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

Steev Dufourny: on 3/30/11 at 17:13pm UTC, wrote Hi to both of you, Dear Sridattadev, Indeed, sometimes I imagine this...

basudeba: on 3/21/11 at 16:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Sir, We have discussed these under your essay. Regards, basudeba

Sridattadev: on 3/21/11 at 15:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Friends, All I am trying to convey is that spirituality begins...

Peter Jackson: on 3/20/11 at 20:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Basudeba I'm catching up with conversations, including ours above. I...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/20/11 at 12:45pm UTC, wrote Hello to both of you, I like read your posts dear starwalkers..... Take...

basudeba: on 3/20/11 at 2:10am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, We have defined infinity in many of our threads and cannot leave...

Sridattadev: on 3/19/11 at 17:29pm UTC, wrote Dear Steve and Basudeba, I totally agree with what Steve has just...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/19/11 at 16:12pm UTC, wrote Hello to both of you, Dear Sridattadev, All that is full of spirituality,...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Steve, Sabine Hossenffelder has written an interesting blog post on her..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Georgina,in the past we have discussed about this Fith force after the 3..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "An other point very important considering this nature.Ecology is so..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

janey hug: "Vape Juice Wholesale When it pertains to vape juice, you require to obtain..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...


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
October 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Is Reality Analog or Digital by Basudeba Mishra [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author basudeba mishra wrote on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 12:05 GMT
Essay Abstract

The phraseology of the topic is symptomatic of the malaise of reductionism that is endemic in modern science. It is like asking: Whether observation by the Schrödinger’s cat can collapse the wave function, without defining the observer and the precise mechanism of wave function collapse. Such open ended questions leave ample scope for manipulation and diverting the topic into various directions not consistent with each other. There are a large number of different approaches to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics (QM). Each approach is a modification of the theory that introduces some new aspect with new equations which need to be interpreted. Thus there are many interpretations of QM. Every theory has its own model of reality. There is no unanimity regarding what constitutes reality. We will first define the ultimate nature of Reality and then show that there is a deep, foundational reason why reality must be purely analog and digital descriptions can be derived from continuous symmetries.

Author Bio

The author is a retired Government Officer with amateur interest in all subjects that can be derived from fundamental principles. These include Physics, Mathematics, Cosmology, Astronomy, Cognition Science, Philosophy, Psychology, Management, Economics, Linguistics, Musicology, Health & Hygiene including Naturopathy and Yoga, etc. He had published a book titled “Vaidic Theory of Numbers” in 2005. Currently writing a book titled “Demystifying Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory & Loop Quantum Cosmology”.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 21:09 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I enjoyed your essay and found a few statements of particular interest to me:

"...there are many interpretations of QM [and] no unanimity regarding what constitutes reality. [...] Quantum Field Theory can't be imagined without particles which are accelerated and scattered in colliders..."

I believe these observations are valid. Quantum Field Theory arose through the experimental problem of studying infinitesimal ['point'] particles from relatively infinite distances. Almost the only mathematical tool suited to this is symmetry groups. Therefore, after a century of such goings-on, we arrive at a known set of particles and a conceptual framework heavily biased toward symmetry and symmetry groups.

But it's possible that symmetry and group concepts were most appropriate for analysis of the measurement process and yet not necesssarily most appropriate for understanding physics, now that we know most [or all?] of the particles in existence.

I also agree with most of your points [made elsewhere] regarding strings.

I invite you to read my essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 14:00 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your post. As we have mentioned, we are an amateur and not a professional scientist. Hence getting an appreciative letter from you is highly embarrassing for us. But we also said that we are interested in what can be derived from fundamental principles. We find the mathematics of Physicists as unmathematical, as they are not logically consistent. We had published a book on Number Theory based on fundamental principles, where we had discussed it elaborately. We differ from the modern concept of symmetry and symmetry groups. Without this exotic mathematical manipulation, we have derived the following testable theories from fundamental principles:

1. The accepted value of the electric charge of quarks contains an error element of 3%. In stead of +⅔ and -⅓, it should be +7/11 and -4/11. Thus, taking the measured charge of electrons as the unit, the value of the electric charge of protons is +10/11 and that of neutrons -1/11. The residual negative charge is not apparent as negative charge always confines positive charge and flows towards the concentration of positive charge - nucleus. Hence it is not felt outside. It is not revealed in measurement due to the nature of calibration of the measuring instruments. This excess negative charge confines the positive charge (nearly 2000 times in magnitude) which is revealed in atomic explosions. Charge neutral only means the number of protons and electrons are equal.

