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 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

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

Previous Contests

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 Fnd.

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
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


Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

January 23, 2018

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: The Analog-In, Digital-Out Universe by Edwin Eugene Klingman [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 16:01 GMT
Essay Abstract

Is Reality Analog or Digital? Analog and digital mathematical treatments can be shown to be equivalent, so the answer does not lie in math but in physics. At root is the nature of particles and fields. The simplest possible physical model, one field, will be analyzed and physical experiments proposed to show an analog reality with digital consequences. There are implications for the view of reality currently associated with entanglement and violation of Bell's inequality.

Author Bio

Edwin Eugene Klingman was a NASA Research Physicist (atomic and molecular physics) whose '79 PhD dissertation, "The Automatic Theory of Physics", described how a robot would derive a theory of physics. After 30 years, this theme is appearing in Science (see "Automating Science".) Founder of several Silicon Valley companies, the author holds over 25 technology patents and has published two university texts, "Microprocessor Systems Design" Vol I and II. His recently published physics books address unsolved mysteries of physics, and make testable predictions.

Download Essay PDF File

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 16:46 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

I have just read through your essay once and printed it. I will be studying it more. I thought it was masterful. You are able to bring clarity to difficult concepts. I am referring not only to the complexities of theory; but, also to your explanations that challenge entrenched concepts. It is difficult to make clear that cherished ideas may be irrelevent and even obstructive. I admire that you feel no need to engage in derison when comparing different views.

I develop new work at an introductory fundamental level. I like the results I have achieved. My ideas are different from your work. I putter around trying to show that multiple fundamental causes are unnecessary. The important point, though, is that my unprofessional view is very restricted compared to yours. You are able to fully engage the ideas of theoretical physics from the bottom, the top, and internally.

I think that the justification for beginning theory with a single field should be obvious to physicists. If they would learn how to derive the laws of physics from a single field, then, there would be no need to invent multiple fundamental causes. I think that we both begin with that approach. However, it is far more likely that your work is correct. Thank you for participating here.


report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 21:55 GMT
Dear James,

I agree with you that it would be beautiful to "derive the laws of physics from a single field." But searching for a final thoery implies we do no yet know the 'true' laws of physics!



report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 02:46 GMT
Dear James,

Please allow me to clarify my previous post.

I greatly admire Dr. Klingman for his generosity and praise, and I assume his ideal is to derive the 'true' laws of physics by assuming a 'primordial field.' Presumably such a theory would then be able to explain away, or account for, everything that came before. The end result would then truly be an unambiguous final theory!



report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 21:47 GMT
Dear Robert,

I do not refer to a 'primordial field.' I don't have a problem with 'primordial' but rather with 'field'. Every time I have seen the word 'field' used it has been in support of one of many mechanical theories about the nature of the universe. Since it is certain that no mechanical viewpoint can ever define the properties of this universe, my point is that only when the word 'field' is replaced by 'intelligent cause' will theoretical physics move beyond pretending that predicting future changes of velocity explain a universe that gave birth to intelligent life.


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 17:15 GMT
Dear Edwin Klingman,

While I enjoy your ironic utterances like "... repetition yields symmetry groups and physicists fall in love with such", you will hopefully agree that such kind of criticism needs further elaboration. I will try and do my best in the essay I am preparing.

In principle I appreciate your brave vote against mysticism. Hopefully you will not shy back from defending your position by taking issue when other essays do not agree with it.

Good luck,


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 17:38 GMT

Thank you for your very kind remarks. While we come at it from different backgrounds, we seem to have the same goal of clarifying certain basic ideas. I too am thankful that you participate here and that FQXi gives us all this opportunity.


I'm glad that you enjoyed the essay. My statement wasn't meant as criticism so much as a simple, short statement of how math arises naturally and physicists, including me, fall in love with its elegance, sometimes perhaps losing our perspective.

I look forward to both of your essays.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 21:53 GMT
For FQXi readers who do not realize that the C-field is real, I refer you to a paper I received yesterday, a week after submitting my essay. Had I held off, I would have included this info in my essay--I offer it now in this comment.

The 3 Dec 2010 issue of Physical Review Letters 105, 231103 ("...on Non-Newtonian Gravity") describes a 13 year study of LAGEOS satellite(s) that tracked the relativistic precession with one centimeter rms accuracy ("the most accurate measurement for the pericenter advance of a satellite orbiting the Earth ever made.") The results differ from general relativity's predictions by up to 0.2% and the difference is attributed to the C-field, or gravito-magnetic field.

The C-field is real, general relativity is of limited application, and I hope you keep this in mind while reading my essay.


Edwin Eugene Klingman

Darth Sidious replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 14:09 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I regret, but you makes confusion on this point. Actually, gravito-magnetic effects are well known within General Relativity, i.e. the C-field, that you claims to be real while General Relativity should be of limited application (in all honesty, I find a few arrogant this claim), is indeed a part of General Relativity, see for example the recent review published in Astrophys. Space Sci. 331:351-395, 2011. Difference of order 0.2% are NOT attributed to the C-field, or gravito-magnetic field, which is comprised in General Relativity, but to potential modifies of the gravitational action with respect to the Einstein-Hilbert action of Standard General Relativity.

Best wishes.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 21:41 GMT
Dear Darth,

You are correct that General Relativity in the weak field limit leads to the GEM equations, and therefore implies gravito-magnetism. However it is true that Einstein failed to solve the magneto-static problem in general relativity, and more so that Maxwell and Heaviside decided that the field was too weak to be of significance.

I have modified two of the equations in classical GEM, as indicated in my essay, and believe that very significant consequences derive from this. While a subset of physicists may be very familiar with the C-field, I think that most are not, and if they are, they do not think it generally significant. I may be wrong about that.

I do not have access to Astrophys. Space Sci. so I cannot comment here, and I will let the Phys Rev Lett article I cited speak for itself. It is hard to derive and defend a new theory of the universe without sometimes sounding arrogant, but I try to hold these to a minimum. I also try to hold my mis-statements to a minimum, so thank you for calling me on what you view as a mis-statement.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 22:50 GMT
Dear Darth,

Re-reading your comment, you seem most offended by my statement that General Relativity is of limited application. I know this may be offensive to some, but that does not mean it is false.

My approach to reality is that topology or connectedness is of primary significance, and distance, or metric overlay on topology is secondary. I view these as essentially separable problems. I think Doug Sweetser's diagram (reproduced in my essay) illustrates this beautifully.

So a major question appears to me to be whether the universe is "flat" or not. I understand this to be the consensus belief today, and I do not challenge it as it fits my theory nicely. But if the universe *is* flat, then General Relativity seems to be most applicable in those local situations where a non-linear metric is most appropriate, such as black holes and neutron stars, and to have less significance where Euclidean geometry seems to apply, that is, almost everywhere. If the universe were *not* flat, then GR would be paramount. As it is (or appears to be) GR is primarily of local applicability. Again, I may be wrong.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 04:04 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

Would you be interested in ("If you know someone whose perspective on the subject is different from yours please let me know.") this:

"I am pleased to invite you to contribute a chapter to an ebook that I am editing for Nova Science Publishers tentatively entitled, Symposium on Grand Unified Theories. The following content is requested:

1) An elaboration of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 05:30 GMT

Thanks for the above message. Can we go offline with this? My email address is on the first page of my essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 19:16 GMT

Thanks for an excellent essay, and for your comments on mine, (I'll respond there). I assume the C of C field is essentially 'classic?' I couldn't quite understand the objection to magnetic derivation of black hole polar contortions and clarification would be helpful.

I found it a great inspiration, (as I'd started to suspect I was from another planet) and I hope we may help each other. I comment below on the content, but only conceptually/empiro-logically as that's all I know.

But first, your coverage is brilliant and comprehensive, but necessarily can't deal with the one central massive issue, which is why the field was first banished; CSL. In particular wrt all moving receivers. Once we can derive how this can work WITH a 3rd frame, the field's denial becomes unnecessary, and you have most of the evidence needed. I really hope I can help by now providing it, but you need to look upwards when reading my essay, as, though very simple, I couldn't get it all into so few pages.

Comments; Yes; one linked field with many effects, and local realism, but only of subjective reality, (I've now just found Benoit Launier) and, in fact, as you with mine, I can't dispute anything I could understand (if not quite 100%!). One thing; You may see why in mine, but strictly I'm not sure curvature is possible without 'matter', or at least 'virtual matter'. I have; Light(superposed em waves)> field perturbation> 'virtual photons' (dark matter) > curvature. I'll cover the biggest implication in my explanation, but photons are not conserved (also as Penrose laid down as a requirement for unification), and the key quantum process is scattering.

Ref fields and the original stellar aberration evidence encouraging denial you may also like this;

I'll be very pleased to give you a high score, and hope I can grasp and hold all the detail in my mind.

Best of luck


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 22:17 GMT

I appreciate your comments and will address several here.

Yes, the C-field is 'classic' as both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity is a continuous field. Because Maxwell, Heaviside, Einstein, and others used gravito-electro-magnetic terminology, and apparently never assigned a 'name' to the gravito-magnetic field, I chose the letter 'C' because it was 'available', and fit with...

view entire post

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 23:48 GMT
In order to make it easier to find relevant info in one place, I will copy such info from other threads to here. The following is background I wrote on Peter's thread:

Because gravito-magnetism was initially believed to be too weak to be of any consequence, it has been essentially ignored for 150 years. In fact, the Phys Rev Lett paper cited above is possibly the first time that gravito-magnetism has 'officially' and unequivocally attributed the discrepancy with general relativity's predictions to the gravito-magnetic field (aka the 'C-field').

My premise is that gravity G, gravito-magnetic C, electric E and electro-magnetic B-fields exist, and I believe G and C are 'classical' ie, each field is a continuum. I am less sure whether E and B are continua or whether they are statistical effects of bosons. I'm thinking about it. Maxwell first wrote the GEM equations simply based on symmetry (Newton's ~ Coulomb's equation) and these were later derived as the 'weak field limit' of general relativity.

Key is that my calculations provide reason to believe that gravito-magnetism is 10**31 times stronger than was originally believed, and Martin Tajmar has experimentally found the same factor. If correct, this has very significant consequences for particle physics and cosmology.

On the surface Maxwell's EM equations and the analogous GEM look very similar. But there is a drastic essential difference. The EM fields interact strongly with charge, but are themselves uncharged, hence their self-interaction is linear and supports 'superposition' in the mathematico-physical sense of interference. But the GEM fields interact with mass and, through self-energy E=mc**2, thereby interact with themselves in a non-linear, ie, Yang-Mills manner, providing for physical phenomena that have been attributed to other fields (which physicists freely invent due to the nature of the Lagrangian technique).

If it turns out to be the case, as looks more likely every day, that the C-field is not only real, but has the strength I claim it has, and, as also looks more likely, neither the Higgs nor SUSY particles show up, then "somebody got a lot of 'splainin' to do."

I claim the C-field explains dozens of anomalies that GR, QED, and QCD cannot explain. If true, physics is much simpler than is currently believed to be the case. This, incredibly, will make a lot of people unhappy. Go figure.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Darth Sidious replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 19:28 GMT
Again, you makes confusion. Your sentence that "gravito-magnetism has been essentially ignored for 150 years" is NOT correct. Actually, there is an ENORMOUS number of papers in the literature regarding gravito-magnetism, see the recent review published in Astrophys. Space Sci. 331:351-395, 2011 and references within. Attempts to explain discrepances from General Relativity which have been found in the Phys Rev Lett paper cited above arise from potential modifies of the gravitational action with respect to the Einstein-Hilbert action of Standard General Relativity. These modifies have nothing to do with gravito-magnetism which is indeed well known within Standard General Relativity.

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 21:45 GMT
Dear Darth,

I believe my previous response to you applies here also. I invite you to focus on my changes to GEM and potential consequences deriving therefrom, and forgive me for making overly general statements that certainly do not apply to a subset of physicists.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 11:12 GMT

Thanks. You'll be interested in this proof that light can attract itself;

BLACK HOLES; In agreement with your 'one field', the process would be, particles from matter sucked at high speed in are heavily charged/ionised as they're 'spat out' by the polar contortions of the EM/GEM field, (formed by the fast spin of the super massive...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 01:40 GMT
Much of this comment is reproduced on Brian Whitworth's page. He begins, as many do, by denying local realism. That is the current trend, perhaps because it's 'sexy'. But one of the world's foremost experts, Anton Zeilinger, has written, Dance of the Photons, spelling out his key arguments in appendix A, where he substitutes, for quantum "properties" human properties, such as eye color, hair color, and height. He then proceeds to derive Bell's inequality and to claim that actual measurement results imply that the properties "do not exist until measured".

This is the key statement denying that local properties are real.

But changing the 'name' of the properties has absolutely no effect upon the logic of Bell's inequality, so either his logic is correct or it is not.

And here is the catch. The entire logic is based upon the assumption that the properties do not change en route to being measured! If this assumption is wrong, then the logic of Bell's inequality is wrong, and the drastic step of denying local realism is simply not justified.

Zeilinger begins with a "known" set of properties, and derives, based upon this set, Bell's inequality, and finds that measurements violate this inequality, then concludes that the properties do not exist until the measurement is made.

In Zeilinger's "user friendly" example, all that is necessary to refute this logic is to assert that one or more of the properties changed en route to the measurement. For example, one 'particle' dyes his hair, en route, thereby changing the measurement and violating Bell's inequality.

Now true believers will object, no, no, no -- you cannot equate 'hair color' with quantum properties -- but they are wrong. Bell's inequality does not depend on specific properties. All that is necessary to refute the argument is that properties change en route between the source and the detection.

As long as *both* entangled particles are treated exactly the same en route, the inequality is not violated, and there is no reason to question local realism. And this is exactly what is found experimentally. Only when the pair are interfered with in different ways en route is the inequality violated.

Therefore, one has to ask whether properties can change en route subject to differing physical interactions. And the answer is not available, because there is no rigorous analysis of photons, say in polarizing beam splitters. There is not even agreement on the (basically undefined) 'cut' or 'schnitt' that divides the quantum system being measured from the classical measuring 'apparatus'.

So the answer does not exist -- at this point only 'user preference' is involved. Some physicists are willing to give up local realism based on flimsy assumptions. I find that rather drastic, to put it mildly.

I am pursuing this here because my essay depends upon local realism and I've determined over the last few months that many FQXi'ers no longer believe in local realism.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 22:54 GMT
To All,

Because my theory is one of local realism, that is, my particles exist locally with real properties, but the current view of 'entanglement' physicists is that reality is non-local, and properties do not exist until measured, I have been engaged in finding the holes in the logic of Bell's inequality, as seen above.

However, as of about 1 Feb 2011 I became aware of Joy Christian's article here and am no longer engaged in this pursuit. Joy has convincingly shown that John Bell incorrectly arrived at his inequality. In her topological derivations, she always finds the quantum mechanical value 2*sqrt(2), which is never exceeded by the experimental data. Thus the problem vanishes! As Joy says, "...the Illusion of Entanglement".

In other words, Bell's inequality is based on a wrong number, and all of the conclusions that have followed from violation of his inequality are meaningless! This is of major significance to me, since my theory depends on local realism.

Unfortunately it is of major significance to many others, who have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. Those with labs, contracts, publications, books, and other investments often fight change for obvious reasons. As I commented on Joy's thread, Leo Tolstoy said:

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

Being an expert on 'spooky' and 'weird' quantum mechanics is fun. To have to retract all the fascinating things, said to so many rapt audiences, is no fun. And will probably be resisted to the grave.

Nevertheless, I plan to waste no more time on arguing against entanglement, violation of Bell's inequality, non-locallity, non-realism, or any other of the fallacious conclusions that have screwed up physics for decades.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 19:59 GMT
To all,

First, I've discovered that Joy is a man.

Second, I've found that other's, without time to study this work have misunderstood the issue, thinking that Joy proposes 'something else' as being "responsible for the Bell inequality violation." No. He is saying is that Bell's mistake was in thinking that "correlations between the points of a real line have anything to do with the correlations between elements of reality", and it is "topologically impossible for any Bell type map to constitute a manifold of all possible measurement results."

This is incompatible with the basic completeness criterion of EPR that "every element of physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory."

But "correlation between the EPR elements or reality are correlation between the respective points of two 2-spheres" and has "nothing whatsoever to do with the correlations between the points of two 0-spheres as Bell unjustifiably assumes." Bell's incomplete description of physical reality doesn't count all possible measurement results.

The significant result is this: Bell incorrectly found the value 2 while QM found 2*sqrt(2) and experiments show that Bell's value is violated but the QM value is never violated. Joy finds **in every case** the value 2*sqrt(2) as the appropriate measure. Since all measurements always fall within this value, the correct inequality IS NEVER VIOLATED.

