic feel for relative motion. Now pair it with the relativistic rejection of simultaneity of events.

Thanks for your confidence, John.

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 23:11 GMT
Hi Tom, I feel uneasy about your "operational principle of correspondence" , your "What is real corresponds to what is possible in a reciprocal manner." For something to be real it has to have been, and be possible but possibility does not require the reality of the possible. To illustrate, here are two different scenarios

1. there are 6 playing cards, one is selected. The un-selected, which were also possible choices are counterfactual. Equally real but not the selected result. 2. There is a vat holding six cups worth of water, as a single body of liquid. A cup of water is taken from the vat.There are not 5 more individual cups of water that are the counterfactual not drawn water, although there was the possibility of taking six cups worth out of the vat. The cup of water selected has only come into being at the act of taking the water. Which for this scenario makes real and possible very different from scenario 1.

You write "we are forced to admit the possible is equal to the inevitable" At the time the result is obtained the possible has been reduced to the inevitable outcome but prior to that reduction in possible outcomes, (through decision of what states will be considered , the viewpoint, the apparatus and/or method applied), the possible exceeds the singular result. And as in the water scenario the possibilities need not be real, isolated results, awaiting selection. (An argument against local realism and counterfactual definiteness.)

With respect, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 23:35 GMT
I think you might argue that as the water is just water there are not six possibilities but only one. So let say this is not distilled water but a non homogeneous mix of water, pond life, and pollution. Which will provide what is necessary for six different cups of water.

Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 01:19 GMT
Georgina,

I think you read that too quickly, the criteria clearly stated as "Popper-falsified" is expressed in the proposition Theta - Lambda (note: capitals) = 0 . That is what you state in paragraph 3. When the essay lays out the reasons for criteria, the statement "we are forced to admit the possible is equal to the inevitable." is what a forgone conclusion would be without falsification by Popper's clarity. I had to wrestle with that myself, because it first seemed a contradiction to me too. It probably could be presented a little more clearly as a condition. I admit I've gotten accustomed to reading Tom and his acumen in math often is self apparent to him, but then could benefit from a little editorial direction when his prose gets ahead of his argument. Glad to see you got some community cred for your essay, jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 03:46 GMT
Hi John,

I think I was showing that the possible (not falsified but equally likely as the realization) is not equal to the real. The equality I'm thinking about is a quantity. The possibilities, which could be itemized exceed the real.As there is no real cup of water until it is filled, and when filled it is one out of many possibilities.

Tom says "we are led to admit the possible is equal to the inevitable, one of the cornerstones of quantum theory." If so the inevitable is equal to the possible,-but it isn't equal, unless the equality is not meant to represent equality of quantity. Instead saying something like 'the inevitable is identical to a possibility'. Which is correct but only one of many. John, I don't know what you mean by "without falsification by Popper's clarity" in regard to that quoted sentence.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 00:31 GMT
John,

Thank you! You're my sanity check.

Georgina, will reply later.

Bookmark and Share


John R. Cox replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 01:53 GMT
Relax. Euler would have a ball with it. :-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 02:16 GMT
Tom, I have read some of your replies to others here and see that your essay is very different from what it seemed to be, to me, not knowing its background. It would have been helpful if you had said something more about it in the abstract or in an introduction. It might have saved the misunderstanding, and my time trying to work out what you were trying to convey.I'm sorry I don't follow other people's work on sites other than FQXi, so unlike some of the other readers I am not familiar with what you have been doing. Regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 16:01 GMT
Tom,

Pardon my pestering you with my asides to Jonathan, trying to liken a spinning plate to your one dimensional oscillation. It has been helpful to me in fixing more of an understanding of your scheme of things. The oscillation likened to a timing mark on the rim of a plate introduces the time parameter onto a 2D curved surface.

Any harmonic oscillation by nature and definition of the harmonic series relates to the parabolic function of 'a penny a day, doubled each day' which would hold on a 2D plane, and equates with the acceleration of gravity and kinetic rate of transfer of momentum. Whereas in GR, the Lorentz function which relates to a hyperbolic function of the natural exponential series operates as elapsed to on a curve, and equates with time dilation. So harmony is preserved onto the curved surface through relativistic dilation which would equate with a 'shrinking' of the base circle of a hyperbola conical section necessary to rotate onto the parabolic plane of that conical base circle. The Incredible Shrinking Surface of Gravity via curved spacetime. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 02:30 GMT
As John suggests...

There is some research and 'headwork' required to grasp where you are coming from with this essay, Tom. If one takes the time to analyze what is being said; you really make us think deeply, but it is inscrutably dense with meaning. It's not quite Vorlonese, but you do give us some head scratchers before clarity. I find answers to almost all of the questions you leave the reader of this essay with, in the documents posted on researchgate, but it is expected that these essays should stand alone - which makes it incumbent on the author to re-explain some tales told well elsewhere.