2. The value of the gravitational constant G is not the same for all systems. Just like the value for acceleration due to gravity g varies from position to position, the value of G also varies between systems. Gravity is not a single force, but a composite force of seven. These seven, which act together, are different for macro and micro systems.

3. The value of the fine-structure constant α that determines the electromagnetic field strength as calculated by us theoretically from our atomic orbital theory is 7/960 (1/137) when correlated to the strong interaction (so-called zero energy level) and 7/900 (1/128) when correlated to the weak interaction (80 GeV level). There are 5 more values that determine the structure of the orbitals in the atomic spectra. Hence the physically available values of the s orbitals (principal quantum number) are restricted to n = 7, though theoretically, it can have any positive integer value.

4. There is nothing like Lorentz variant inertial mass. It has never been proved.

5. There are only two types of field that we have hinted in our essay.

Regards,

basudeba.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

You wrote [elswhere] "Hence no mathematics is possible using infinity and renormalization is mathematically void."

Because English is not my native language, I have to admit difficulties to understand this and other sentences of you. Edwin Klingman's comment on symmetries makes me curious. Maybe, you will be in position to provide details that either rebut or confirm in some sense my admittedly unwelcome views .

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 15:07 GMT
Thanks,

We had replied in your thread.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 12:22 GMT
Hello dear Sir,

I like the Indian philosophies and religions,in fact I read a little of all at the age of 15 or 16,

I know what in the books,Ten x ,he recomes because I suppose the hour is serious, very serious, because the earth must be rethought in its pure universality.

The vaidics numbers...........and the infinity, the o and the - are harmonized in its pure physicality and its aim!!!I have always thought, they do not really exist in fact.It's logic, 0 multiplicate by the 1 if we take this number for the universal sphere....has no sense because it's the 1 who rests simply.

This aim is purelly harmonious and about love, we understand thus why it's time to act universally speaking.

Best Regards from Belgium.

We are youngs at the universal scale, indeed we evolve and some stupidities are dedicated to disappear in time space spherization.

the borders, the arms and weapons, the monney, the differences, the vanity, ....all that is totally different than compassion and wisdom.

Can we sleep quietly if only one child still cries.....the humanity is like a raibow, a diversity of colors unified in the light....it's difficult to trun off a big fire with one water drop, nevertheless a whole of drops makes ocean.

We are catalyzers of this universal truth of evolution, the spherization for me.This Earth, this sphere turning cries above the galaxies....the errors and sufferings must disappear simply.

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jan. 18, 2011 @ 05:15 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you for for your post. There is much misconception about Indian philosophy and we are yet to come across any book that interprets it correctly. Few ancient commentaries exist, which are authentic, but its translations and commentaries are all wrong. We can prove this statement by explaining the self-evident contradictions in the translations and explain the meaning of the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Stee Dufourny replied on Jan. 18, 2011 @ 12:57 GMT
Dear Sir,

You are welcome.

Thank you very much for the book,with pleasure.

I will sent you it.

I liked these words, it's relevant at my humble opinion.

you say "The linear interaction is addition or subtraction. The non-linear interaction is multiplication or reduction"

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 19:19 GMT
Dear Sir,

We have a wrong notion about time traveling backwards. We have discussed this aspect in our essay. You are welcome to comment on it.

Basudeba,

I'm not sure which point about time you are referring to? Was it that there is no negative time, or the commentary in the notes about spacetime as a geometric construct, while the actual effects rely on specific physical forces?

As a point of record, I'm not saying time travels backwards, in the sense that physical processes reverse themselves. I am just pointing out that the past to future arrow of time is against a non extant context, ie. the entire series of events, so that the real constant is the present, not the events. Against this physical constant, it is the events going from future potential to past circumstance. Much of the confusion and complexity of modern physics seems to involve ways of incorporating the past to future arrow of time as more fundamental than it is.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 06:48 GMT
Dear Sir,

We are extremely thankful to you for raising a very important question, which is truly a Foundational Question. We will try to explain to the best of our abilities. Please bear with us if it is lengthy.