If correct, then all non-local, non-real, entanglement arguments [ie, all 'spooky' and 'weird' stuff] were based on Bell's incorrect value, and are meaningless!

Of course these 'spooky' and 'weird' arguments have been going on for decades, they have subtly and not-so-subtly affected the minds of most physicists, even to the point that someone as bright as Florin remarked about "has the smell of local realism". Fortunately, Florin has now begun to study Joy's work and seems to have an open mind.

My interest is so strong because my theory is based on local realism.

It is incorrect to think that Joy has arrived at non-locality by other means. He has demolished non-locality. It may take some time to grasp this notion, but I believe that's what will be required. Of course I may be wrong.

I'm glad Florin has committed to studying this issue, as I believe it is the most important issue facing physics today.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 04:12 GMT
In the interest of keeping 'all things C-field' in one place, I copy the essence of remarks to Peter Jackson, in an attempt to harmonize our theories. In his 2020 essay, under Lorentz Transformation, page 6, he states:

"To keep the new local v below c, for momentum p=mv, the only place for the energy is in m (mass). This predicts a very strange phenomenon..."

The diagrams on page 6...

view entire post

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 11:10 GMT

Good plan keeping these together, this is as my response from my 20-20 string;

I agree we're describing precisely the same event & effect, but from different viewing positions. In a way this proves local (subjective) reality, which I briefly cover in the essay; Every signal in passage to every observer has to negotiate various 'barbers shops' to get there. They therefore MUST look different on arrival.

Rare twins unaffected by varying gravity, frame transitions, encounters etc. may keep original concrete reality, and keep open 'mobile phone' lines, until one is changed.

But I invite you to take a step closer to empirical reality with me. Forget 'virtual' particles (your brain gives different connotations to mine). My 'photoelectrons' first came from reality not theory. It's obvious to me you haven't done the homework on collider physics or followed the Ref's. These things are real. They bounce off the walls causing damage. They were seen when the first electron was accelerated in a vacuum and have been a massive (lol) problem at the Tevatron and LHC ever since. They propagate in a cloud around the proton bunches (etc) exponentially with speed. They also propagate standing similar clouds around the magnets. Great effort is put in to trying to minimise them as they increase energy bills unacceptably, absorbing vast amounts of accelerator energy. (densities up to 10^13/mm^-3)

They also oscillate and give off radiation, f subject to speed. (similar to the radiation we find in the uneven CMB picture). Now consider Bragg - because these are bit like FM radio oscillators that modulates em waves so we can hear things like pennies drop with 20-20 hearing and 'vision', and at the right wave arrival (after modulation) rate, (think local 'c'), however many 'barbers' the signal has visited on the way, and whatever their relative approach speed.

If you also look at actual space exploration results from shocks you'll find the same 'plasma' particles at densities & frequencies subject to mass and speed through the vacuum, refracting light in what becomes gentle curves subject to plasma density.

Does that ding a Bell somewhere?


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 01:59 GMT

A quick search on 'virtual particles' turns up:

"Virtual particles are a language invented by physicists in order to talk about processes in terms of the Feynman diagrams. These diagrams are a shorthand ..." "Particle physicists talk about these processes as if the particles exchanged in the intermediate stages of a diagram are actually there, but they are really only part of a quantum probability calculation. It is meaningless to argue whether they are or are not there, as they cannot be observed."

On the other hand, Gordon Kane says: "Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways."

Whereas a search on "what are photoelectrons": "photoelectron - an electron that is emitted from an atom or molecule by an incident photon." or "an electron that has gained kinetic energy from a photon."

So Peter, I have no problem with photoelectrons. Virtual particles are more tentative with me.

I'm still trying to get through your other writing, but have gotten sidetracked with Brian Whitworth's fascinating essay, which I think follows current theories to (perhaps) their natural conclusion.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 02:20 GMT
My essay deals with 'local realism' and Brian Whitworth has written a wonderful essay based on taking the failure of local realism to its (perhaps) logical conclusion. The following summarizes points that I've made on Brian's thread.

He responded by saying: "If the properties of a photon can change en route, without physical intervention... isn't the objective reality hypothesis conceded?"

But I do not propose "without physical intervention", in which case there is no violation of Bell's inequality. It's only violated when photons are treated differently by polarizers or beam splitters, and this *is* physical intervention. If the choice is to give up local realism or to believe that a beam splitter has a physical effect on a photon, the choice is easy.

Since the C-field described in my essay accompanies every 'object' with momentum (fig on page 6), there is definitely a 'mass-sensitive' field involved passing through the polarizing beam splitter. Recent experiments (discussed in other comments) lend credibility to the gravito-magentic (C) field, whereas, after 80 years, we still don't know what a 'quantum field' is. He is "letting the quantum fields be real, not just mathematical fictions" I suggest that the C-field is at least as reasonable as a quantum field.

Brian says "the VR conjecture moves the word "physical" from the realism to the locality definitions." I will spend some time trying to absorb this.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 02:25 GMT
A brief summary:

Entanglement experiments imply that local realism is false because they violate Bell's inequality based on D'Espagnat's 3 assumptions: local realism, Einstein locality, and logical induction, as Brian points out. But if properties change en route (due to interaction with the apparatus) then violation of Bell's inequality does not imply that properties don't exist until measured.

And if properties do exist, then all relevant properties are expected to conserve momentum and energy. (Brian says: "ensure a constant spin zero" or "Keep one black if the other is white.") But then there is no necessary 'non-localism' since the existence of conserved properties means that if one is known, then the other is known. There's no need for 'spooky' communications between Bob and Alice's locations.

Why is this not obvious? Because Copenhagen 'superposition of states' inherently does away with realism in favor of mysticism, claiming quantum objects are 'ghostly' until measured. More than anything, this probably derives from two-slit experiments, but the same C-field 'pilot wave' that I claim interacts with beam splitters would also interact with two slit apparatus, potentially explaining interference observed by experiment.

Brian's point 8: "Superposition. Objective entities cannot spin in two directions at once as quantum entities do...". The physical fact is that a magnetic field can only measure along one axis at once, and this has been distorted by probabilistic representation into spinning in two directions at once.

There seems to be inconsistency here. On the one hand, "properties cannot change en route without physical intervention" while on the other hand, "properties are in a 'state of superposition' described only statistically by a probability wave function. If only probability applies, why can't things change? One assumes that they are changing until the superposed wave function is measured, 'collapsing' the wave function (ie, the in-transit object) into a real, albeit unpredictable state.

The necessity for probability implies an essential randomness, to which I'll return later, but if things can't change, then they are predictable, and if they are only statistically predictable, who's to say they can't change? (This is only a logical point as I contend they do change upon contact with the apparatus.)

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 13:20 GMT

I'll read Brian's essay, but I agree with you entirely. When you see my papers you'll find some simple slit experiments showing interference even when one direct path is blocked. This is consistent with the 'edge' of the blocking strip absorbing and re emitting the photon/wave signal, slightly scattered. This is entirely equivalent to both QED and atomic scattering - where we know...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 19:28 GMT
Interesting essay, we know already but interesting.

You are a founder of several societies in silicon vally, wawwww I am impressed.hihihihi

You have invented a consScious robot it's that.Let's laugh it's good for health.Hope I don't offense you, after all wa have all the same age.13.7 hihihi

Can I speak with him.After all it's a robot with quantum spheres....H...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 21:16 GMT

Your self-taught English far exceeds my self-taught French, but you need to read more closely. Nowhere do I claim to have designed a conscious robot. I define consciousness as awareness plus volition (free will) and no robot will ever have awareness or free will (although guided randomness may simulate free will). What my bio states is that I designed robotic experiments of the kind King describes in the most recent Scientific American magazine and as described in Science in 2009. (Automating Science, Science Vol 324 3 Apr 2009 ) and also described in my book "Automatic Theory of Physics" (Amazon).

I also answered these question listed in Appendix A of my essay:

Q1 How to reduce an indefinite number of measurements to finite number of features.

Q2 What is the criterion for "best" feature set?

Q3 How can we obtain the best feature set?

Q4 How will we describe the dynamical behavior of the object?

Q5 What is the best physical theory?

Steve ask yourself how you would design and program a robot to make measurements, say of visual data, and derive rules of behavior of the observed entities (ie, physics) after extracting features through clustering operations on the data. If you can do this (I did and others did in 2009) then you will have a "robot physicist" who made observations and derived a theory. It is 'automated' or 'automatic' theorization, but the robot is never aware and never has free will, so is never conscious.

As a side point, I left NASA decades ago and founded companies, not societies. Finally Steve, if you compare your recent messages to those of two years ago, you will find that your messages were much clearer then. Try to slow down and not take things too seriously.

Your friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 10:37 GMT

Beautiful answer.

It's clearer for me now.

You know I have a big problem with languages.

In fact I study only words in English and spanish and italian(latin language)

I study dutch also(second language of my country,germanic language)

My aim is to speak chinese and indian soon also.And arab.It's difficult the chinese you know,more than 4000 signs.The japanese is easier for the number of signs.

Thus of course you imagine why I mix .But I love studying a little of all.

At this momment I restudy my maths and I search a serie for the number of spheres.The algebras sing with the geometry of sphere.

It's difficult also for me to be more quiet due to my past and my parano.

For my theory, I must be serious, it's not a fun for me but it's all my life.

For your essay.....very interesting and relevant.Good luck.

Your friend also


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 10:46 GMT
With humility and I am sure.

you ask

"Q5 What is the best physical theory?"

Simply it's the Theory of spherization, quantum spheres spheres and its lifes and cosnciousness and they turn around the universal center, the biggest volume of sphere(different than the universal sphere and its membran limiting the physicality and the unknown.....and ALL THAT INSIDE A BEAUTIFUL SPHERE IN OPTIMIZATION AND IMPROVEMENT.

It was only simple like that but to see this evidence, a lot of studyings in all centers of interest is essential.We see in the details the generality of our laws.



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 21:26 GMT
Dear Steve,

When I ask the question, "What is the best physical theory?" I am doing so in the framework in which the 'robot' is processing measurement data, extracting features, applying dynamical descriptions, and formulating a theory, but not necessarily a unique theory. Therefore the question relates to the use of entropy or other means of deciding between two or more theories that describe the same experiments. It is definitely not to be interpreted as my 'opinion' of what is the best theory.

The answer that I derive is based on Gibbs theorem showing that if a hypothesis, Hj, exists such that prediction, p(Zi|Hj) coincides with the experimental frequency Ai, its credibility p(Hj|A1, A2, ...An) will exceed that of any other hypothesis. If large numbers of experiments are performed, the difference in credibility will be enhanced, leading to the selection of Hj as the most credible of the competing hypotheses.

Its a mathematical decision of what is the best theory, not a personal one.

Thanks for you bringing this confusion to my attention.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 21:21 GMT
Peter, I will look at the links you sent. On a side note, I don't want in any way to appear to be 'double teaming' Brian Whitworth. You dumped a dozen or so points on him. I'm trying to focus on the key point, local realism, as the rest of his essay depends on it.

basudeba wrote on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 06:20 GMT
Respected Sir,

We are highly embarrassed by your invitation to an amateur in the field like us to comment on your highly respected work. Yet, finding many similarities between our views and the fact that you are associated with an organization that is a pioneer in the field of research to understand most of the mysteries of the universe has emboldened us to respond. Kindly forgive our...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 21:11 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

You are overly deferential, but I appreciate your comments. We seem to agree on many things, and even where you may think we disagree on math, I am merely contending that math arises in our universe, not as a Platonic "other".

I am uncertain as to your interpretation that the Master equation and its consequences do not derive from fundamental principles. It derives from logic, which I consider to be the most fundamental of all principles, essentially demanding physical non-contradiction. Given only one entity in the universe, the primordial field, that entity can only evolve through interaction with itself. There is nothing else to interact with or govern its interaction. This leads to a symbolic Master equation which, considered in light of real physics measurement and history can reasonably be interpreted to be the most general mathematical operator, the directional derivative or tangent vector and the field interpreted as gravity.

Each of us has to choose, from the myriad topics of physics, where to place emphasis. Many focus on special relativity, however that is not an area that unduly perturbs me. Similarly, gravitational versus inertial mass seems consistent with my theory and I have therefore not focused on this issue. The equivalence principle seems OK to me. I do not recall seeing your discussion of inertial and gravitational mass and your ratio mg/mi, so I cannot comment here. I have no current opinion on sterile neutrinos, either.

In short, I agree with a number of your statements, as you do with mine, and thank you for looking at my essay and responding.

Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

basudeba mishra replied on Jan. 18, 2011 @ 08:24 GMT
Dear Sir,

By fundamental principles we meant, evolutionary statements beginning with creation. All our theories flow from the single source of creation. In stead of Big Bang, we accept Big Bounce. From this we derive multiverses. In the process, we derive the primary field for each universe with its five different manifestations. The same mechanism evolves all other forces that logically flow from one another. These forces confine different localities to create different structures. The interaction between these structures and forces give different results than their interaction with the primary field. This creates the secondary field, which you describe as locality. From this we have derived the other extensions to predict the results earlier. Entanglement is related to both fields. But the results are different in each field. We find that you mix up these fields (our definition of fields) on many occasions.

We differ from the modern theories widely in many areas. For example, we do not accept the Coulomb's law. We accept the opposite and accept the seemingly attraction of opposite charges from our concept of particles and fields. Our description of the atomic structure is much more elaborate. Thus, we explain the double slit experiment and the diffraction experiment differently. From this we have theoretically derived the charge of the quarks, proton, neutron etc and the value of the fine structure constant reported earlier. These predictions can be verified. This will provide the validity of our theory or otherwise. Similarly, only by treating gravity as a composite force, we have been able to explain the various anomalies.

Once again we repeat Sir, we are an arm chair scientist and not an experimental scientist. Hence our observations and theories are subject to physical verification. But we find many inconsistencies in modern physics and attribute reductionism, superstition and the cult of incomprehensibility for the present state of affairs. The colossal waste of public money in chasing mirages like the LHC Experiment pain us. It is high time someone should stand up and call a spade a spade. Hence we thought that we may point to the truth of the Emperor's new cloth.



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 04:33 GMT
Dear basudeba mishra,

I am not a fan of big bounces or multiverses, or any other attempts to go beyond the physical limits of our universe. I also believe that the simplest possible solution is the best solution, and I can conceive of nothing simpler than 'one field'.

While the LHC may be a waste of money, nevertheless it is necessary to distinguish between the many theories that have arisen, many of which make different predictions. If absolutely no new particles are found (as has more or less been the case for forty years now) then, given current economics, it will be exponentially harder to justify an expensive 'follow-on' collider. This is one reason I expect the LHC to stretch things out as long as possible.

But because we are able, with our wonderful imaginations, to think up many explanations, it will always be necessary for physical experiments to be performed, and when that is no longer feasible, physics will be dead.

My belief is that a simple theory (such as my own), which accounts for all known particles, and would likely be disrupted by new particles (other than resonances) will only be accepted after other particles are not found. This will simply move the action to cosmology and material physics.

We are a long way from resolving the issues, but fqxi is to be thanked for allowing us to present our ideas.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 00:56 GMT
From a comment I made to Peter Jackson:

I don't believe that 'empty space' exists, as I believe gravity to be a continuous field filling space everywhere. Frank Wilczek seems to say the same about 'quantum fields' everywhere in space, but I reject 'quantum fields'. If gravity is the primordial or underlying field, then it may provide the 'medium' in which E and M trade energy as the photon travels, and the C-field circulation, as explained in my essay, helps conserve the photon's inertial momentum.

You state that "Max Planck's proposal of a compressible aether, more dense at the surface countered Lorentz's first objection...[but not] that the speed of light would be affected by density." It is along these lines that I think my equation 7 may have relevance, when the right hand side is viewed as variation of density. I haven't yet worked out the case of photons traversing a region of space, (dV =dx**3), subject to

d(t)/dV = d(m)/dx --- (in units of Planck action, h) .

The 'time dilation' dt, here would seem to imply that a distributed light wave/photon would 'bend' as a function of the variation in mass density, dm/dx, (where, in the most general case, dm is the change in gravitational energy with x.) This is for an extended wave front traversing a variable density region at right angles to the variation in density. If the direction of the photons is parallel to the direction of maximum variation, then we have Pound-Rebka type of dilation.

I am very interested in applying equation 7, derived in a straightforward manner from my generalized Heisenberg principle, which in turn fell right out of my Master equation, which is essentially a fundamental statement of logic.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

basudeba replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 06:17 GMT
Dear Sir,

We have some comments on your post above.

We do not accept empty space or quantum fields because of fundamental reasons. Space is the interval between objects. Hence empty space means the absence of objects. Since only objects are perceptible directly and forces are perceptible through their effect on objects, absence of objects to be described as empty space does not make sense. The space, that is the interval, is always empty - without objects - irrespective of the measure of its separation.