I want you to know that your conjecture about the space roar has helped to fuel my current research, or at least got me to investigate related questions further. We should also think about mapping the CMB from a remote outpost, far from Earth's gravity. My guess is that we would find a significant deviation, indicating local components in the microwave signature of significant magnitude. What I presented at FFP15 was "Gravitation by Condensation" which gave a broad overview of entropic gravity theories, and showed that a natural consequence is the BEC critical point / Schwarzschild event horizon analogy recently used by Dvali, but first proposed by Sakharov.

I hope you will take the time to read my current essay at some point, and offer your comments. I think this essay may require a third reading for full comprehension, but I am going ahead with my plan to grade this paper now. I hope the moderate boost will make you more visible, and that someone will come around who grasps the subtleties better than I. I did like the paper on the neutrino experiment, despite that the intro made it seem like a comment on human sexuality. I guess gender confusion is pretty common these days, however. I hope I can cycle back to this essay.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 02:46 GMT
I should add this...

I agree that it is the combination of particle spin and the chirality of space that leads to the property of separability. What the Mandelbrot Set tells us is that the chiral aspect of spacetime morphology is also particular to a certain branch or time direction of universal evolution, and evolves over time. If one puts the spontaneous inflation theory of Carroll and Chen in the context of Octonionic inflation, the Mandelbrot Set is seen to play a heavy role in inducing the transition from the Octonionic embedding space that evolves to a 5-d volume, into the current era of Quaternionic space via the mechanism of the rolling-ball analogy suggested by Cartan for Lie group G2 symmetries. I illustrate that analogy in my essay.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 03:02 GMT
I am of course..

Extending the Mandelbrot Set into higher dimensions... The common view from the Complex #s is seen to be a projection of the figure from higher dimensions. As Fred and Joy suggested; the Sedenions are not stable but find expression in the C, H, and O algebras via the fibrations of S15 being only S2, S4, and S7. We know that the non-commutativity of H makes it self evolving, while the non-associativity of O makes it sequentially evolutive. This suggests that a non-orientable space automatically evolves into spaces with a built-in spin dynamic and inward and outward facing dichotomy. Connes suggested a hierarchy of Smooth > Topological > Measurable objects and spaces. Maybe this is a self-evolving feature.

Perhaps the insights in your essay, and in the linked documents, will lead to some further progress toward understanding this.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 02:17 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

I'm glad you found answers to your questions on RG. The essay question was 'what is fundamental' -- so I chose the most fundamental feature of my research, a 1-dimension model of spacetime, with no appeal to the conventional 1 + 1 formulation that treats time as another dimension continuous with space rather than an integrated quantity.

My research program ultimately...

view entire post


attachments: 1_Dimension_Cardinal_Points.pdf

Bookmark and Share


Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 02:19 GMT
I don't know what happened. Lost the formatting.

Bookmark and Share


John R. Cox replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 17:30 GMT
Jonathan,

You are essentially an artist, and that's where I come from. So allow me to roll up what I've learned from Tom and taken from his bag and make a picture from what dribbles out the ends.

Picture Tom as putting on a juggler's show keeping six plates spinning on the tips of flexible fiberglass rods arranged at the vertices of a hexagon at which he is in center. He's doing this...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 01:03 GMT
Oh...

and Jonathan, in deep space the stage is a spherical surface and its not like R4, the rods don't need to wobble for the plates to get closer to the floor. In operations in GR, Lorentz lives on the curve and Newton's G lives on the normal line. Orthoganality to the normal line seems to be exhibited by all primary force effects, so the puzzling thing is how the vectors must be poised to account for the asymmetry between gravity, magnetic polarity and (what the deleted explicative is...) charge in a quantized e=mc^2 energy density scheme. I like to think of gravity like squeezing a ball of silly putty and the compression path of least resistance goes sideways. Somehow the densities of magnetic, electrical and kinetic behavior are concentrations of gravity. But the key is in spacetime being connected, simply, so that it can translate the information between places of what rate between nil and c Time lives. :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 16:20 GMT
Jonathan,

I was scratching my head over what the heck you were talking about, with the "human sexuality" remark. So I went back and read. This is not a comment on human sexuality, however; it's a comment on the distribution of characteristics using the simplest example I could think of.

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 10:03 GMT
Dear Thomas Howard Ray, мне понравилось название вашего эссе “THE PULSE OF THE UNIVERSE”. I have an article THE PRESSURE OF THE UNIVERSE”, in which I showed that the formula mass-energy equivalence follows from the existence of the pressure of the universe. Look at my page, 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. Evaluate and leave your comment there.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 16:30 GMT
Thomas Ray,

Your essay makes what looks like a curious argument for the wave function from the Hilbert space. You also argue for it being an epistemic entity, rather than something purely objective. The wave function that "hangs from" the Hilbert space is exactly this real plus imaginary thing.

Your essay was light and enjoyable, so I gave it a decent score. If you want to read something a bit heavy you could check out my essay. I did though try to make it somewhat accessible to people of many backgrounds.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 12:07 GMT
Thomas Ray

The paragraf break does not work, so use line shift instead.