You have correctly pointed out that the past to future arrow of time is against a non extant context, i.e. the entire series of events, so that the real constant is the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 03:36 GMT
Dear Basubeda,

You write:

---"Whether observation by the Schrödinger's cat can collapse the wave function"---

If objects, if particles only exist to each other as far and for as long as they manage to communicate their existence physically, then Schrödinger's experiment should make sure that the cage completely isolates the cat from the world outside of it, from whatever...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 12:42 GMT
Dear Sir,

It seems we are describing the same theory in different languages. The nuances of the language make the meaning slightly dissimilar. If we follow your language, what you say is correct. Now, kindly follow it in our language. What is perception or cognition? It is a conscious function no doubt, but since it is expressed as the result of measurement, which is a purely a mechanical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 12:21 GMT
Basubeda

I agree with many of your concepts, but much has so far passed me by. You may be interested in this very short simple video representing transition between inertial frames form one observer frame. http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.h
tm

With careful consideration you should find it actually addresses almost all concepts of Special Relativity and more.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 13:25 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you for raising one of the most puzzling questions that has confounded the scientific community for over a century since 30-06-1905.

Relativity is a wrong description of facts due to the simple reason that if two frames of reference are not related by a much bigger frame of reference encompassing both, then the actions in each cannot be related to that of another. If...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 13:13 GMT
Hello dear Basudeba,

How are you fine I hope, these indian numbers vaidics are relevant. I thank you for your book about vaidic numbers. It's so spiritual.

All is the same and linked since the begining,.....we loose our ecosystems dear Basudeba, we loose our contemplations around us, how is it possible for humans to be happy if those contemplations of creations aren't a reality. Our towns are sick, ill, we pollute, we consum , we destroy .....the soils must be restabilized, the composting at big scale more the harmonious growth...more the vegetal multiplication......even the purification of waters can be made with compost. It's the solution dear basudeba, the ecosystems and their dances and sings.....the towns must rethought....locomotion,nutrition,reproduction....production
, cosummation,decomposition..............I have invented several models in ecology, and I optimize my theoretical model of sphere of composting,PV=nRT...Closed system....hv H20 O2 bacterias C/N....optimization of rotations and parameters of acceleration of process of decomposition,this sphere of composting produces E with natural matters and H2O and O2 and selectedbacterias and hands and consciouss and eyes of humans...... the totipotence , vegetal is interesting also in theory we can have a system of polarization also with a kind of perpetual motion due to the universal increase of entropy.In fact the matter is created with an argilo humic complex and adds as oligo elts or mineral salts more bacterias, perlit, vermiculit..... after the creation and the dynamic continues naturally,But it's an other story.

In India you have several problems with the gange,the compiost and natural filters are essential more a turbin of acceleration of purification.....I have several models also , very cheap and natural and easy to put into practices.But for concrete resulst, the ecosystems and the vegetal and animal mass must be increased.If not it lacks a biomass and the cycle will be more difficult.Firstly the government for the well of all must implant some basic laws for ecology.Simply a town or a region must increase its mass of vegetals.It's the priority with the composting.In fact all countries must act as that...for x mass of non biological matters an y mass of vegetals and animals (all insects, unicells, pluricells,....)the soil thus is the base.The substrates of towns must be always harmonious and in evolution of complemenatrity. We can't live without our ecosystems, even for New York and others big towns.

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 13:29 GMT
Sorry dear Sir, It is a bad habit,I forget, sorry.I write too quickly without rereading sometimes.

You know I just read your post on the thread on phill, it's the first time that somebody says that of me,I am touched,humbly I thank you very much.I don't know what I must say,it's so nice. In all case it's a honor and a pleasure to know you.

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 16:25 GMT
Dear Sir,

In this forum we are discussing science and not philosophy, though we know something about it also. We understand human psychology, as we understand physics. Physics deals with the natural phenomena as perceived by conscious beings. Conscious actions are related to mental functions. We hold that mind functions mechanically. Hence, without a knowledge of physics, we cannot...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Sir,

All that is relevant, the sciences are the sciences and we can speak in transparence. The world chages dear Sir due to this net and transparence.

All this reveals a gentle spirituality, I congratulate you, It is rare indeed to meet real universal and humble creations. I'm sure you're a real humble rejecting the vanity and vices. Is not she the sister of pride?