Quantum fields does not make sense because it is an oxymoron. Quantum is digital, but fields are analog. We cannot have a digitized analog description.

You say: "gravity is the primordial or underlying field, then it may provide the 'medium' in which E and M trade energy as the photon travels, and the C-field circulation". Also: "a distributed light wave/photon would 'bend' as a function of the variation in mass density, dm/dx, (where, in the most general case, dm is the change in gravitational energy with x.)". We agree with this description with some modification.

Firstly, fields and forces are not the same. There is a fundamental reason why fields behave the way they are perceived. The perceived effect of such behavior is the force. We go beyond gravity, as we consider it as the first perceptible force only for structure formation and stabilization. We consider it to be a generated force, which gave rise to all other forces. We have a complete model, which we will publish soon.

We also have a different definition for time dilation. We accept that time has a directionality. This we have proved in our essay. We also accept that the forces behave in the same way in all frames of references. Thus, time evolution of all objects follow a similar process. Since time is the interval between events (physical changes with time), and since we treat elasticity as the third inertia, based on modifications of Newton's third law, we prove that all evolutions are cyclic. These cycles are different from one system to another based on the local dynamics. When we compare time evolution of two different systems subjected to different local dynamics, we find an anomally that we call as time dilation. We consider photon as a particle that moves through a field. Since the field interacts with the particle in specific ways that appear as the force, the photon bends as per the same principle.

In short, we have a complete model of an alternative theory that can explain all physical interactions classifying it to 122 categories. In this system, gravity is a composite force of (3, 5, 7 and 11 varieties).



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 04:01 GMT
Dear basudeba,

It seems that we agree on a few things. Everyone seems to have their own idea of time. Of course I know that forces and fields are not the same.

As you see if you have studied my essay, I attempt to explain everything from one primordial field. The field that seems to make the most sense and leads to an explanation of 'everything' is the gravity field. In my mind I am quite certain that gravity is not a composite of (3, 5, 7 and 11 varieties). Nor do I wish to contemplate "all physical interactions classifying it to 122 categories".

We probably will not be able to resolve these differences such that both of our theories are compatible, but thank you for the observations.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 14:00 GMT
Show that FM waves also violate the superposition law.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 16:02 GMT
Hi Ed,

We had been talking about GEM on Philip's site, and I thought it was appropriate to move here. This is a copy of my latest post on Philip's site:

Dear Friends,

I think that Chiao and Podkletnov are doing similar things in that they are using electromagntic fields and charges on superconducting materials to try to generate gravity. The idea goes back to DeWitt's idea that a spinning electron might couple to spacetime curvature. Chiao is using interferometer techniques that might be more accurate than Podkletnov's. In my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory, photons and gravitons are different quantum occupation states of the Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) boson. The question then arises "How does a GUM boson transition from photon-like properties to graviton-like properties?"

From what I have read of Ed's ideas, I really thought that GEM was a rotational gravitational effect. And though this concept might couple to generational effects and/or QCD, I don't think it is directly coupled with Electromagnetism, but magnetism is a great analogy.

Should we move these conversations to Ed's site?

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

nikman wrote on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 23:38 GMT
"But there is a simple alternative to [Zeilinger's] analysis. If one or more twins dyes his hair enroute, Bell's inequality will be violated, yet local realism exists."

This of course refers to macroworld Bell tests, where the original EPR locality and realism assumptions do indeed hold. In fact I've never known Bell to be violated in the macroworld (i.e., using macroscopic objects) unless entanglement is somehow simulated (as in Diederik Aert's twin-vessels-connected-by-a-tube gedanken). I'm not disputing the possibility but could you construct a table showing how it could happen in the case of Zeilinger's twins, with one changing his hair color? You certainly can't fool Bell with Venn diagrams, since the Inequality is also fundamental classical macroworld logic. Nor with containers of food pulled out of a kitchen cabinet, nor with collections of keys, coins and so forth.

"Solar neutrinos change enroute from the sun; why not photons?"

Have Bell tests been conducted using neutrinos? What neutrino properties change?

What about Leggett-Garg experimental tests (conducted by both the Zeilinger and Gisin groups to Leggett's specifications, and resulting in violation of realism in all nonlocal realistic theories except Bohm's -- which itself is challenged by the before-before experiments)? What about Charles Tresser's conclusion that Bell tests specifically disprove microworld realism, with the locality assumption Occamizable out of the picture?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 15, 2011 @ 02:48 GMT

Most of the Phys Rev Letters papers on entanglement (my main source) are difficult to understand or argue with, unless one is a specialist in that area. I read many of them, but am no expert. However I believe that when world-class experts write a 'popular' book, one can learn something. After reading Gilder's intro to "The Age of Entanglement" I then read Zeilinger's "Dance of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 15, 2011 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Ed,

Lawrence and I have corresponded quite a bit, and our approaches are more similar than you might realize. Certainly, he is more mathematical than I am, and his attack is more concentrated on Black Holes, whereas I'm attacking fundamental particles. The more that I study these TOE ideas, the more I think we are all tackling different parts of the same thing. I think that the TOE is a union of Strings and Kissing Spheres (CDT) all at the same time, as I present in my upcoming essay.

Your GEM is a triality. I interpret Color as a quartality (leptons carry the neutral color "white" [in my Hyperflavor theory] or "violet" [in Pati-Salam theory] - you will see these ideas in Garrett Lisi's Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, and in my 2009 FQXi essay) and Generations as the only true trialty. I have studied this G2 triality of generations since 2008 (Lawrence and I have corresponded at length about this symmetry), and I think this is related to the 3x3 CKM and 3x3 PMNS matrices (and a Unified CKM-PMNS matrix). I honestly think that this is the part of the puzzle that you may be addressing with GEM. I agree that there should be more to gravity than what we know via Relativity - whether "more" is quantum and/or "magnetic" rotational gravity.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 15, 2011 @ 03:42 GMT

A brief reply to your first comment above. Until recently I had not given much consideration to the coupling of the GEM field to the electromagnetic field. It is trivially coupled via charged particles through the two Lorentz force equations. EM couples to charge and GEM couples to mass, and since all charged particles have mass (if not vice-versa) then all charged particles couple these fields through their very existence. Interestingly, the only common term to all of the 'magnetic' Lorentz forces is the particle's velocity.

But as I indicated above, I have recently been working on the coupling of the fields without charged mass, and think I have some exciting results. I hope to say more soon.

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jan. 15, 2011 @ 13:31 GMT
The N-qubit entanglements of states and black holes is equivalent to states in the AdS_7. In fact as you mention triality, this does involve a triality with the SO(8). This means the qubits have an equivalency with the ∂AdS_7 = E^6 = CY^6, where CY are Calabi-Yau spaces. The triality with the SO(8) is induced by a G_2 holonomy with a 3-form that on the boundary is the CY-3 form. So the qubits on a black hole (or AdS) are identified with the spectrum of elementary particles.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jan. 15, 2011 @ 11:32 GMT

I reading through various of the conversations, you have made comments which suggest you think of space as fundamentally flat, yet you mention to me that Big Bang/Inflationary cosmology is necessary to your theory. The problem is that curved space is integral to this view of the universe, because if it is an expansion in otherwise flat space, then we would have to be at the center of the universe, given that redshift is directly proportional to distance and there is no lateral motion to match that implied by redshift. The only way to describe every point as appearing as the center of an expanding universe, is if space is fundamentally curved within the bubble of the universe.

As I've raised the point, probably not so clearly in my essay, since it is supposed to focus on digital vs. analog, one way to have overall flat space, with every point appearing as the center, is for the outward curvature between galaxies to be balanced by the inward curvature within them. Thus every point is the center of its own horizon of how far light that doesn't curve into gravity can travel across the outward curvature of intergalactic space before being completely redshifted off the spectrum. The problem is that this yields an overall stable universe, so any material properties currently attributed to the initial singularity would have to be explained by the possibilities of an infinite and eternal universe.

Given the issues I recently raised in the New Year, New Universe blog posting, about a recently discovered galaxy cluster at 12.6 billion light years, I do think it worth considering.

Not that I think of space as being fundamentally curved, since it has no physical properties and so cannot be curved, expanded, bounded, etc.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 02:23 GMT
John, as stated on another thread, my theory depends upon a big bang in order to, first, have sufficiently strong C-fields to create the particles we find in the universe, and second, to reach a point where such particle creation 'stops'. There are also symmetry breaking issues here that seem necessary to me to match our current universe.

In addition, as difficult as it is to comprehend the big bang, as an event in which 'something' proceeds from a state of 'nothing', it is even more difficult (I would say impossible) for me to imagine an everlasting infinite space in which we still need to evolve in some reasonable manner the physical universe we find ourselves in. That may simply be my problem?

Also, I don't really understand "the outward curvature between galaxies to be balanced by the inward curvature within them". It may make sense, but I don't understand it.

In short, with an almost infinitely variable physical universe one has to pick and choose the problems to be solved. I have chosen what I consider the most significant aspects of reality and the most logical 'initial assumption' (that is, one field and one field only as the starting point) and attempted to evolve in a physically reasonable way the current state of the universe. I consider myself successful in this endeavor, but that leaves room for a very large number of specific instances and interpretations that I have not covered. I believe that this is inherent in the very process of such theorizing, since no one person can hope to solve every problem that others are concerned with.

Again, as stated elsewhere, I consider the solution and or explanation of real physical anomalies, that everyone seems to agree are real, but no one has an explanation for, to be a better approach than to concern myself with Planck energies and multi-verses, that will probably never be available for inspection, and at best will be exceedingly indirectly implied. That, to me, is mathematics, whereas explaining real physical anomalies that are known to exist, is physics.

Finally, I make predictions, about Higgs, SUSY, axions, and other possible LHC results, so that in only a very few years my theory will look better or worse.

I am not downplaying your concerns, and I don't have immediate answers to them, I am just trying to explain why I am taking the approach that I do.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 02:35 GMT
John, I just realized that I didn't answer your first question, which concerned the place of curvature in a basically 'flat' universe. I have stated that the preferred framework for dealing with black holes and neutron stars is the idea of curved space, based on deforming the metric rather than upon a 'potential' framework. Look at Sweetser's beautiful diagram in my essay.

There appear to be experiments that show that gravity is not simply 'geometry' and, if so, then deformable 'geometry' is simply another mathematical tool that has areas of application. Until we found out that space appears to be flat, the area of application for such could have been the entire universe. Now it appears to be a more limited subset of the physical universe.

Finally, I have focused much more of my efforts on particle physics than I have on cosmology, for the simple reason that particle physics seems to change only by a few percent these days, while within the last year or so I read things like, "the Milky Way is twice as thick as we thought", and, just last month I read "there are three times as many stars as we thought." In other words, I don't trust the cosmological numbers, and therefore don't get overly concerned about "a recently discovered galaxy cluster at 12.6 billion light years", which you do think worth considering.

John Merryman replied on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 19:27 GMT

I agree we necessarily need to focus on those areas which we have a reasonable grasp, which is why I'm not commenting on the body of your work. I only raise the issue because I do strongly feel that the Big Bang model is slowly crumbling and only continues due to the willingness of the cosmology community to accept increasingly fantastical patches in order to avoid having to admit the holes they cover are far more serious than they care to consider.

As you say, they keep finding ever more characteristics of the universe which completely alter what was previously thought, so it may well be there are processes going on that would account for those features currently ascribed to the singularity.

If I may, I would like to repeat the point which did raise my ire, in explaining a 12.6 billion year old galaxy cluster within BBT. What everyone seems to conveniently ignore is that all these galaxies did not, theoretically, coalesce out of the initial singularity, which theoretically would be quite dense and hot, but out of what existed after the inflation stage. This would have been far more diffuse, given that the inflation stage expanded the universe out the the point that the initial curvature is not measurable. Which is effectively to compare the visible universe to an area on the surface of this planet sufficiently small that the curvature of the planet is not measurable. If you consider this, it would mean that galaxies had to condense out of radiation probably about as dense as the intragalactic, interstellar medium. Ie, slightly more dense than the intergalactic medium. While this is obviously quite possible, it would require an incredible amount of time, so thinking it could have happened in one billion years is ludicrous, since it take almost a quarter of that amount of time for our galaxy to make one rotation. It is, as you say, a real physical anomaly.

Personally I don't have any trouble with the idea that space is infinite, because it solves the entropy/energy problem. Energy is never lost, because it simply radiates out to other areas and is gained by that radiated from other areas. This creates horizon lines, as we can only detect out to the distance radiation can travel before it becomes too diffuse to detect.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 21:08 GMT
Relevant info--- Jason Wolfe made remarks on Peter Jackson's page that bear repeating with respect to my essay. He points out that "one particle is its own reference frame." Peter has quoted Einstein saying much the same thing, and the figure on page 6 in my essay shows how this fits my theory. Jason then states:

"...redshift reduces the frequency, and therefore reduces the information content that is being carried..."

I hadn't thought of that. I asked on another thread, months ago, just exactly when it became gospel that information is never lost? I have quantum mechanics texts from the 1930's (Dirac) to the 1980's (Sakurai) and QED and QCD texts from the 90's and 2000's, and I don't recall seeing in any of them that 'information is never lost'. No one answered my question.

But assuming this to be the case, Jason then covers this case by saying:

"But if the photons are again blue shifted, that should recover the information content."

That's a great statement, but it begs the question: Where was the information stored in the intervening period? Also, consider a photon that's never been red-shifted, but then falls into a hole. If it's blue-shifted, then information must be being created.

I'm still interested in the answer to when it became gospel that info is never lost.

Jason's idea is relevant to the interaction between the photon and the C-field.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ray B. Munroe replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 22:02 GMT
Hi Ed,

Certainly in the application of DVD's (red lasers vs. blue lasers) it is appropriate to say that a Blu-Ray disc can hold more information than a standard DVD. But does this analogy apply to Spacetime? Is information lost and regained (How can it be regained? Does digital reconstruction occur?) or is Spacetime simply stretch and compressed? Perhaps Spacetime is compressible (at least to a point?), and it is this property that allows so much information to be stored in a Black Hole. Regardless, I don't think that a physical infinity can exist in our finite Universe, so even a Black Hole has a limit as to how much information it can hold (~10^123).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 23:40 GMT
Ray, thanks for the comment. We agree on many things, and I'm still trying to compose a reasonable response on your thread. I also agree about physical infinity being non-existent. I am trying to clean up my remarks to appear on Christi Stoica's essay, which deals with the issue of information. I think this is a point that needs to be understood.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 03:17 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Regarding information, I like Stefan Weckbach's essay. I briefly talked about complexergy (complexity - energy), but didn't really talk about information. In my essay, I suggest that Scales mandate all large numbers and their inverses. I think that all large numbers in our observable universe are based on Dirac's Large Number ~10^40 (10^41 is closer to the experimental value, but 40 is a nice round number), and geometrical powers thereof (Note that Stefan's number is approximately this large number cubed - cubed because of 3 spatial dimensions? Likewise, the cosmological constant is approximately the inverse of Stefan's number, so we are dealing with "Infinity" and its inverse as Cristi's essay addressed).

Is information lost? Lawrence and Philip have entangled qubits of strings (with "electric"-like and "magnetic"-like charges) that may keep track of this information of order ~10^120 using the combinatorial spin-flips of, say, 496 (496 is E8xE8*~SO(32)) different "particle states".

Chriti's essay is interesting, but he seems to imply that Spacetime is divisible ad infinitum, and I don't buy that idea. I think that scales collapse these continously "smooth" Spacetime manifolds into discrete lattice structures. What lattice structure? I'm not certain, although FCC, BCC, HCP, graphene, buckyball, and diamond structures are all worthy case studies.

Also, Christi implies that these infalling particles can be separated by "zero" distance. I don't think it is exactly "zero", but rather the inverse of a very large scale number. Even IF it this distance of separation is exactly zero in the x, y, and z coordinates, these "degeneracies" could still be broken by other dimensions, such as string theory's hyperspace.

I didn't consider the core purpose of these essays to address information, but we seem to be going in that direction...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 00:20 GMT
Cristi Stoica's most impressive essay treats identical points that can exist with no distance between them and still retain their identity, with focus on loss of information at a singularity.

But in Feynman diagrams two identical particles can enter into an interaction and two identical particles can exit the interaction, and it is impossible to track the identity through the interaction--they may, or may not, have switched places. I don't believe there is even the need for assuming zero distance between them. That is, we apparently don't need a singularity to lose track of identity.

I find the idea that black holes can evaporate and all the 'information inside' be reconstructed ridiculous, but I know that others do not. Yet, why would one insist that such is the case? The implication seems to be that both classical and quantum time evolution laws are violated if info is lost. As noted Jason Wolfe points out that when photons are red-shifted, they lose information

Yet if, as many fqxi'ers seem to believe, the real nature of time is essentially NOW, and Einstein's block time is an illusion, or at least a mathematical extrapolation that goes beyond reality, then what seems to be necessary is a physics that accurately describes interactions taking place NOW.