John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear Tom,

Among the new and interesting ideas of your essay, I find this excellent: "In a living universe, what could be more fundamental than a simple harmonic oscillation?". I'd like to connect this with my essay, where I speak about holomorphic functions - they are also harmonic, since the square of the Cauchy-Riemann operator is the Laplacian. This is in the complex plane. In a 3 space + 1 time dimensions the Laplacian is replaced by the d'Alembertian - the wave operator. So the harmonic function propagates and is a wave. In general, for any dimensions and signatures, the Cauchy-Riemann operator is replaced by the (generalized) Dirac operator, and the solutions are harmonic functions or wave functions. This symmetry is still present in the Standard Model without Higgs, which is conformally invariant. Conformal invariance is something cool that in general relativity gives the causal structure which seems a bit more fundamental than the metric e.g. when we talk about singularities. So the metric length and the symmetry breaking of the SM both seem to have the same cause, choosing the scale. This adds sources to the harmonic functions. Moreover, confine the harmonic function to a region, say the atom, and you'll get quantization. I think that you're right to see this idea as essential. Good luck with the essay!

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 17:29 GMT
Cristi,

You made my day! You have such a talent for getting to the heart of complicated mathematics!

Later.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share


John R. Cox replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 22:22 GMT
Tom,

I'm beginning to see your reasoning in developing a stand alone, closed set of of integer operators...to compact the harmonics corresponding to the Schrodinger wave equation, topologically. Nice!!!

In fact I was awake past three this morning, probably a good thing because my computer got frozen on the 10th sometime around 9:30 pm and it makes me have to think before typing :-)...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 22:27 GMT
oooPs again,

( e 1/240)^1/2

jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 01:18 GMT
Well, John, I wish your view were shared by others. If you take a look at my paper, "On breaking the time barrier", figure S2.2, page 34, you'll find your octahedron. Lots of problems with that paper; I hope to rehabilitate it someday.

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 20:22 GMT
Dear Thomas Howard Ray,

Wonderful idea...."In a living universe, what could be more fundamental than a simple harmonic oscillation?".....

By the way…Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 16:26 GMT
Given the level of mathematics one assumes members must have, it should also be expected they articulate their reasons for scoring so that the public has an opportunity to learn what the arguments are.

A couple members seem to have a problem with the 'button on a string' toy. That goes 4pi. I would personally like to know how they would account for current lagging, or leading, voltage. How it doesn't matter which way you have the two wire plug for a DC rheostat to send your HO train forward, how electrons can be bled off at a shorted circuit but do not arc through an insulation sheath. Why shaded poles work, and why there are so many different engineering designs to get an electric motor to start to move. And most importantly how you can have a 90% speed of light electron flow without a Big Science Syncrotron.

Come on! Why don't you have the sac to just say you 'don't LIKE spacetime' ? It's gutless in my public personal opinion. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 18:42 GMT
Yeah, they bumped me down so far, it's doubtful I'll climb out of it, with so many competing entries. I'll turn my attention to more fruitful pursuits.

You're right, though, John. Space and time are seen as fundamental by the majority here -- not spacetime. So it goes.

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 23:46 GMT
Thomas,

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


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 12:01 GMT
Tom,

Nice to read such a clear well written essay, carefully argued to well present a viewpoint ever less well supported hereabouts. All here disagree on many things but 'agreement' is not a scoring criteria and it deserves a good score.

One question, re; "How shall we imagine the object to be built up out of material points, and what forces must we assume as acting between them?"

Is there good reason why such points, i.e. for electrons, can't be the 'centre of mass' (rotation or OAM) in each discrete case?

Then don't questions beyond 'what is rotating' and 'in relation to what' (background reference) reduce to essentially 'what speed' and 'what size'?

My own essay then considers OAM distributions and pattern of exchange of momentum on interactions at all tangent points and x,y,x axes. An interesting result emerges, giving QM's predictions without requiring non-locality! (see also Declan Traill's code and plot). The mechanism is certainly a complex sequence to follow but I think you'd be interested in the result.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 00:28 GMT
Tom,

Your pulse and the pulse of the universe is strong. Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. All the views of conscientious creatures are important and contribute to this strong pulse.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 17:26 GMT
The relation between the theories of the possible and the real is

Phi subseteq Lambda

without any need for Popper's misunderstandings about science. The equation

Phi - Lambda = 0

doesn't say that if Lambda is verified then Phi is negated.

Next we find set of meaningless expressions. where numbers are added to theories to generate "real".

This continues...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 21:31 GMT
Juan,

Thanks for your careful reading and generous critique. To answer:

There is no method of verification in Popper, no matter how many iterations a successful experiment is repeated with the same results. That is why I used the phrase "Popper falsified." Popper was one of the few philosophers to take David Hume seriously -- just because the sun rose yesterday is no guarantee it...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 21:59 GMT
Lost my log-in.

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:49 GMT
Dear Thomas

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


Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 12:31 GMT
Steven,

With all due respect, I am down here in the sewer of "ratings" for the main reason that I am not participating in vote-trading of the kind you suggest.

Bookmark and Share



Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 14:31 GMT
Sunk lower. Point validated.

Bookmark and Share



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.