The most important thing is to continue to observe the flight of a bee in the honey, sweetness of our hopes. Compassion in your hand and love in the other. This is the coronation of the humble traveller of the stars.

Trade,monney is a mistake, and his children are unconscious. It exists dear very respected brother human, good and bad everywhere in the corners of this holy land. This point of vue is important, in all countries, religions,cultures,... We are all equal in the eyes of distant winds. Borders are like money, tricks UnHoly. The weapons are like the differences, dedicated te be melted.

Psychology is a reflection of our emotions and our evolution.But we evolve fortunally.

Humans accumulate errors, some Exponential watch unfortunately....

You know dear Sir, the universal sphere has an aim, this equation is on the road of harmonization, spherization. The only thing important is to unite the real universalists, and act with sciences, the rest is vain, and important above the frontiers, the differences and monney, it's the real unification. The business team around the sciences aren't important, the most important is the real universality and humanism. They are just unconsciouss, that's all, it's like that. That's why the responsability becomes so essential. The rest is vain, we just need to help the forgotten by adapted solutions, and of course the ideas of several are better than ideas of one person,it's the universal complementarity of optimization simply.

Best Regards

Take care brother human.

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 03:46 GMT
Dear Sir,

You are being philosophical, while we were pointing out the plight of scientific research. The failure of theoretical scientists to admit the mistakes and re-evaluate physics leads many persons towards experimental physics. We know some eminent scientists who became frustrated about the "conformism" in physics and in disgust left theoretical physics for experimental physics. Without the backing of theoretical physics, experimental physics may lead to disastrous consequences. If you want to discuss more on this issue, you may write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 12:10 GMT
Thanks you very much dear Sir,I will write you soon.

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 03:08 GMT
We are posting below our comments on the Essay of Ms G. P. Parry. Because we are discussing some fundamental issues relating to unification of forces, we are posting it here also.

We are neither the first, last nor the only proponent of re-evaluation of modern physics. In this forum, we are dealing only with physics – discussing theories that correspond to reality in all its different...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

re castel replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 16:23 GMT
Basudeba,

I wrote something a many years ago regarding measurements and the transformations affecting the phenomena of nature (i.e., em-waves, etc.). You might find this interesting...

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 04:32 GMT
Dear Sir,

We heartily congratulate you for your brilliant deduction. With your approach of light rays moving in straight lines, you have indirectly validated our assertions that there is nothing as a “light cone”, and as a consequence, the “event horizon”. Now we move on to your description.

The very fact that the velocity of light in different mediums have been found to be different means that it is not a universal constant. The cosmic background radiation is known to have a universal temperature of about 2.7k, implies that on an Universal scale, the density of “free space” is uniform. Thus, the velocity of light in free space appears uniform. Obviously, it is the highest achievable velocity for any particle – more so for the photons or all other e.m. radiation, that are constituted of the smallest perceptible confined blocks. This constancy is revealed with respect to the source. Thus, we have terms like c+v and c-v. Hence the deductions [(c-v)+(c+v)]t=2x and c=x/t are correct. Since the experiment is conducted within a specific frame of reference without involving anything outside it, your conclusion that with -v and +v canceling out, it could not be concluded that there is no aether.

Though you have arrived at the value of v using tensors, the same can be achieved by simpler methods. Since the observer is conducting measurements using timed flashes of light emitted from the center of the spaceship to determine their velocity relative to the aether, he must be aware of the value of the unit used by him: the velocity of light. Thus, without going into complex mathematics, he can simply use the distance x between two points and the formula c=x/t, to find the value of v per second, by comparing the theoretical time needed for light to cover the distance and the actual time taken by it.

We have a different explanation for the acceleration g and a tensor translation v2= [gt]2. We hold that gravity is a stabilizing force. When two confined bodies are close to each other, the mutual force between them is related to the distance between their respective centers of mass. The constant of proportionality is represented by g. Thus, it is not acceleration, but a constant of proportionality that changes with height. For falling bodies, the density variation between the bodies and the intervening space brings in another factor. Since the intervening space is a field and the field is described by second order factors, your explanation is also correct.