But can we have gotten to NOW by two (or more) different paths, based on different initial and/or boundary conditions? A sort of generalization of the Feynman example above.

So has anyone proved the 'uniqueness' of the history leading up to NOW?

I'm of the opinion that, as Feynman said of QM, no one understands information. Some big names treat information as if it is a particle. Information is not a particle. I am not sure what is even meant when one speaks of 'information at a point of space', whether or not a zero or finite distance from another point.

So is our current physical state of existence NOW reachable (in theory) by two or more different histories. It seems to me that only a probabilistic answer is possible, and when probability enters the picture, information becomes even more complicated.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Cristinel Stoica replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 19:07 GMT
Hi Eugene,

your questions show that you are a careful and thoughtful reader. It was a pleasure to see your questions, which I did my best to address on the page of my essay, where you asked them originally.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 22:31 GMT
Dear Cristi,

I find your answers enlightening. Thanks for the explanations. You do have an excellent grasp of the issues. Interested readers should follow the link provided to your answers.

Dear Ray,

Part of a response I gave to Cristi Stoica relates to your statement that, "satisfying the Coleman-Mandula theorem is the crux of that balance."

Cristi made the point that, "in Quantum Theory the time evolution is unitary, hence the information is preserved." I agree but think the following relevant:

Martinus Veltman notes that Feynman rules are derived using the U-matrix, even though formal proofs exist that the U-matrix does not exist. (Diagrammatica, p.183). The U-matrix is unitary by construction, and implies conservation of probability, probability being "the link between the formalism and observed data." In my mind, this leaves some room for 'free will' in the universe, (with consequences for information) but I have not pursued the U-matrix much farther than that. Veltman claims the U-matrix and the equations of motion are to be replaced with the S-matrix, in which the interaction Hamiltonian determines the vertex structure.

The Coleman-Mandula theorem, (according to Wikipedia) states that "the only conserved quantities in a "realistic" theory with a mass gap, apart from the generators of the Poincare group, must be Lorentz scalars." But this seems to constrain only symmetries of the S-matrix itself, not "spontaneously broken symmetries which don't show up directly on the S-matrix limit."

As the 'scattering' matrix is used to make sense of particle collisions, this seems reasonable, but 'scattering' of particles is a very artificial (if necessary) way of studying particles, that may attach undue importance to symmetry and, as I've noted in my essay, leads to a Lagrangian that is based on inventing fields, whether or not those fields actually exist in nature. If they can be solved for then they are considered in some way 'real', and this leads, IMHO, to much of the confusion today.

Veltman states that "unitarity, Lorentz invariance, locality, etc, are in some sense interchangeable." This seems problematical in light of today's push to banish locality from QM.

I don't claim to understand the solution to these problems, just to note that there seems to be some circular logic going on, and I'm not sure that logic is preserved around a complete loop of the circle.

This is part of the reason I start with the logic of one field, and work from there, ignoring, for the most part, the established formalism's of QM and GR if they don't map 100 percent into my model in a way that will satisfy experts in either field.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 19:35 GMT
To all,

This is written to explain my final equation for those who do not speak partial differential equations or are not comfortable with such. It's obvious that I think it is a beautiful equation, and do not wish to limits its appreciation to only those familiar with PDEs.

The equation reads phonetically: partial-sub-rho(time) = partial-sub-x(mass)

What is shown in the derivation (in an appendix), but not explicitly shown in the final equation, is that the units are inverse Planck's constant, that is, the right hand side is "per unit of action".

Now partial-sub-rho(time), where rho stands for volume, means "the change of time in a region of space".

and partial-sub-x(mass), where x stands for distance, means "the change of mass with distance" (across the region of space).

The result is a simple equation that represents space, time, distance, and mass in quantum units of action.

Now this probably won't make much sense if you think of solid mass, like a chunk of lead, but if you think that a gravitational field (in a volume of space) has energy (proportional to the field squared, like all fields, according to Maxwell) and use Einstein's E=mc**2, then we can think of the change in the gravity (across the region) where the distance x is the 'width' of the region in the direction of maximum gravitational change. It usually helps to draw a picture at this point where each side is represented.

So we have a change in time (time dilation) in a region where we have a change in the gravitational field energy/mass and the two are related. This simple (and beautiful) equation fell right out of my generalized Heisenberg quantum relation, which fell right out of my Master equation that claims that if we start with one field, and nothing else in the universe, the field can only evolve by interacting with itself.

For those interested in time dilation, I think this is a unique equation that expresses a quantum way of looking at it.

Even experts in partial differential equations are never hurt by simple explanations, and I hope this helps some by explaining time dilation in a simpler way than it is typically explained.


Edwin Eugene Klingman

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 11:09 GMT
Dear Eugene,

congratulations for your essay, it is impressive but also good looking. I like the search for a final explanation and unity in which you are engaged. I would like to understand more about the fundamental field you propose, maybe you can recommend me a reading to start with. On a general note, I have the feeling that we both think that there is something important about the fact that the topology is more fundamental than the metric. Also, it seems to me that we both think that a spacetime description, such as that of General Relativity, would require a more local approach to Quantum Mechanics.

I wish you success with the contest and with your research,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 05:43 GMT
Cristi, I will try to recommend the best places to start in a day or so. Thanks for the interest.

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 06:21 GMT
**** Special note to all ******

I was surprised by a comment from my friend Ray, who has communicated with me for years now on our theories. Ray said:

"Aren't we both guilty of creating symmetries or fields that haven't yet been observed? My approach anticipates a symmetry between Fermions and Bosons. Your approach anticipates a symmetry between electric-like and magnetic-like...

view entire post

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 19:42 GMT
Hi Ed,

I've been travelling this week, and I'm trying to catch up. I overlooked this post on your blog site earlier this week. Following are some responses that I've already posted on my blog site. I believe that we are close in what we are saying, but we are using different approaches and mathematics. Your approach is closer to a legitimate extension of Maxwell's Equations that have existed for a century. My approach is closer to the S-Duality of String theory that has existed for a couple of decades.

On Jan 24 @ 14:58 GMT , Ray said "Hi Ed,

I apologize for my ignorance. Are these other research papers using the same GEM model as you? I need to read those papers. Also, I had planned to reread your essay, which is why I haven't scored your essay yet. Yes - mass exists and I wouldn't be surpised if magnetic gravity exists. In fact, Coldea et al imply a relation between mass and the golden ratio (in a magnetic quasiparticle application). Check out:

R. Coldea, et al., "Quantum Criticality in an Ising Chain: Experimental Evidence for Emergent E8 Symmetry", Science 327, 177 (2010).

IMHO, the golden ratio emerges from the 5-fold "pentality" symmetry (please see my essay's Appendix Figure) of E8."

On Jan 25 @ 01:10 GMT, Ray said "Hi Ed,

I need to read up on this correction factor of 10^31. In my book, I make a big deal about the fact that there must be more to Gravity. Is it GEM? Is it WIMP-Gravity? Are they all related and mixed up? What symmetries do they imply? My understanding of scales is that you cannot make up 31 orders of magnitude unless you have a strong energy or mass dependance on the coupling (for instance, the Weak force has a mass-squared dependance on coupling which allows it to range from a multiple of the fine-structure constant down to 10^(-13)).

I think the Gravity symmetries from Quaternion and Octonion algebras imply a tetrahedral (4-fold) symmetry SO(4)xSO(5) ~ SO(6)xU(1) ~ SU(4)xU(1), but you have a triangular (3-fold G2-like) symmetry. Somehow this tetrahedron is decomposing - perhaps into a triangle of Space and a broken symmetry of Time. As I've previously said, I think you are addressing the reason for 3 generations (CKM and PMNS matrices), but there may also be an S-duality relationship with QCD (which I consider a 4-fold symmetry: red, green, blue and violet/white).

Fields and Particles are interrelated. I fully expect a "new" field to introduce "new particles"."

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I was reading your essay when I noticed that you said,

"Physics should never accept anything “outside time and space”, such as: God, a mathematical universe, a multiverse, laws of physics, more than 4 dimensions. If physics does not grant God legitimacy, it should reject all other appeals to “the beyond”."

Well, it gave me this idea. The quantum vacuum is more than happy to provide an energy content E_BB. It provides this according to the equation,

Now, if you're God or at least profoundly more powerful mere mortals, you can take the -E_BB, and perform the following operation,

You see,

W is the operator "The Word", and the word was with God, or something like that, I don't count myself as a Christian although I do believe in God. I think that means that

So God has the matching Word-key to our universe's W^-1 anti-word. That gives the God the power to violate conservation of energy, and to interface with our universe.

Don't panic! I'm not a religious crazy! Accept these thoughts with a dose of humor that someone can actually do shocking things with a little knowledge of quantum mechanics.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 10:13 GMT
By the way, maybe I didn't define my terms. E_BB is the energy of the Big Bang. The theory is that the quantum aether permits violations to conservation of energy within certain symmetric relationships. Virtual particles can exist for a period of time no greater than Delta E/h. In the case of the Big Bang, the energy had to come from somewhere. I propose that E_BB produced and energy debt -E_BB. We don't observe -E_BB, but we do observe gravity. So I describe gravity as the anti-energy U_GR. But I was just playing around with the

idea.I hope I didn't offend you.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 23:39 GMT
To All,

In the above comments, and also on others' pages, there is expressed the belief that Peter Jackson's essay on "the Constant Speed of Light" has some very significant ideas, but still needs a few details worked out. I've been working on these details.

I've finally posted a brief pdf that relates to Jackson's essay (while being based on the ideas in my essay.)

GEM and the Constant Speed of Light

Those interested in the physics of the Constant Speed of Light may wish to consult Jackson's essay and my above effort.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Willard Mittelman wrote on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 22:56 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I put up a post at my paper in which I make some brief comments on your new and interesting paper.

Willard Mittelman

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 04:35 GMT
This response was posted on Linde's article, "Chaos, Consciousness, and the Cosmos" which is outside of this essay contest. Yet is is relevant to comments made here and on Ray's thread, so I'm repeating it here.


Let me hit you with a far-out proposition (not so to me, but to current physicists).

The C-field is a Yang-Mills Calabi-Yau solution to Einstein's equations, and,...

view entire post

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 12:24 GMT
hihihi poof .....POOF!


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 07:55 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I just defeated two opponents in battle over at

In doing so, I've streamlined my argument for the shift photon.

1. What does frequency shift require? A time dilation between two reference frames A and B.

2. How does one get two inertial reference frames to have a time dilation between them. By assuring a gravitational potential energy difference between A and B.

Shift photons are expected to carry a gravitational potential energy

Let's just do the experiment and see if it works.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 23:37 GMT
In my continuing effort to keep 'all things C-field' in one spot, I copy from a response on Willard Mittelman's page to questions about the electromagnetic field:

The primordial field, in my theory, is gravity. It satisfies the Calabi conjecture and deSitter space, where gravity extends over (defines?) all space, and is generated by its own self energy. This bootstrap is mathematically...

view entire post

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 20:39 GMT
More C-field summary in response to other's comments and questions:

The 'gravity', G, that I mention is the one we are all familiar with, from Newton to Einstein to Hawking.

The electro-magnetic fields, E and B, we are also familiar with, from Maxwell to Einstein, etc.

The C-field, which I never heard of in my academic career, is the aspect of gravity that has the same relationship to G as the magnetic field has to B in electrodynamics.

E and B can be considered as 'two' fields, or B can be considered as the relativistic aspect of the 'one' E field. The choice, as far as I can tell, is one of convenience.

Now Maxwell, noticing that Newton's equation and Coulomb's equation had identical form, if we replace G by E and mass by charge, postulated that one could perfom this replacement in ALL of Maxwell's field equations. But this left a 'hole'. What was the analog of the magnetic field? This is the C-field, which he called the gravito-magnetic field. It is either a 4th field or the relativistic aspect of the gravity field. I treat it as a fourth field, because it simplifies things.

So, the short story is: We start with G, which has perfect symmetry. When this 'breaks' we now have G and C **and nothing else**. But the C-field self-interacting vortex will spiral to an infinitely dense point or else something else will happen. I describe the case in which something else happens: electric charge appears at the v=c horizon of the shrinking vortex. Now that we have electric charge, we have the electric and magnetic fields, E and B.

So we now have four fields, G and C, that interact with mass (and hence each other) and E and B, which interact with charge, but are themselves uncharged.

When the term 'electro-magnetic' is applied to gravity, it is an analogy. It is not an equivalence. The G-C mass-based fields are ultimately different from the E-B charge-based fields.

I hope this is getting clearer. G and C follow from Einstein's general relativity, I didn't make them up. E and B follow from Maxwell's field equations.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 00:46 GMT
A note on the assumptions in Verlinde's theory of gravity:

1. introduces an 'effective' force, the entropic force [conservative macroscopically]

2. assume space is...literally just a storage space for information.

3. assume that information is stored on surfaces.

4. imagine that info about particle location is stored in discrete bits on screen.

5. dynamics on each screen given by unknown rules.

6. [info processing] doesn't have to be by local field theory or anything familiar.

7. assume [like AdS/CFT] one special direction for course graining variables.

8. assume well defined notion of time [microscopic].

9. assume Bekenstein's argument [about] Compton wavelength.

10. postulate change of energy associated with info on boundary.

11. assume entropy proportialnal to mass [and additive]

12. use osmosis to analogize an effective force of entropy.

13. assume Unruh's temperature proportional to acceleration.

14. forget Unruh for Newton, don't need.

15 Think of boundary as storage for info, assume holographic principle.

16. assume number of bits proportional to area.

17. introduce new constant, G.

18. assume energy divided evenly over N-bits.

19. assume [invisible] mass is noticed through its energy.

20 Voila -- Newton's law, "practically from first principles".


Contrast with my assumptions:

1. Assume only one field, G, that can interact only with itself: del dot G = G dot G.

2. apply Maxwell: E=G^2 & Einstein: E=mc^2 --yielding Newton's law: del dot G = -m.


And compare the things that fall out of the Master equation in my essay.

Verlinde says that he has just 'reversed' the logic that led from Newton's law to black hole thermodynamics in order to instead go from black hole thermodynamics to Newton's law.

But is this the equivalent of "drawing a map from territory" [Korzybski] and then trying to derive territory from a map? Do all reversals make physical sense?

Finally, I believe that the 'energy/area' relations for the black hole can be derived *exactly* without ever invoking the concept of information. So why, if the relation is simply dependent on energy, would one insist that information be brought into the picture in such an artificial fashion dependent on so many assumptions, some quite questionable?

I don't believe information is a 'thing'. It is 'about' things, and thus dependent on a representation. 'Things' do not depend on representations, they are real.

This is, I believe, related to the excursion of physics from reality that I see in full swing.

Thanks for your consideration,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 22:04 GMT
Wouldn't photons be the most fundamental carrier of information? Is there anything else that can carry information that cannot be decomposed into photons?

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 00:00 GMT

Yes, photons are the probably the most fundamental carriers of information, in the sense that they convey descriptive information about their source [or last reflection, etc]. Gravity and the C-field would also seem to carry information about the location and quantity of mass, but it may be more coarse-grained, or diffuse, than photons. Photons are probably the winner there. Many things carry info, for example in a sense the tides carry info about the moon, jets at the LHC carry info about the collision, etc.

This is completely different from the current [misguided imho] idea that info 'piles up' on the "surface of a black hole" and somehow 'reaches' to the 'particle' that carried that info into the black hole. This is doubly nuts, since the surface area relation can be completely derived from an energy treatment that has nothing to do with information.

There are so many people taking the descriptive 'maps' we've drawn from our study of the territory, and trying to use them as the basis of deriving the physical 'territory', that one understands why Korzybski titled his opus magnum "Science and Sanity". The inability to distinguish between the maps and the territory they represent is definitely linked to insanity, and pushing science in this direction is going to revive all kinds of other religions, once science becomes just another religion, based on non-testable,non-perceivable, outside of this world, concepts. Then it will be too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

By the way, on your idea about red-shift as loss of information: see my paper GEM and the Constant Speed of Light that I addressed to Peter Jackson, and you'll see how this info can be preserved in the C-field.

Also, Dan T Benedict posted on Chaos, Consciousness, and the Cosmos a remark from a conversation with you that is very interesting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 19:56 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I'll read the Benedict article and make another pass over the GEM paper.

BTW, here is my take on information and gravity. Photons carry information by virtue of there frequency. But gravity is a time dilation field that can change the frequency. Gravity doesn't transmit information so much as it focuses/unfocuses the information. Or another analogy, when you're looking out the window of a plane, you can see the mountains, but you can't count the ants on an anthill/make out the details.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 21:30 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Just one comment. The predicted circular drag of the electron reminds me of another feature of shift photons. If, with each shift to the next frequency, the polarization rotates a little faster in the same direction, the overall result could be a torque or corkscrew force. It happens because the polarizations of each frequency shift result in a torque.

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict wrote on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 03:22 GMT

You have written interesting and beautifully illustrated essay. I'm still digesting the details after a second read, but I applaud your approach. It seems that instead of adding on another layer, your attempting something truly fundamental in your "start from scratch" method toward a simple TOE. I have used a similar approach in my essay in developing a new cosmology without a priori use of General Relativity (as with all other modern cosmologies) and have made some interesting conclusions. I hope you will have a chance to read and comment on it, as I'd value your opinion.

I also thought you would be interested in a new forum discussion started recently re. Bell's Inequality. The forum was started by FQXI's member Joy Christian from Oxford Univ. She is discussing a preprint paper she wrote entitled "What Really Sets the Upper Bound on Quantum Correlations?" in which she uses division algebras and topological arguments to falsify quantum non-locality. One of her concluding remarks is:

"By contrast, our topologically sensitive analysis of the set of all possible measurement results allows us to complete the accountings by Bell, and leads us to conclude that there are no incompatibilities between local-realism and the predictions of quantum mechanics." Her forum can be found here


report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 03:02 GMT
My apologies to Professor Joy Christian. I incorrectly assumed his gender from his first name. That's why proper research will help keep egg off your face. My bad.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 05:08 GMT

An understandable error, and one that is easily over-ridden by simply 'spreading the word' that a sophisticated explanation for the so-called 'violation of Bell's inequality' and all of the 'non-local', 'non-real', non-sense that followed therefrom.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dan T Benedict replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 02:32 GMT
Amen, brother.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 04:10 GMT

Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for the information that you keep providing me. I was interested in PEAR and very much so in Bell's inequality.

I've read your essay the first time and have read the exchange between you and Tom. I hope to have some comments for you later.

As you know, and will continue to find out, it's tough to step outside the orthodoxies.

Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 19:12 GMT
Edwin this reproduces my note to you accidently posted on Willards string. I also suggested Joy Christian, re her blog on disproving Bell, read your essay and the strings.

I posted back to you on my string.

The above was also very helpful, and rang a steeple full of bells.

In my latest paper (which haven't yet got accepted either) I identify tokamacs as the geometrical solution, which I think is analageous to your field relationships.

The rotation and forces are not only dual axis but helical. It is a torus, with a plasmasphere of 'extended space' translating at rest with it, which spins round it's 'ring' axis, with a force also round it's sectional circumference, giving and endless helix. This is from nuclear physics, but the whole angular momentum of a galaxy is concentrated into one (though not quite ALL at once, hence blazars) because black holes are toroid. (also stellar mass bh's - you must know the Chandra crab nebula core photo). Tokamaks have 'intrinsic' rotational motion. If scaling works how it should quasars even become a prime candidate as a big bang process, which means big 'crunch', and before it was our predecessor galaxy. Then that's the sort of thinking that gets papers rejected of course. Peer review editors will have a lot to answer for come the revolution!

40] J.E. Rice et al 2007 Nucl. Fusion 47 1618 IOP Inter-machine comparison of intrinsic toroidal rotation in tokamaks.

And re your note about the vortex wall = a little over 7 x c, which is the max ejection velocity we've found from our frame (but 'c' locally in the 'incentric' graduated stream).

I'm trying to work out precisely how the FSC emerges at 1/137th. I have it increasing with motion, and the fine structure itself as the diffractive medium. (all receivers measure em at c because the receivers fine structure makes it so). Ergo inertial frames.

I'm doing some further revisions to my current paper (on galaxy evolution) and would like to cite something of yours. I'm not quite sure what and where yet but would need to do it quickly, and it would need to be concise - any ideas?

I really must find one your books!

Any harmonious oscillations there?

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 05:17 GMT

I've been tied up studying Joy Christian's papers. I think that these will be historic, right up there with EPR.

This fqxi contest is very stimulating. A lot of new ideas to absorb and analyze.

As for your galaxy ideas, I haven't seen them yet. You're a busy beaver, and it's hard to be sure what you're claiming from the short comments. While I do think my theory complements your contest entry, I'm not sure that we overlap in the other areas that you are pursuing. I don't understand enough about your over-all approach, and I don't think that you understand mine yet, so it's hard to know the boundaries. Even your reference above to the 'vortex wall', if I understand it correctly is confused. The vortex wall of the C-field boson has no connection to the 'incentric' idea of cosmic jets. Also, I've derived the fine structure constant based on the C-field vortex, and doubt that it is related to your FSC derivation.

In short, I believe it's going to be difficult to merge my ideas with yours, but I do believe that the paper I wrote supports your contest essay, and I would encourage you to try to wrap that idea up before getting too thinly spread. Since I haven't seen your other ideas worked out in detail it's hard to say more.

My books are here. All of them but 'The Atheist and the God Particle' are pretty heavily mathematical. That one is for a popular audience.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 04:51 GMT
To all:

In case you haven't heard yet, a major new treatment of entanglement is here. Joy Christian has, in my opinion, demolished entanglement and non-locality. I think you will find her papers enlightening. I surely do.

My first approach was to try to link her treatment to the points I made above, about 'changes en route', but then I realized that they are irrelevant. What she does is derive the QM inequality from local reality. The violations go away!

I highly recommend these papers. I suspect they are historic.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 20:02 GMT
I've discovered Joy Christian is a man. All other remarks stand.

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 14:11 GMT

You may have seen on arXiv Sabine H's excellent challenge to Mssrs Amelio-Camilia and Lee Smolins Double Special Relativity, (DSR) which principally suffers the same problems as SR with inequality, but also lack of either quantum vacuum or explanation of 'c' wrt receivers. I can't yet find the solid logic in Joy's papers (I'll have to leave the maths to you). He is of course associated with perimeter, so his theory would help support DSR.

I certainly believe the result is correct, but I'm not sure it uses the right reasoning, or that it will be accepted into mainstream. So although it supports my own results, and may indeed prove historic, (I hope it does) it's not a basket I find myself happy to put too many eggs in yet.

But I think you will like this, which I referred you to but failed to post in my own string;


PS I believe Jason is also thinking a little closer to the C field now.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 02:25 GMT

Thanks for that reference. Some interesting info in that article.

First, it is beyond me why anyone would call an electric field of 10^18 V/m a "vacuum".

Second, they say that "by quantum "magic" the deeply perturbed vacuum is restored after the pulse has passed." Sounds strange to me. They they state that "Two superposed pulses do not so much interact with each other, but interact together with the fluctuations in the vacuum." Of course, if I were explaining it, I would have the C-fields interacting.

Similarly, "the new and unexpected scattering of light on light", would not have been unexpected from the perspective of the C-field induced by the photon momentum.

So thanks for the info.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 00:11 GMT
A discussion of approaches to Joy Christian's work on Bell's inequality:

There are possible approaches to Christian's treatment of Bell's inequality. One approach, beautifully illustrated by Florin, is to bring all mathematics at your command to the problem, and hope this answers the question.

Another is based upon physics and physical understanding. My theory is local-realistic and...

view entire post

Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 22:45 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Does the Big Bang event violate the empirical law: Conservation of Energy? If not, then where did that energy come from?

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 23:17 GMT

Assume you have 2 masses gravitationally attracting each other. if you add a third mass, the system will be more tightly bound. In physics bound systems are considered to have negative energy, in that positive energy is required to un-bind the system. For example, if we wish to move the third mass out to 'infinity' we have to expend a lot of positive energy, just as a spacecraft has to expend energy to 'escape' the gravitation that binds it to the earth.

So gravitational energy has been considered (since Maxwell, I believe) to be negative.

This is not so different from an electron in orbit about a proton. It takes about 13.6 eV of positive energy to overcome the binding energy, hence the binding energy is 'negative'.

In my essay I assume that nothing but the gravitational field exists initially. The energy of the field implies equivalent mass thru E=mc^2.

But this field is 'exploding' (I hate that word) away from the Big Bang, so the equivalent mass is moving away and hence has positive kinetic energy, or energy of motion. In this sense some speculate that the initial negative potential energy of gravity plus the positive kinetic energy associated with the field's outward expansion sum up to zero. I believe that this is called the "Free Lunch Universe" or similar, since the Big Bang in this case occurs with net zero energy, thus conserving energy.

Make sense?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 01:48 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I totally agree with the "Free Lunch Universe" also known as the "Zero energy Universe". Furthermore, I am "one-upping" the argument by saying that the shift photon is symmetric to a gravity or time dilation field. While multiple lasers would be necessary to create a shift photon, I am suggesting that shift photons themselves would be the key to creating more "zero-energy" in the form of shift photon propulsion.

At this fork in the road, either the physics community will shrug and call me a creative "wack-job", or will build the experiment and attempt to throw off the shackles of conservation of energy. Neither String theory nor M-theory have a testable alternative.

I would like to provide a scientific framework upon which the UFO phenomena can be understood. If we had even a theoretical understanding of how space-ships can hover and move without using rocket fuel, jet engines or aerospace technology, then we could hope to build our own.

Conservation of energy has to be challenged, probed, and assailed, or we will live out our civilization's life span without ever reaching a distant star or truly exploring the universe.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 03:03 GMT

Face it, the odds are good that the physics community will shrug and call us all creative "wack-jobs". I hope that Joy Christian, at least, escapes this destiny, but it would be out of character for the community to do anything else.

I addressed some of this in your thread with my Jan. 28, 2011 @ 02:50 GMT comment. I said:

"I like your shift photon as frequency analog of Newton's force equation. But although gravity produces a force, force does not necessarily produce gravity, unless gravity and acceleration are defined to be identical. But then what does one call it when an electric field accelerates a charged particle--gravity? In an equation, the equal sign often has sort of a 'one-way' meaning. I suspect it's the same for photon shift."

In other words, gravity shifts the photon. The photon shift may not make gravity. Just as time doesn't really flow both ways, no matter how much some theories suggest it does (or should). The universe seems to have 'directions'.

But I also said that I've recently focused more effort on understanding the coupling of the electromagnetic and the gravito-magnetic fields and have run across a few surprises, and that I plan to spend more effort on this.

At times in my life, I have felt just as you do about interstellar travel. At the moment I'm just having fun exploring this local universe.

I don't want to discourage you, neither do I want to falsely lead you on, so I just make the most informative and appropriate responses I can.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 04:07 GMT

In the case of time running in both directions, it creates grandfather paradoxes which automatically disqualifies the idea of time travel. In the case of shift photons, I just think it's a cool idea that gravity and relativistic motion frequency shift photons. Shift photons seem to be natural carriers of equivalent gravitational potential energy. The mathematics is already there and doesn't seem to resist being used backwards.

I was looking at gravitational waves. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravitational waves. But think of this. If space-time can have gravity waves, then doesn't it follow that space-time can have a resonant frequency? I've got a shift photon that can act like a gravity wave, but it takes a lot of energy to get any kind of lift from it. Yet, if shift photons could match the resonance of space-time, then a new form of propulsion would be inevitable.

I think shift photons are a cool idea. Redshift and time dilation already describe the effect of gravity upon light. We can use light to transmit information in amazing ways. It just seems on natural that frequency shifted light can carry a gravity wave. All we have to do is find the natural resonance frequency of space-time and ...

Maybe the shift photon idea is a few centuries too early.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 03:51 GMT

Another excellent idea, that space-time could have a resonant frequency if it supports gravity waves. Unfortunately, I am tending toward the belief that gravity waves do not exist.

But if they do, your idea of driving the resonance with shift photons is innovative.

I too think that shift photons are a cool idea. Whether it is an idea that physically works as you want it to is less certain. Some of my best ideas were cool, but the numbers do not always work out. But if the numbers do work, and you can figure out how to demonstrate its operation, then you definitely won't have to wait centuries.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Robert Spoljaric wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 21:59 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

As I keep telling Jaons, you are a true gentleman and scholar. FQXi should consider you for membership, as I sincerely believe you would be an invaluable asset! To show my appreciation for your careful consideration of my essay, I have awareded you 10 points.

Thanks again,


report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 22:18 GMT
Sorry Jason, my damn fingers seem to want to type whatever they please, or I should consider glasses!


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 01:04 GMT
I agree. Dr. Klingman is a true gentlemen, an assett and should be considered for membership in FQXI.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 05:08 GMT
Robert, Jason - thank you for your expressions of good will.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

T H Ray wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 16:45 GMT

As promised, I read your paper -- or at least, I started it, but I can't get past the first two papges without questions hitting me in the face, so if we may deal with those, and see what happens from there:

1. How does your master equation (1) differ from the Laplace equation? If the object is to find a function on some domain ("primordial field") where according to Laplace (operator)^2 = 0 -- and I don't see how the object could be otherwise, because you want the laws of physics to be derived from a zero point vacuum ("interacts with itself") -- then quantum fluctuations already explain that cosmology; i.e., a zero average quantum field vacuum energy fluctuates locally away from zero. But this preempts your claim to derive all physics from a local model.

2. Scale invariance only implies motion invariance at T = 1. Locally, mapping arbitrary t ---> T, we get time dependence as you note, but then one cannot map that local time dependent dynamic space onto the motion-invariant space without a nonlocal model (which is exactly what Bell's theorem says).

Unless you mean something nonstandard by "locality" that I don't understand, I can't go further into your thesis. Hope you can help me.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 19:27 GMT

Although I'm not sure that page by page is the best way to go, at least on first reading, I'll try to get you past the first page.

You ask if: del (dot) g = g (dot ) g is the same as del (dot) del = 0.

Once one applies Maxwell's and Einstein's teachings on field energy and mass equivalence then we find Newton's equation falls out of the original equation, but that is based on the application of physical teachings to the starting assumption.

Did you expect that some elementary starting point based on the assumption of one field and only one field would somehow not look like Laplace equation? You say that you don't see how it could be otherwise.

You then say it is equivalent to "a zero point vacuum ("interacts with itself") -- then quantum fluctuations already explain that cosmology; i.e., a zero average quantum field vacuum energy fluctuates locally away from zero. But this preempts your claim to derive all physics from a local model."

This brings in all of your quantum preconceptions, which you have already stated don't make sense without non-locality. This will of course prevent your seeing that there is a way to make sense of local realism. I don't know how to purge your mind of things that you think you know, but I suspect this is going to prevent you from making sense of my model. Since it appears that both Florin and Christian have agreed with Einstein and others that QM is incomplete, I wish that you would try to open your mind to a new understanding, rather than start on page one and say that quantum mechanics contradicts my model.

You style seems heavily based on mathematics with little or no input from physical intuition. That's understandable, in that QM for a century has been mystical and non-intuitive. But that's not my approach, and if it turns out, as I think it will, that Bell's inequality was incorrect, then all of the non-sense of non-local, non-real physics should be forgotten. So if you wish to try to understand my model, please attempt to forget these non-sensical ideas. And if you cannot manage to do that, then you may as well save your time and not bother with the rest of my essay. You should go back and fight with Joy Christian if that is your approach, because I don't intend to fight the battle of non-locality here.

However, if you'd like to try to understand an alternative, then I'll be happy to work with you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 19:46 GMT

If you're still with me.

You say that "Scale invariance only implies motion invariance at T = 1. Locally, mapping arbitrary t ---> T, we get time dependence as you note, but then one cannot map that local time dependent dynamic space onto the motion-invariant space without a non-local model (which is exactly what Bell's theorem says)."

I agree that one cannot map local time dependent dynamic space onto the motion invariant space, and that is why I say 'formal time dependence'. As long as the original field has perfect symmetry then it is time and motion invariant. But if symmetry breaks, then "action orthogonal to a radial field vector can produce a vortex or cyclical phenomenon in a region of space, introducing duration or cycle time. So time appears when the G-field symmetry breaks and local oscillations, i.e. natural clocks, occur."

The time dependent phase occurs as symmetry breaking; real time dependence appears with the C-field. And the local vortices are Yang-Mills in nature.

Tom, try to picture the expansion of the perfectly spherical gravity field as equivalent mass 'moving' outward [or being 'scaled up']. Each 'ray' of this energy/mass would ordinarily induce a C-field circulation around it, but it is surrounded by other rays, each of which is inducing their own C-field circulation, and the net result is that all C-field circulation cancels and the C-field is 'suppressed'. When symmetry breaks, this changes. First, the Lorentz-like force equation shows an inflationary aspect will appear immediately, and second, the 'first' vortex to appear after symmetry breaking may actually induce a 'preferred direction' also known as the 'axis of evil'.

We now have an inflating universe and a means of producing particles, beginning with neutrinos.