Though we accept Eo=moc2, we do not accept that mass and energy are convertible. We hold that they are different states of “Rayi”, which appears as mass and energy under different situations. We will discuss about “Rayi” separately. We agree with your conclusions and that the arbitrary transformations of space and time advocated by Einstein is wrong.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 05:02 GMT
Dear Basubeda,

You write

---"the object is in superposition of all possible states"---

Particles (and the objects they form) owe their rest energy to each other, so the energy two particles have according to each other equals the frequency of their exchange. The total energy of a particle WE measure is the sum, the superposition of all the frequencies it exchanges energy at...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 03:04 GMT
Sir,

We are extremely grateful to you for raising some vital questions and giving us an opportunity to explain them.

In our essay we have described the meaning of "the object is in superposition of all possible states". Since all objects are continually evolving in time, and since we cannot know the true state of an object except for the instant we measured its state, we combine all...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 23:28 GMT
Dear Sir,

You make an interesting point about the mathematical description of sensory experience and emotional response. It is true that these experiences are far more qualitative than quantitative. Which makes it harder to mathematically define. Though "describe on a scale of 1 to10" is sometimes used for the intensity of an experience such as physical pain or emotional hurt. The numbers...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 23:21 GMT
We can also be used for you and I, (a group of two). It has occurred to me that it might also be appropriate to use the word "we" if the narrator is taking the reader through a process step by step. Rather than saying "Now this can be done", he might say "Now we can do this", meaning me the narrator and you the reader. It is less formal though.

Perhaps as a retired government official you have been used to speaking on behalf of departments or offices and are used to expressing opinions as a plural identity. Anyway you are not the only entrant to have done so. Others might find it easier to overlook.

Regards Georgina.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 07:51 GMT
Dear Madam,

There is one more reason for using the word "we" instead of "I". If we leave aside our persona and communicate with each others intellect, we will find that we are communicating at one level. Because though the objects of knowledge are different, the "I know" part is common to all such descriptions. Hence it is not appropriate to talk as "I" while addressing to other people's intellects, because "I" stands for a small fraction of "we", which makes it tune in at a different plane. Thus, it is the general practice to use the plural term in communication involving Teacher, Nature and Self.

Thanks and regards,

basudeba.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 10:07 GMT
Dear Madam,

Madam,

You are absolutely right that numbers do not describe the sensation (of the intensity of an experience such as physical pain or emotional hurt). It is because measurement of result only is called as experience (‘this’ is like ‘that’) and measurement is the comparison between similars. Since there is no universal yardstick for emotional experience (one may...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 07:45 GMT
Dear Sir/Madam,

Mr. Emmanuel Moulay and some others in their essays have referred to the expression: δE.δt ≥ ħ/2, involving time and energy. Time is not an observable property of a system in the normal sense. It is a parameter used to mark the interval between an epoch marking the beginning of measurement process and another marking its termination. Some scientists say...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 01:43 GMT
TO ALL.

It is said that mathematics is the language of physics. But most of the "mathematics" used by modern scientists fails the test of logical consistency. Thus, they are un-mathematical manipulations. Mr. Paster in his essay has used P-adic mathematics. We do not understand why mathematics should be made incomprehensible in stead of being scientific and rational. We have posted our...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 01:58 GMT
To All.

Mr. GENE T. YERGER has raised some interesting points in his Essay. He must be congratulated for his deep insight and high quality analysis. However, we have given our views blow his essay to give alternative explanations for the phenomena associated with spin. Because it raises and answers some fundamental questions, here we reproduce it for consideration of the scientific...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steev Dufourny replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 11:32 GMT
Hi dear Sir,

Very interesting all that, the spherization of the spheres by spheres inside a beautiful sphere and these spheres turning around spheres and the sphere.That is the reality so simple and so evident.

The world changes and the spherization continues its road towards the pure equilibrium between spheres(quant.and cosm.)as a torch of harmony.They build these spheres of mass and these spheres of light.What if find so incredible is the center of our Universe, this central sphere where all turns around.

It's wondeful this universal sphere in evolution, and the word is weak.

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 05:39 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

We measure the rest energy of a particle as its inertia, as the opposition it offers to the force we apply to accelerate it. In its opposition we feel the force with which the particle is anchored to all particles it owes (shares) its energy to (with). By accelerating it we change all frequencies of every exchange it maintains with these particles, the change depending on its...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Sir,

We are extremely thankful to you for raising some very important questions and giving us a chance to explain it.