I hope you focus on the physics involved here.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

T H Ray replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 21:37 GMT

I think we have too many differences to overcome. In answering my objections, you just raised more; e.g., saying that the symmetry breaking of your unified field is equivalent to local realism. That conception is Newtonian, not relativistic. You must have absolute time and space to make it work. Compare to Einstein's concept of the unified field: "Relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field." It has to be so, because though gravity is symmetrical (time reverse symmetry), the limitation imposed by invariant light speed by which all physics is local denies universal invariance of time. You've either got invariant time, or you've got a nonlocal model. Which is why Einstein's theory failed. Nonlocality comes with quantum mechanics. You don't have to like it, but you have to live with it.


report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 21:55 GMT
Edwin, congratulations on an excellent essay. I have also enjoyed your comments in the FQXi forum.

A couple sentences from your conclusion jumped out at me: "A continuous universe evolves to discrete reality, where quantum conditions carve up the continuum, such that analog inputs occasion digital outputs or threshold crossings," and, "Informed reality depends upon the existence of thresholds." This same idea struck me as I was writing my essay. I argued that it is specifically biological (and technological) processes -- which are typically threshold-based -- which give rise to the discrete reality of facts and observations, and these exclusively form the basis of everything we know about the world. In other words it is the process of techno-biological measurement that "carves up the continuum"; I refer to that carved-up continuum as the "broken universe." I discuss requirements and often-ignored peculiarities of decoherence to support this view. I realize this is kind of an audacious metaphysical position to be taking, and my impression is many readers aren't sure what to make of it.

Anyway, I hope you can check it out sometime, and best of luck in the competition.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 22:16 GMT

Thanks for your comment. Yours was one of the first essays I read and I intended to comment, then got caught up in all the other essays and comment threads. I will re-read your essay and post a comment.

The 'original' threshold, and in my mind the essential threshold, is the quantum of action, h. Analog or continuous fields can exist and I believe do exist, but until they cross the threshold of minimum action, nothing happens. Past that point everything that you characterize as biological and technological becomes possible, probably inevitable.

Probably the reason that I did not immediately comment is your focus on 'coherence' and 'decoherence'. While I think that I agree with you, this aspect is fuzzy enough in my mind to preclude making easy statements about it.

However, I have recently come to believe that some C-field phenomena are best understood in these terms, so I am trying to un-fuzz my thinking.

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

basudeba wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 16:04 GMT
Dear Sir,

We cannot understand why scientists have to resort to weirdness to explain physical phenomena. Confinement and Entanglement are not quantum phenomena alone, but they have macro examples also. Superposition of states arises out of the mechanism of measurement, which has been sensationalized by imputing imaginary characteristics to it.

As we have explained in our essay,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 20:21 GMT
Dear basudeba,

We are in essential agreement on a number of things, although we differ in the details.

As you are by now aware, Bell's inequality is facing a challenge and I believe that it will fail the test. I say this partly because I agree with Christian's approach to the problem, and partly because I reject the absurdity of the non-locality and non-reality implied by the so-called 'violations' of Bell's incorrectly calculated inequality. I view entanglement as local in origin and sustained by conservation, as one would expect from local realism.

There are those who believe that a simple calculation is enough to forsake rationality, realism, and locality. I simply reject this. I have attempted to pursue a 'holistic' theory in which the evolution of known reality follows from simplest principles consistent with experiment. I reject the extra dimensions, extra universes, one-dimensional strings, branes, and so forth.

I do agree that particles are essentially self-confined fluids condensed from the primordial field, and that this is what is seen in the 'perfect fluid' at the LHC. From the perspective of a vortex there are just a few ways in which particles can 'condense' and whenever sufficient energy from collisions is input to 'dissolve' the local particle back into the 'fluid' state, then the same basic particles will reappear, and their resonant combinations, in jets.

As for confinement, the quarks are confined to a self-sustained (C-field) solenoidal 'flux tube' whose energy exceeds the particle production energy, hence any attempt to 'knock one loose' will fail, as a new particle pair will be generated, half of which preserves the nucleon, and the other half of which combines as a hadron to pair with the 'departing' particle.

The key to understanding this is to see the system as a Yang-Mills fluid that is locally real and physical. To impart mystical properties based on essentially mystical 'wave functions' leads to probabilistic results that are utilitarian, but are misleading when taken as the complete description of reality.

So we agree on much. And I have read your long comments on Mr. Castel and Mr. Granet threads, and thank you for keeping my thread 'clean'.

Good luck in your researches.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

basudeba wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 13:01 GMT
Respected Sir,

The last line of your post (keeping your thread clean) is interesting. We are only questioning from a logical perspective the very questions that should be asked for finding out the truth and not for proving a point or for bravado or just for fun. If that scares some people, we can't help. Since we agree with you on most issues in principle, there is no reason for us to "dirty" your thread.

Yet, without using "self-sustained (C-field) solenoidal 'flux tube' " or "Yang-Mills fluid", we have derived the forces and particles from the primordial field and succeeded in uniting them. Soon we will come out with the full theory.



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 19:34 GMT
Dear basudeba,

I did not mean to offend you by my last sentence. As I had noticed that you had posted some very long comments on others threads, I simply meant to thank you for keeping your comments 'brief', there was no implication of 'dirty'. It was a poor choice of words on my behalf.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 13:59 GMT
Hi Edwin, I liked the style of your thinking very much. It's nice to see someone else with the idea of an analog-in, digital-out universe. I also think I've found the sticking point in history which is why we are having this competition in the first place. I replied to another essay, by Jarmo, which sums it up rather well I believe. He imagines asking Newton himself what he thinks of modern advances in physics:

An excellent and entertaining entrance to your essay Jarmo, congratulations on your imagination and ingeniuty. I have a burning question which I've always wanted to ask Newton though, which is this:

Q: Since he equated the ancient greek philosophy of the smallest irreducible particle, called an atom, with the motions of the planets as observed by Galileo Galilei, does he want to know what his very large unspoken logical assumption was, which has now meant that humanity has been led down the wrong scientific path?

Ans: He assumed that the cores of the planets and sun are composed of the same everyday matter which is found on the external crust. (It's not necessarily the case and so invalidates the whole of Einstein's space-time concept imo and also invalidates the results of the Cavendish experiment to 'weigh' the Earth).

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 21:18 GMT

Thanks for the compliment. I noted that you remarked on several threads about considering "the Archimedes screw as an analogy for something with both particle and wave properties?" If you look at the static pictures at the top of page 6, and imagine them as dynamic, that is approximately what you would see.

Your idea of gravity as the Archimedes screw is novel. As you probably know, Maxwell modeled electro-dynamics mechanically, even after he had the field equations. It was an easier sell. (I'm not buying your model, just admiring the novelty of it.)

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 10:20 GMT
Yes, I see what you mean about the figures at top of page 6. Yet it's the simplicity of the mechanical screw idea which has yet to sink in to the mathematically minded I think. I have studied simulation modelling at masters degree level at Brunel University an have been addicted to solving the big mystery of everything since my older brother studied astrophysics at Leeds. I left my scientifc career so that I wouldn't be influenced by the mainstream line of thinking. I was sure that an elementary mistake had been made in the course of history. Now that I've found it, all the problems of science have revealed themselves and slowly unfolded into an image which is easily comprehendable. All without the use of mathematics. If you imagine the Archimedes screw turning, then the helical action can act as force of attraction when interacting with another particle. If this screw travelled around a wraparound universe, then it would emege on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy. How can this simple model be so easily ignored by the science community I ask you?

Yes, I have been posting this message on a select number of essays because I want to spark the imagination of a special someone able to take the idea forward. Thank you for the appreciation of it's novelty. You're the first!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 06:14 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I have an idea that's probably a brain buster even for a NASA physicist. Here goes. I'm want to come up with an idea for a hyper-space that won't create any physics violations. One possible violation would be that a hyper-drive would permit someone to enter a black hole and, in effect, violate thermodynamics. The other problem is I have is that I want spaceships that can hover like they do in the movies. So here is the idea.

Remember we agreed that if gravity is the negative energy that balances the energy of the Big Bang, then conservation of energy is protected because the net energy is zero? Well what if we try a variation of that. We have,

But now, we make the positive E_BB the gravity (space-time term), and the energy is negative. What happens?

I believe that in this particular universe, accumulations of energy are gravitationally repulsive. So there are not likely to be any accumulations of mass-energy.

But what about a gravitationally signficicant object (planet, star, blackhole), in our universe? Could we get a (negative mass-energy) in hyper-space to attract itself to a massive planet/star/black hole in our universe?

The result would be that the hyperspace around the earth, stars, blackholes, would be gravitatationally repulsive to the (negative energy) of that universe.

I'm not sure how you feel about manipulating space. But if we build a spaceship that can surround itself in hyperspace ...

OK, it's getting a bit weird even for me. The idea sounded good when I thought of it, but now ...

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 02:21 GMT

We'd all like to have a spaceship that hovers.

In my understanding of your equation above, the -E_bb is the potential energy of the gravity field and the +E_bb is the equivalent mass of this energy 'exploding' outward with kinetic energy that balances the potential energy.

While I've read as much sci-fi as the next guy, maybe more, I am not much of a believer in hyperspace, so I'm not much help there.

But as I've said before, keep those new ideas flowing.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 04:17 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I'm not sure if a hyper-space exists either. However, I think there is merit in giving it a try. In my essay, I said that everything in physics can be described by photons and wave-functions. So I'm using that as a strategy. Objects like particles, waves and space-ships can be described as a wave-function,

which exists within our space-time called,

The idea I have is to posit a surface (closed surface) that functions as an interface that surrounds object (wave-function),

This interface will cause cause the object to behave like an object in hyper-space (space-time S_i),

Using this setup, I want to try some round trip journeys for photons and particles that travel, first by hyper-space and return via space-time. I want to figure out what kinds of relationships exist between h and h' (Planck constant), G and G'(Gravity constant), and c' >> c. I want to require:

1. causality, and

2. conservation of energy (initially).

I want to try dropping the object through hyper-space and compare it with a drop through standard space-time.

I'm not sure if I should call the interface a wave-function or an operator. But it should permit the object obey conservation of momentum, in hyper-space, with a mass content of,

If the speed of light c_i is large enough, we could build a star-ship that weighs as much as a battleship in space-time, but weights only a few kilograms in hyper-space.

I want to use the shift-photon idea to create hyper-space gravity waves.

At the very least, I might discover a hidden relationship between c, h and G, something that fixes their values. I think this effort is worth it. Falsifiability would come from building a shift photon generator and running it at a very high repetition rate.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 19:59 GMT

I've seen your comments on hyper-space before, but I've never quite figured out what it is you're talking about. I'm missing something critical.

On another topic, I just posted to Peter the following:

I have been looking at 'ring laser gyroscopes' and thinking that you might also be interested in these devices. They produce two counter-rotating laser beams around a closed circuit. When the circuit physically rotates, one path is effectively lengthened and the opposite shortened, with consequent interference fringes that can produce 'beats' on a photo-detector proportional to the angular rotation speed. This allows the device to function as a gyroscope for navigational purposes (used on Airbus A320 and many others). Just google "ring laser gyro".

Also interesting is that Martin Tajmar used such a device to measure the C-field. By placing the 'ring' around a C-field dipole, one laser beam is flowing 'with' the C-field, and the other is flowing 'against' the C-field and of course the interference allows highly accurate measurement of the circulation of the field.

Among other questions is what happens when the beams are in vacuum and one beam is effectively 'speeded up'.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Niklaus Buehlmann wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT
Dear Sir,

your essay was very interseting to read! Congratulations!

As I am not an expert in these theories I have a (possibly trivial) question.

You mentioned at pg.5 a final assumption for deriving real particles, distinguishable from real fields: That the curvature of space is limited. And as consequences of this, that electrons and quarks and also black holes appear as limits.

My question is: If you have a limit for the curvature: is this a natural constant or could you also chose a half or a quarter of this number and guarantees also a limited curvature?

Best regards

Niklaus Buehlmann

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 20:13 GMT

Thank you for your comment and for an interesting question.

While the process effectively provides a 'limit to curvature' the term itself may be more metaphorical than accurate. What happens is this:

The equivalent mass of the vortex wall, interacting with itself, produces a solenoidal C-field, just as an electric charge current produces a solenoidal magnetic field. But the increased C-field has the effect of forcing the vortex wall toward the central axis, while conservation of angular momentum increases the speed of the vortex wall. Where does this end? If an ice skater could pull her arms in all the way to a zero radius, how fast would she spin?

This is not a 'boost' situation, such as occurs in relativistic linear acceleration, so there is no natural limit, and no reason to assume that the vortex wall velocity will not reach the speed of light. If it does, what happens? I conjecture that electric charge is created at the v=c point in the process. As it turns out, the equations show that the point where this occurs is the Compton radius of the electron, that is, the 'size' of the electron as observed by electromagnetic radiation. This does not stop the vortex wall from shrinking to a point, but now there is a 'braking force' at play, since the self-repulsion of the charge increasingly resists the shrinking.

You ask about a 'natural constant' associated with this process. If one sets the C-field inward force equal to the charge self-repulsion outward force, then the point at which they are equal (and presumed stable) yields the fine structure constant, which is currently derived in no other theory.

And this 'stable' size is of the order of 10^-18 meters, a thousand time less than Compton wavelength. So the electro-magnetic field sees one size, that is associated with the v=c wall velocity, while particle collisions see a much smaller size that is associated with the final stable radius of the particle. Note that all electrons are 'identical' since one cannot even in theory observe a 'mark' on one, as the mark would move away faster than c.

This conjecture as to how charge comes into the picture is the weakest point of my theory, but compare it to string theory in which each 'winding' of the string through a 'hole' in an 11-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifold produces one unit of charge, and it doesn't appear so unreasonable. And QED simply conjectures that quantum fields, operating at a point, produce charge, but without mass, which requires a Higgs field.

I hope that explanation gives you a better picture of the process that I metaphorically described as 'limit of curvature'. It actually does limit the curvature of the C-field vortex wall, but it is due to the self-repulsion of the charge equaling the inward force of the C-field on the vortex wall.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 08:35 GMT
Congratulations Edwin! You made the front page. Just click on HOME to see it. Well done.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 07:39 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I need to draw a picture to show you this. The Big Bang was an energy conserved event because a gravitational potential (negative energy) and an explosion of light (positive energy) both exploded outward at the speed of light. Both add to zero.

But there is another energy conserved event. Photon Theory says that everything in physics can be decomposed into photons and wave-functions. Here is an example of a gravity wave-function.

A space-ship produces

(1) a negative energy gravity wave that travels to the left, and

(2) a positive energy gravity wave that travels to the right.

The spaceship is supposed to ride the negative energy gravity wave. If it rides the positive energy gravity wave, it falls off and gets left behind.

If the space-ship is too big, the gravity wave leaves it behind. If the space-ship rides inside the negative energy gravity wave, it will literally travel at the speed of light for as long as the space-ship remains inside.

It's not a hyper-drive, but the speed of light is still pretty quick.

I need help with the the details. What do you think?

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 04:44 GMT

You ask what I think, so here goes.

I am not at all convinced that 'gravity waves' exist. I listened to Joseph Weber circa 1970 lecture on his first gravitational wave detector, and it's been a long dry 40 years since, with no waves detected, despite that Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics.

You also state: "Photon Theory says that everything in physics can be decomposed into photons and wave-functions."

I believe that photons are physically real and that wave-functions are a mathematical description and are not physically real, so it's difficult for me to help design a system that contains (from my perspective) real and imaginary parts.

So without intending to discourage you in any way from sticking with your Shift Photon idea, I won't be much help for positive and negative energy gravity waves traveling away from a source. If the 'negative wave' were strong enough for the ship to 'ride it', it would probably induce destructive tides in the ship.

But you continue to display the most fertile imagination in sight.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 05:11 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I do appreciate that you read what I write.

It is strange that gravity waves have not been detected. Photon Theory still maintains that gravity and space-time are made out of wave-functions. The idea of constructive and deconstructive waves, and interference patterns, keeps presenting itself as a solution to describing gravity and space-time. Yet, we don't observe that. Instead, we observe that gravity fields do seem to mirror the energy within them. But the damping effect prevents (or hides) the oscillations.

It's true that in riding a gravity wave, one does not want to become crushed by it. I'm trying to borrow from particle-anti-particle creation where both particles fly off in opposite directions. According to Photon theory, a gravity wave of this kind has to be made out of a particular kind of wave-function; one that remains stable with a space-ship inside. The spaceship and the gravity wave have to balance each others gravitational potential. Mmm...

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 06:41 GMT
Dear Edwin,

You've got me on the ropes with your probing questions. But I think I can answer the question: where are the gravity waves?

Let's contemplate a one dimensional space-time with gravitational potential energy V(x,t) = V_0 cos (kx-wt). Actually, it's a longitudinal wave. Between any two points in space-time, there are an infinite set of these waves (or at least a lot of them). We don't see the waves because there are plenty of terms in the series to cancel out oscillations/deviations in potential energy.

I can't discern any more detail tonight other than to say that time dilation is built into these waves. In effect, when a large quantity of mass-energy builds up somewhere on the one-dimensional space-time, potential energy is pushed negative.

Let me think this over.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 20:49 GMT
Dear Ed,

Your Master Equation seems to generate the correct types of fields, but I am concerned that these limited fields (G,C,E,M) in 4 dimensions do not contain enough degrees of freedom to account for all known generations of "fundamental particles" - at least an SO(10) of fermions and an SU(5) of bosons. You begin with continuous fields only, and try to insert quantized "fundamental...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 04:58 GMT

This reply follows the comment below.

You are concerned that "the limited fields (G,C,E,M) in 4 dimensions do not contain enough degrees of freedom to account for all known generations of "fundamental particles" - at least an SO(10) of fermions and an SU(5) of bosons."

There are only three known generations (and closure of CKM seems to imply that's all there ever will be) and my model produces these three generations.

Then you say "You begin with continuous fields only, and try to insert quantized "fundamental particles", but you omitted talking about Second Quantization, and this is the most accepted method for obtaining quantized particles from continuous fields. I also didn't discuss Second Quantization in my essay, because I proposed that fields and particles are both necessary complementary inverse scales."

Ray, I do not take Second Quantization to be physically real, but only an algebraic approach to "creating" and "annihilating" ideal 'particles' at a 'point'. Nothing real there as far as I'm concerned. I believe I mentioned (on your thread) that my Masters thesis treated the shift in energy levels of an F-center (an imaginary atom formed by an electron trapped in a negative ion vacancy of a crystal). The shifts were due to the interactions of the phonons with the 'atom', and I treated this using Second Quantization for the phonons, but I do not really believe that "quantum fields" exist that create and annihilate phonons, nor do I believe that to be true for fundamental particles.

That's why I don't mention Second Quantization.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 05:40 GMT

More specifically, with regard to Second Quantization and phonons: As is true for any system near equilibrium, phonons can be viewed as 'oscillations' and Second Quantization is simply an algebraic technique for adding and subtracting oscillations as one wishes. The same technique turns out to be useful for particles. For an excellent treatment see Anthony Zee's text: "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell". He remarks (after using a 'mattress' as a model) that "even after 75 years...quantum field theory remains rooted in this harmonic paradigm."

There's a reason for that.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 01:56 GMT
Hi Edwin,

An SO(10) (an abreviation for Spin(10)) represents the 45 degrees of freedom of the fermionic content of the Standard Model. This is the 15 degrees of freedom (e_L,v_L,e_R) + (u_L,d_L,u_R,d_R) x 3 colors each per generation times three generations, although the three right-handed neutrinos can be inserted as a singlet group. The Standard Model also includes an SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) bosonic content. I'm not opposed to your field approach, but I know you have serious problems with QCD (and the triality of generations may be S-dual to color), and I have proposed additional fields such as hyperflavor and WIMP-gravity.

Second quantization is the method for treating a wave as a particle. Without second quantization, you have an electromagnetic field without photons. I still contest that wave-particle duality requires both wave and particle treatments of "light".

You quoted "even after 75 years...quantum field theory remains rooted in this harmonic paradigm" that I call wave-particle duality - blaim it on Louis de Broglie.

The paradox is that particles (discrete CDT-like kissing-spheres) can behave like waves (continuous string theory), and waves can behave like particles, but "scales solve the continuous vs. discrete paradox" @ topic #816. How did you like that advertisement for my essay?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 04:24 GMT

Thanks for taking another look at my essay, and for checking out Tajmar.

I believe that he's backed off in his interpretation of the Cooper pairs as the source of the gravito-magnetic field. Not his measurement data, just his explanation of its source.

I'm not sure what is meant by 'bridge between electromagnetism and gravity', and I do not believe that gravito-magnetism is related to electro-magnetism other than through the similarity of their respective field equations. It seems to be the case that our universe supports both radial forces and 'deflective' or circulation-type forces, and this applies whether it's mass or charge sourcing the fields.

As for the energy of the cosmological constant, if the energy is that of the C-field, then we would expect it be proportional to the C-field squared, and thus lead to C~10^61. If 3 dimensions come into play I would expect this to lead to a factor of 3 (such as kT~(3/2)mv^2) rather than a cube root, but maybe I am missing your point.

I do not attach much significance to the Niobium Cooper pairs (and I think Tajmar has backed off of that explanation). He has detected the C-field dipole for other materials as well.

You agree that 'the curvature of space is limited'. Did you notice my response to Niklaus above (Feb. 13, 2011 @ 20:13 GMT) expanding upon that sentence.

You conjecture that Buckminsterfullerenes may have superconducting characteristics. I would not be at all surprised. As for Black Holes cores, I don't have much of an opinion there. But rotating Black Holes should produce one hell of a C-field dipole, which I interpret to be the mechanism behind the light-years-long jets emanating from such holes.

I'm all in favor of our ideas working together, and I'll address your disagreement about 4 fundamental particles in a later comment.

Thanks again for looking at my essay. In the last few days we've all got a lot more essays to look at.

Two that I especially like are Julian Barbour's 'Bit from It' and Patricio Valdes-Marin's "Structure and Force".

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Walter wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 11:52 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I am not a professional physicist. I am only Scientific American reader. So your essay (maybe very good one) is too complicated to understand and evaluate. Too much equations and professional jargon.

Anyway I wish you good luck!

Walter John

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 21:19 GMT
Dear Walter,

Thanks for the feedback and for your kind wishes.

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 23:15 GMT
In another thread Steve Dufourny said:

I have thought about your C field, I think it's interesting and relevant, but I ask me if this field is only for biology?

I ask me also if the evolution and the Newtonian encoding, were there are steps to find it,are the main piece of this field of consciousness???

In fact , do you see this field as a linearity as light and with different frequencies for the polarity with mass.....or do you think it's possible to insert that in the blue gene or jaguar or the last ibm???

That implies some simple conclusions about the artificial intelligence and the number of spheres encoded....compared with a biological mass evolved also.....

At my humble opinion, there is a big big difference dear Edwin No,???

Now if the biology is inserted in the semi conductors, It's intriguing indeed,


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 23:45 GMT
Dear Steve,

As I understand it, you are asking why the C-field, if interpreted as the 'bearer' of awareness and volition 'properties' (i.e., consciousness) would only apply to biology and not semiconductor technology.

In principle, there is no reason, but in practice there are reasons. The simplest is the dependence of field interactions with mass: del cross C ~ p where momentum p is mass times velocity. In biology most of the 'moving parts' are either ions in axons, or proteins, or vesicles. These typically weigh from billions to trillions of times the electron mass, and therefore the local field is that much more 'aware' of them. Thus a C-field effect on a charged electron is essentially below any realistic noise level, whereas at the biological structure level the C-field may be at the nano-volt or higher levels of effect, small, but operative over the period of biological evolution to guide processes in a way that sheer statistics would be very unlikely to provide. And the field may also supply the 'will to survive' that otherwise makes no sense for chemicals in a world of 'dead material'. This is very important.

In addition, these biological particles have extremely complex structures that provide much more than binary logic. And the interconnections of neural networks are in the trillions, whereas the interconnections of semiconductor computers are very regular and sparse and two dimensional. And these neurons behave not only as digital logical but also as an analog computer, vastly increasing the 'compute power'. Also the brain is tightly coupled, through the hypothalamus to the endocrine system, bringing hormones into the picture. Although I have taken two course in immunology, and studied three excellent texts, I find the immune system difficult to comprehend without something like the C-field.

So you are right Steve, that in principle, the C-field may contribute to Artificial Intelligence (or 'real' intelligence) but in practice it does not seem to me to be feasible for the above and other reasons.

Thanks for your lucid questions and the kind way that your started off the questions on the other thread.

Your friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Anonymous replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 13:14 GMT
Hello dear Edwin,

Thank you very much for this friendship.It is cool. It's fascinating, I have some ideas of superimposings. You make me crazzy, it's fascinating in fact if the rational logic is inserted with sortings and synchros.

Ps I become crazzy, I see evrywher people which copy my theory, on linkedin, and this and that....I become totally parano.I take my meds but I am totally parano dear Edwin,my health is bad at this moment.Thus don't attach importance to some of my posts sometimes.

ps2 I beleive indeed that the biological mass are different than mineral mass.They are composed by the same essence but they are as tools.the biology is more as a catyzer of evolution.....



report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 23:21 GMT

There is a great difference between your 'good' posts and your 'bad' posts. I do not take your 'bad' posts seriously. I do suggest that you try to formulate some threshold or test to ask your self, "Is this one of my good posts or bad posts?" before proceeding.

Most of us have a little wine, or something, and try not to post after a few glasses.

Anyway, everyone wishes you well. Many people are under a lot of stress these days.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 11:52 GMT
Indeed, but my bad posts are sometimes correct about the potential of my discovery. I have already lost all Edwin, Always I am nice, always I give all, and me of course I am without nothing.You are understanding that you.But it is not important, I know who I am and know how my heart is.

HIHII after wine and marijuana ahahah indeed it's more difficult.hihihih miore my meds hihihii you imagine.But it's the life I come from a very small house in a kind of social town,indeed my parents have had very difficult.I pass my young age in the street dear Edwin , alittle as your streets in New york.

I have an idea, we are going to create this sciences center and of course as that we shall help's the complementarity above the vanity implying individualism.

Ps I have an ask how can you say it's a bad post if you don't read it??? hihhi thus conclusion and I am happy you read all my posts, I am honored,and I say that sincerely.hihihi but you are right, I am too much parano, it's due to my bankrupcy in hroticulture and vegetal multiplication.You know Edwin here people causes my lost.I have lost even 12000 vegetals in 1 day due to cold.I Formed people and it was very difficult,even at this momment also.But it's the life, I am stronger, more tired, but stronger.More parano also.It's logic when always people aren't good with you.But as says

report post as inappropriate

Russell Jurgensen wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 00:21 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I'd like to say hello and let you know how much I have appreciated reading your comments to other essays. It is always interesting to read your pleasant but insightful encouragement and analysis.

On the first scan of your essay I didn't recognize what you meant by the C field. Now that I come back to it and read it again I am startled by your initial description of "one primordial field." You describe a tangent vector which would make a lot of sense in order for a single field to propel motion that is observed in physics. One extremely nice feature is it would provide an explanation for the laws of thermodynamics without going beyond what can be measured. Of course there would be some reason behind a C field and you suggest possibilities, but I wonder if this could represent the limit of what physics can measure for now anyway.

I wanted to ask about the units in your equations. It seems the equations use more of a system of ideas without specific units, which would be fine. If the math does have specific units I would want to ask more specifically about them in order to follow some of the relations.

Your approach of not taking other theories for granted is admirable and I think you could go even farther. Your analysis of entanglement seems right on. In your comment about not accepting higher dimensions than four, I'm curious if you also could question the concept of space-time by using the C field. Specifically, page 2 describing time is very interesting and I wonder if your description indicates time is something other than a dimension?

I'd like to ask many more questions and hopefully will have a chance later.

Kind Regards, Russell Jurgensen

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 01:22 GMT
Dear Russell Jurgensen,

Thank you for your very kind remarks, and thank you for studying my essay.

The C-field is the 'circulational' aspect of the gravitational field in an analogous way to the magnetic field being the circulational aspect of the electric field. Maxwell conjectured that by replacing charge by mass and E-field by G-field that all of Maxwell's equations for electro-magnetic fields would have similar equations for the 'gravito-magnetic' fields. Maxwell first pointed out that fields have energy. What he did not understand, being 50 years before Einstein's E=mc^2, is that fields therefore have equivalent mass, and therefore the gravito-magnetic fields (G and C) will interact with themselves, which is what Yang and Mills described in 1954. This self-interaction leads to properties that the electro-magnetic fields (which act on charge, but are themselves uncharged) do not have.

Today it is known that the C-field exists, but the strength of the field is at question. Everyone, for reasons of symmetry, I think, assumed that the C-field has roughly the same strength as gravity, but Tajmar has measured 31 orders of magnitude stronger. That matches my calculations based on what I considered reasonable assumptions.

I do drop terms and constants when I am trying to emphasize a point. I mean this to simplify the presentation, but it has confused a few people. The primary equation for the C-field is equation 8 in my essay. The G-field has units L/T^2 (accel) and the C-field has units 1/T (Hz). All constants are shown, c is the speed of light with units (L/T) and kappa is a dimensionless constant that I derive elsewhere. It is where the 10^31 shows up. All terms in this equation end up with units (L/T^3) so the factor mu that scales the momentum p=mv must have the units to force this dimension. Therefore mu must have a mass, and the question is 'what mass'? If mu is based on local mass density, things get very interesting.

I only recently became aware of Nottale's 'scale invariance = motion invariance' and so, as you point out, on page 2 there is essentially no 'motion' until the perfect radial symmetry breaks. This replaces 'motionless' radial symmetry with local vortex motions that provide the first 'clocks' or clock-function in this universe. The question of what 'time' means before this is rather fuzzy.

I have also been re-evaluating my ideas about time due to the earlier fqxi 'time' contest and many fqxi discussions. I am currently leaning toward a 'motion'-based understanding of time, but I would hate to have to define it exactly at this moment. It's a work in progress.

I would be very happy to try to clarify any further questions you might have.

Thanks again, and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Russell Jurgensen replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 21:59 GMT

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I see now from your note and looking at the essay once more that the gravitational field is the primordial field. At first I was thinking your ideas were very close to my own but now I see they are fairly different. The similarities must come because we are all looking at the same features in nature with different approaches.

Thanks also for describing the units. I see how the math is used to emphasize the points.

Overall a very interesting essay to make me think and ponder.

Kind Regards, Russell Jurgensen

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 01:58 GMT

Your essay's goal is intriguing. Perhaps you can help me understand a few things from the first couple pages.

1. You justify master eq.1 by saying that, if there is only a field, then an operator acting on the field can only be construed as the field acting on itself. It's not clear, though, how the operator comes to exist, or why eq. 1 is the only possibility. Thus, eq. 1 seems to be positing a law or axiom above and beyond the field itself rather than deriving something from the field alone.

2. You say that math and integers are generated from the field. But it seems that math is implicitly assumed already in the meaning of the field itself, and the master equation in particular. How, for example, would one define a directional derivative of the field without math?



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 02:44 GMT
Dear Thomas McFarlane,

The derivation of an 'operator equation' is based simply on the fact that physics tends to be written in terms of such equations. So, if we start with the goal of defining a 'physics' on a one and only substance, with no 'laws of nature' existing in some Platonic dimension, then the only possible operator equation must be that any 'operation on the substance' must be equivalent to 'the substance interacting with itself', since nothing else exists. But this is formal; both operation and substance are undefined at this point.

Then, since we cannot do physics without physical facts, I pull in two facts: Maxwell's energy of field proportional to square of field, and Einstein's energy-mass equivalence. These 'suggest' that the phi*phi term on the right is energy, hence mass, and this 'suggests' that the operator del is the directional derivative, so I explore those suggestions.

Possibly other suggestions could have lead to other areas of exploration. For example, the formal equation, before the terms are defined, may have 'suggested' to me a General Relativistic equation and I may then have explored the consequences of such. It's easier to derive results using the approach I took, but that does not necessarily preclude a 'tensor operator' interpretation.

The issue of math is trickier. I am saying that, unlike some theories that assume a 'mathematical universe' or 'God making the integers', if we can only get 'particles' out of our field, then these particles can be used to construct 'counters' [as shown in reference 3] and, per Kroneckar, 'man can do the rest'. So, since I show how to get 'particles' out of the field, and have shown elsewhere how to build counters from these particles, and men have done the rest, I feel free to use math. It may sound circular, but what I am aiming for is to have math arise from our field, and not have to assume some Platonic world of math outside of our original primordial field.

I hope this makes sense to you.

Those were good questions. Thank you for studying my essay. I would be happy to attempt to answer more questions, if you have them.

Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thomas J. McFarlane replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 04:29 GMT

Thanks for your response to the questions. That helps clarify your ideas.

Good luck to you as well!



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 22:38 GMT
A relevant comment on the above from Thomas McFarlane's thread:

My essay in the previous fqxi contest was Fundamental Physics of Consciousness wherein I propose that the essence of one reality is 'awareness and volition' [=consciousness].

To interact with itself, a distributed field must somehow 'be aware of' itself, and any 'action' can imply 'volition'. We can of course ignore these aspects of reality and simply formulate 'potentials' and 'forces', but that doesn't change the facts of what happens, it just symbolizes it.

From this perspective 'volition' is 'free will' and the implication is that consciousness has been here 'from the beginning'. Since over half a century of experiencing and thinking about awareness has convinced me that it could never arise locally from simply arranging the Lego blocks in the 'proper' order, this is compatible with my theory.