The fundamental difference between matter particles (fermions) and energy particles (bosons) is that, while the former accumulates around a central point (center of mass or nucleus), there is no such central point for energy. Thus, they obey what is known as the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 04:06 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I liked your originality in desribing various issues in physics.But as far as I know,both theories of Relativity are tested in various experiments to precision.So I dont want to comment on your views on them.

In fourth para from bottom,you are saying that 'since other particles are subject to different forces in the local field, they move differently'.Is the force you are reffering to gravitation? Here I want to make my stand clear.In gravitational field,particles (quantum) of different masses are subjected to different forces but their 'acceleration' is the same.So according to the second law of QG,which I have stated,all particles will have the same 'energy' (kinetic) which implies that their velocities vary according to their masses.Although,this is not the case with macroscopic test masses.It is this difference in the behaviour of quantum particles and test masses in uniform accelerated field which I have repeatedly stressed in my essay.

In the penultimate para,you have identified 'Dual nature of velocity'with acceleration and deceleration.I dont know on what basis you done so.Nor do I understand how do you identify velocity with Non-Duality.

In the final para,the spirit in which I have used the word 'Advaitha' is misunderstood by you.According to Advaitha,'Brahman'is the ultimate reality and like-wise QG field is the ultimate reality in the physical universe.

Thanks for your comments on my essay and I will go thro' your essay soon and express my views on it.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath B N.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 08:20 GMT
Dear Sir,

Truth has no variants and palatable benevolence is a rarity. Blind acceptance of something in the face of apparent contradictions is nothing but superstitions. Running away from something when faced with a challenge is cowardice. Hence kindly do not discredit yourself by refusing to face the truth. This is harming the cause of science. There are many manipulated experiments to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 21:37 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I have read your essay and analysis and interpretation of vedic sciences. I want to congratulate you on your enlightening work and I salute to your determination in explaining the true nature of the universe to several of us in this contest. I would like to say that what I had to convey is very similar to what you have outlayed, the field or rayi that you speak of is with in us and I termed it as singularity or conscience or I. Please see the blog that I put together last year after a decade long quest of self realization.

who am I?



I have also read several other essays and I have realized we are all trying to convey the truth in our own words. These essays are like different flowers in the garden and each has its own beauty and flavor. I am thankful for being able to enjoy in this garden of thoughts.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 14:49 GMT
Dear Sir,

We do not agree with your understanding of consciousness and gravity as consciousness is non-reactive and pulling is physically impossible – it is always a push from the opposite direction. Consciousness cannot create gravity. There is nothing as absolute downward direction. Thus, what you call downward can be upward for others. We do not agree that “Space is defined by the circumference of the dimple and time is defined by the depth of the dimple”. As we have explained earlier, both space and time are related to sequence (paratwa), the order of arrangement of objects and events respectively. Thus, the interval between objects is space and that between events is time. Since measurement is comparison between similars, we take a fairly repetitive interval that is easily cognizable and treat it or its sub-divisions as the unit to measure space and time.

Consciousness cannot be differentiated. We may have knowledge of various objects, but as “I know this”, the knowledge content is same for all such perceptions, though the “this” content is different. Hence super consciousness is a wrong description of facts.

There is no proof regarding your assertion that “I or singularity or conscience holds the universe together with the gravity of love and that is why gravity seems to be a weaker force in the relativistic universe. Gravity of love is the strongest force in absolute universe.” In fact, according to Naarada and Shaandilya, love is “para prema roopa”, which contradicts your contention.

Your statements “"I" is the equation for nothing and everything and can only be represented but not contained by n-sphere also”, is self contradictory since nothing cannot be everything and there cannot be something called n-sphere. Since the electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both move perpendicular to the direction of motion, and since these are responsible for visual perception, there can be only three dimensions of every object that can be resolved to 10 dimensions described by us.

This is a forum of science. Hence kindly discuss science only and do not bring in spirituality. As we had seen, you do not have a proper understanding of the Shastras. Your claim about self realization or your quest for who am I is going in the wrong direction. In case you want further discussion on this issue, please write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com. But please do not discredit Shastras by showing off your limited knowledge.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 21:29 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I sincerely do not care for how many dimensions there are any more as I found myself. What I am trying to convey here to the scientific community is to lets stop worrying about how many dimensions or strings there are and look at the practical issues we are facing in the world. Just look at all other living beings on this planet, on how they are living consciously, not abusing the planet. Lets put an end to this irrational discussions on how it all came to be and whose theory or perspective is right or wrong and realize that we are the co creators of reality going forward on this planet. The way you refer to your self as "we" is the same way that I refer to "us" as "I". I wish us all the best and I hope that we can be of some real use to the next generation of humanity.

Be in Love to Rest in Peace,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 03:20 GMT
Dear Sir,

Will you please define precisely and scientifically what is meant by "I", "love" and "peace"? If not please write to us in our email mbasudeba@gmail.com

We request you to either talk of science or spirituality. We should not mix both in a scientific forum.

Regards,

basudeba.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 19:44 GMT
Hi to both of you,

You know, It exists only 3 physical dimensions and a time constant at my humble opinion,not ten even in all our extrapolations,physical. The numbers dance under a pure 3D . It's that the magical universal sphere, a pure creation in 3D....above our walls, limits,it's without time,without dimension,without number, It's the Eternity ,the physicality is an act of love and rests purely and always in 3D.That's why the extradimensions and others things interpreting the unknwon by the physicality aren't rational.In fact it's just due to a spiritual and philosophical interpretation wanting find the explainations of this eternity via the physicality.The best is to act and improve the 3D physicality,it's more rational and logic as our real numbers. Thus the extradimensions are a lost of time simply. The dimensions are rationals and reals.The infinity the 0 and the - do not really exist ....the real puzzle is in 3D, we are far of our walls but we evolve also....

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 21:37 GMT
Dear Steve,

I do not care for how many dimensions there are, I have come up with n-sphere representation of the universe, so as to put a conclusion to enquiry in to the unknown. I have said in the original essay, there is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count. If we just look around at all other different species of living beings on this planet, this simple truth becomes apparent. We are caught up in this black hole of quest to realize how everything works and ignoring the beauty of the singularity of love in all of us. I hope if we just start loving and caring for each other and other beings on this plaent we will be in more touch with reality and that is the closest we can get to the ultimate truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 01:48 GMT
To Mr. Steve Dufourny,

Dear Sir,

We fully agree with your views that there are only three spatial dimensions and there is time, because e.m. radiation that is necessary for perception, propagates in three mutually perpendicular dimensions and propagation implies change of position in a discrete sequence, whose interval is called time. When applying this concepts to objects, we...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 14:41 GMT
Hello,

Dear Sir ,

Thank you very mych for your explaination.R and Q seems showing the road of pure 3D .....with primes of course, see the zeta function of Riemann,...

the spirituality is a beautiful subjective interpretation and the physicality(sphericality in 3D)is rational.That permits to contemplate and be a catlyzer of truths and truth.In fact the dimensions rest always in 3D and it exists only different scales. I beleive humbly that if it exists walls, limits, there is a reason....

The rotations are numerous, quant and cosm.,relativistically speaking.And all turns around a main central sphere at my humble opinion,the universal center....if we know the lenghts of these two gauges, quantic and cosm.......it's very relevant.more the universal volume of the universal sphere, variable in time space evolution considering the 4d evolution.If now the pure finite number of spheres,cosm.and quant. considering the uniqueness and its entropy,is inserted.....it's so revolutionary...

Happy to discuss with you.

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 01:04 GMT
TO ALL,

We have commented on the Essay of Mr. Neil Bates giving a different explanation for entanglement, superposition, double slit experiment and decoherence. Hence we are putting it up here for general discussion.

We agree that: “Attempts at understanding should not be fallacious or driven by desperation to make the world conform to our prejudices or convenience”. But...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 13:16 GMT
So we finally meet again...

Only for me to say, "Excellent Job sir".

Farewell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 20:44 GMT
Dear Basudeba

I'm catching up with conversations, including ours above. I was disappointed you didn't manage to read and comment on my essay, which is the most challenging of current paradigms to reach the top group. All the more disappointed you missed it on reading your comment on the video;

"The video suggested by you simply ignores the fact that for two frames of reference to be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear Sir,

We have discussed these under your essay.

Regards,

basudeba

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.