I mention this because you seem to want to break the world into 'Order' and 'Chaos', where chaos implies random to me. I prefer the concept of free will, and distinguish free will from random as follows:

free will = action by reason of awareness,

random = action for no reason at all.

This may or may not fit into your scheme of thinking, but it works well for me.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

James Putnam wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 23:27 GMT
From my perspective: Randomness is nothing. If it can be identified as action, then it is not randomness. The reason I say this is that action requires reason in order to be described. My point is that there is no action in the universe that is random. Randomness is a hiding place for lack of knowledge. That is what I think. I apologize to Dr. Klingman for interjecting my non-professional opinion; however, he is invited to reason it away. I am interested in learning. I learn every day, usually too late to remove my remarks, but, not too late to learn.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 00:44 GMT

Classical physics is based on deterministic equations, at least when initial and boundary conditions can be specified. Statistical physics is based on the initial conditions not being available to us. Quantum physics is based on deterministic equations whose solution is interpreted as a probability amplitude, introducing an element of uncertainty.

I believe that the major question is whether we live in a deterministic universe in which the big universal clock is wound up, and reality is the predetermined winding down of the clock; no surprises; nothing unexpected [if we had access to all of the initial conditions]. Most of physics seems to at least tacitly support this model.

I don't believe it to be the case, so the question is 'where do surprises come from?'. In this case there seem to be two choices, random or free will.

Random, in the sense it is normally used involves action [I believe]. Whether this is Darwinian action that simply cannot be predicted because of complexity or whether it more basic is not often specified. In this sense random has some connection to 'noise' which has some connection to 'unknown' as a practical matter, which may or may not be compatible with a predetermined reality. This seems to be compatible with your view that "Randomness is a hiding place for lack of knowledge." That's the general meaning of 'noise'.

Your view, that "action requires reason in order to be described" is the correct view from my perspective, because I believe that awareness and volition are the source of 'surprising actions', and not 'random' actions. And I believe that the "reason" involved is essentially "by reason of awareness", and this in my mind includes 'creativity'.

My view does not argue against the reality of 'noise' as a practical matter.

Thanks for your input. I hope the above makes sense and is compatible with your framework of understanding.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 04:51 GMT

Not only do I appreciate your asking me to clarify my comments and ideas, but I have been noticing your other posts around this contest, and I admire the clarity you attempt to bring to each thread. Keep up the good work! I know that you have admired my work, but this should never cause you to hesitate in asking a question or pointing out what you see as a problem.

Your friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 01:45 GMT
I posted the following on another thread, in response to the statement: "...the most successful theory of all time, as measured by how closely it matches experiment, is QED."

Over 60 years of QED calculations of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron [up to 12,000 Feynman diagrams involved in the latest such calculation] have produced the eight [or so] place accuracy of QED. But, after this calculation is made, I believe the fine structure constant [upon which it is based] is adjusted, based on the results of the latest calculation of the anomaly. This should lead, over 6 decades, to a very accurate 'correlation' between these two.

Also, as of 1998, the vacuum energy, which is central to QED, was found to be overestimated by QED by 120 orders of magnitude. It would seem that this would call for 50 years of QED calculations to be redone, but I don't believe that this has happened. Why not?

Just a year or so ago, protons were assumed to have a significant contribution from the virtual 'sea of strange quarks', but this has not turned out to be the case. I don't know whether to blame QED or QCD, but it would seem to be related to vacuum energy.

What bother's me is that 'virtual particles' seem to be the best imaginable 'fudge factor' because the particles aren't measured but simply provide the means to 'fit' calculations to reality.

Finally, the recent recent QED calculations of the proton radius based on the experimental data from 'muonic hydrogen' is off by 4 percent. Since this is the simplest possible system one would expect better of QED. Does this mean that QED now has one place accuracy? [Which would put it in the same realm as QCD.]

I have generally been unable to get answers to these [and related] questions, and I welcome any experts who could help me understand what's going on.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

basudeba wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 03:25 GMT
Dear Sir,

We have watched your comments at various threads. Here is our comment below the Essay of Ms. Georgina Parry. We thought you may be interested in this because we have discussed some issues relating to unification of forces.

You discuss observed Image reality and unobserved Image reality. By this we understand directly perceptible and indirectly perceptible or inferred. You...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 04:26 GMT

As I believe I have remarked to you, I have become aware recently of how many people seem to find problems with special relativity, and, I noted that often, "where there is smoke, there is fire." I have derived a formula for 'time dilation' from my Master equation, and I have begun to look at 'relativistic mass' as a manifestation of the C-field equation (#8 in my essay), but I have not given much thought to 'length contraction'. Thank you for your comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Chris Kennedy wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 20:40 GMT

Wonderful essay!! (Trying to get caught up reading others since mine posted four days ago.)

With regard to your interest in the local vs. nonlocal issue: I attempt to hypothesize in my essay, if there would be any measurable difference between expected interference patterns for Copenhagen Interpretation vs. a De Broglie-Bohm type model in the double slit experiment. For instance, Bohm described the "wave" as an active Schrodinger type wave and the electron would be attracted to the parts of the wave that would ultimately correspond with areas of measurement on the detector wall. To me this means that the electron could begin its journey anywhere on the leading edge of the wave front, but might have to shift or jump positions if it is headed for destructive interference (since we know the electron won't dissapear).

Since the electron would have to jump in that model and not in the Copenhagen model - I propose that the final expected distributions for the interference pattern may possibly be different. In the end, each simulation may turn out to be identical, but if someone someday were willing to do the painstaking work, a discrepancy might turn up that would allow us to accept or reject the role of the wave as being more of a "pilot" as opposed to representing the electron itself.

Any thoughts?


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 00:55 GMT

I've looked at your paper and you do a great job of showing up the absurdities currently implied by quantum mechanics. I especially liked your examination of "where does the charge go?" and "where does the mass go?" when the electron is in its 'unphysical' state before being measured.

Having just re-read John Bell' 1990 paper "Against 'Measurement'" where he finds various QM authorities in conflict with each other and appears to want to 'bring back' the deBroglie-Bohm 'pilot wave' by searching for a way to stop the 'spreading' of the electron wave-function, I am once again struck by the fact that so many on this site are so sure about quantum mechanics, despite Feynman's contention that no one understands it and despite Bell's clear confusion about fundamental issues.

You mention EPR and Bell and note that Bell's inequality has "since been put to the test many times." If you have not yet had a chance to read Joy Christian's work here, you might wish to do so. If Bell's inequality was wrongly calculated [as I believe] then all of the so-called 'violations' of the inequality mean absolutely nothing!

Then you ask the fascinating question, "Is there any explanation why a photon and an electron will produce the same pattern in a double slit experiment?" Excellent question! The explanation is shown on page 6 of my essay where the C-field circulation induced by the 'particle' momentum "looks the same" for both photons and electrons, and it is the C-field that interacts with the mass surrounding the slits. Note that the C-field does not 'carry' the particle, like the Bohm 'quantum potential'. The relation between the C-field wave circulation and the momentum of the particle is Lenz-law-like as described in my essay. If one changes, the other changes.

By the way, I also loved your question about identity while 'spread out'. Why doesn't the 'disappeared' electron re-appear as a muon? [The cheeseburger is not realistic.] I'll fore-go my comments on the Many Worlds Interpretation, so as to avoid irritating the believers.

Finally, I am looking at the wave-function (also on page 6 in my essay) and trying to determine how to achieve Bell's goal of 'stopping the spreading'. It seems that this is the case when the C-field equation is taken into account, but I need to convince myself first.

So thank you for reading my essay (it may make more sense the next time) and thanks for writing an excellent essay yourself. Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 16:52 GMT
Hello Edwin,

I have been re-reading your post to me under my essay concerning the C-field. I decided to continue that conversation under your essay posts.

You write,

“As for the C-field, Maxwell first noted that if mass replaced charge, and gravity replaced the electric field, then Coulomb's law and Newton's law are identical. He decided, based on this symmetry, to use G and mass in place of E and charge in all of Maxwell's equations. But since there is an (electro-)magnetic field, he needed an analogous (gravito-)magnetic field to complete the equations. The C-field is my name for what Maxwell and others refer to simply as the gravito-magnetic field. It has nothing to do with the magnetic field, it is the gravity analog thereof.”

O.K. So now I know what you mean by C-field. To tell the truth, I am still having trouble understanding the electro-magnetic field in 'physical terms' (which has been my aim in physics). We know that Maxwell's Eqs. mathematically describe ('model') the behavior of electromagnetism. But as I stated in my previous posts, 'description' is not the same as 'explanation'. What physically is electromagnetism and what is the physical explanation between electric current and magnetic fields and visa versa? How does one physically derive from the other?

Because I have no answers to these questions, discussions on mass and charge and gravity are missing in my essay . What I seek to avoid is 'more math' with 'no physics'. And who would know that better than someone 'outside of the faith'!

We agree that physical space cannot be 'empty' (a self-contradiction!). You fill space with the C-field while in my essay I fill space with the quantity 'eta'. Since space is filled by 'space', regardless of what we say, could it be the two are connected? If so, than you are in a better position to make that connection.

You also write,

“... the laws[of the universe] must evolve from the universe itself. “

Yes, we may agree on that point! But 'how' do these laws evolve from the universe? Through some mathematical equation that aims to 'describe' that universe? That would imply perhaps fixed and eternal and unchangeable laws. If so, than we differ. I can't go that far in my faith on Man to know such mysteries of 'what is'. The best and only think we can have is to know our 'measurements' of 'what is'. What I mean when I say that 'measurement' if the essence of Physics.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 21:21 GMT

You are not alone in trying to understand "the electro-magnetic field in physical terms". And I agree that 'description' is not the same as 'explanation'.

What I believe and what you may believe is that 'intuition' is the final arbiter in physics. There are very many who do NOT believe this. They probably began with Bohr, and certainly are carrying on this belief with 'non-locality' and non-reality. There seems to me little chance that the two sides will come together on this point. In that sense, physics is like a horse race; 'you pays yer money and you takes yer choice'.

You ask an excellent question: "What physically is electromagnetism and what is the physical explanation between electric current and magnetic fields and vice versa? How does one physically derive from the other?"

I find little problem intuitively understanding this is terms of 'fluid' concepts, and my model predicted a 'perfect fluid' at the RHIC and at LHC when ions are collided at ultra-high energies. I suspect this fluid is a continuum, despite the fact that our 'earthly' fluids, like water, can be viewed as discrete. So, at the moment, most of my conception is based on concepts of 'fluid flow', and Maxwell's equations, including the C-field equation, are best understood in terms of fluid fields. And the key concept for the C-field is 'vortex flow' with a Yang-Mills self-interaction and Chern class zero connectivity.

In this regard, I view space as 'filled' with (fluid-like) a gravito-electric field (gravity, G) and its corresponding gravito-magnetic aspect (the C-field) and, as I derive in my essay, there seems to be a basic 'condition' or 'constraint' that is required to have either the equations or the physical interpretations make sense, and this is that Planck's constant of "action" be physically "real" in some sense. That is one reason that I like your 'accumulation of energy' approach, although you seem to view it as strictly mathematical, I view it as a real threshold below which no transitions occur. What you think of as 'eta' I view as the gravitic field with its radial and rotational properties, subject to the constraints implied by h-bar.

As for your last paragraph, that is what both of my essays concern. It was hard to squeeze them into 20 pages and impossible to squeeze into one paragraph.

Thanks for your comment and good luck in the contest,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 02:02 GMT

Your last post clarifies a lot. We may have more agreement here than I previously thought. And what disagreements there may be could also be cleared up with further discussion.

You write,

“ … the physical interpretations [to] make sense, … is that Planck's constant of "action" be physically "real" in some sense. That is one reason that I like your 'accumulation...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 02:37 GMT

I'm glad that you are seeing some connections. Although there seem to be a few here who imagine a purely mathematical world with no 'substance', I cannot find any way to make sense of that view.

You seem to realize this: "the one quantity that ties all this to the physical world is the 'prime physis quantity eta'. This quantity is left 'undefined and undefinable'. But it really can be considered to be the 'what is'! I don't believe that we can 'know' what this is."

I agree that we can't know, and that is why, in my previous fqxi essay I pointed out that although current theories are based on physics abstractions such as: Gravity, String theories, Electro-magnetics, Quantum field theories, Strong and weak forces, Dark matter and energy, Extra dimensions, Extra universes, and Consciousness, only two of these are immediately sensible and directly experienced by humans: gravity and consciousness [and a small segment of the electro-magnetic spectrum].

So I prefer to base my theories upon what I directly experience, rather than what others have imagined, and abstractly represented. That is why I choose gravity as key, and why [I believe] I am able to derive all known physics from it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 22:02 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I am sorry for not commenting on your essay sooner. It was amongst the very first that I have read, and I have read more than I have commented upon. I wanted to carefully re read it to understand as much as I could.

I think you make some really excellent points at the very outset. The first is that everything should be made as simple as possible. You have demonstrated in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 22:40 GMT

You have no idea how happy your comments make me. Having read your ideas for years and seen your understanding develop in more cogent form, I am much impressed with your understanding, as reflected in your essay, and even more so because you achieve this without math. In fact, that is why I am so pleased that you find my theory reasonable, even though you cannot judge the math. I trust your 'intuition' much more than I trust the highly specialized mathematics that have been applied to what really amounts to very small aspects and domains of reality. Or conversely, to Multiverses, extra dimensions, and other imagined domains that have no reality at all, in the sense of observation or prediction.

As I mentioned above, re-reading Bell's paper convinces me that he, like Feynman, did not claim to understand quantum mechanics. For this reason, I find it hard to digest that today's 'experts' understand quantum mechanics well enough to forsake local realism in terms of mystical concepts, which lead into stranger and stranger ideas of reality. You will not get much out of Joy Christian's work, which is highly mathematical, but you should understand that he claims Bell made a mistake in deriving his 'inequality' and therefore all of the wild claims, based on 'violation' of such, are baseless. I believe this to be true.

So, thank you for making the effort [and I know it was an effort] to read and come to some judgment of my essay. I value your opinion highly.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Chris Kennedy wrote on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 00:56 GMT

Thank you for your kind words on my essay. I just found out about Joy Christian’s paper through reading your thread yesterday. I will try to read it over the next couple of days. I will also think about your C-field propagation mechanism relating to electrons and photons alike. With regard to page 5 of your essay: Could we say that the G-field is a variation or manifestation of the C-field? I ask because you suggest the commonality of each field experiencing a curvature, as well as relating electrons and quarks as a limit for one, and a black hole (also made of electrons and quarks) as a limit for the other. So are the fields curving while space is curving too, or not necessarily? Or do these fields for all practical purposes represent space?

I also share your concern about cheeseburgers spontaneously appearing, although I have a friend who can make several disappear in less than a minute.

Good luck to you as well!


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 02:08 GMT

You said it well: these fields, for all practical purposes, represent space (by 'filling' space.) The G- and C-fields are related as follows:

The C-field is the 'circulational' aspect of the gravitational field in an analogous way to the magnetic field being the circulational aspect of the electric field.

Maxwell conjectured that by replacing charge by mass and E-field by G-field that all of Maxwell's equations for electro-magnetic fields would have similar equations for the 'gravito-magnetic' fields. Maxwell first pointed out that fields have energy. What he did not understand, being 50 years before Einstein's E=mc^2, is that fields therefore have equivalent mass, and therefore the gravito-magnetic fields (G and C) will interact with themselves, which is what Yang and Mills described in 1954. This self-interaction leads to properties that the electro-magnetic fields (which act on charge, but are themselves uncharged) do not have.

Today it is known that the C-field exists, but the strength of the field is at question. Everyone, for reasons of symmetry, I think, assumed that the C-field has roughly the same strength as gravity, but Tajmar has measured 31 orders of magnitude stronger. That matches my calculations based on what I considered reasonable assumptions.

The name 'gravito-magnetic' is both a blessing and a curse. Those who have a good intuitive feel for electro-magnetic field behaviors, can immediately understand many aspects of the C-field behavior. But it also tends to confuse others because the C-field is completely and absolutely distinct from magnetic fields. I don't know how to avoid this double edged sword, except through this and similar remarks.

In the same way that the existence of charge gives rise to an electric field E, the existence of mass gives rise to a gravity field G. Furthermore, it is the motion of charge that gives rise to the magnetic field B, and analogously the motion of mass that gives rise to the C-field. In this sense E and G may be considered 'primary' fields and B and C as 'derived' or 'secondary' fields.

You pose an excellent question about curvature. Instead of repeating an above comment, I will refer you to my comment above made on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 20:13 GMT

As for Joy Christian's work, his math is beyond most of us, but it makes sense to me. And if he is correct, the consequences are absolutely major for physics, since all of the so-called 'violations' of Bell's inequality would mean nothing.

And finally, if you know someone who can make the cheeseburgers 'disappear' then logic seems to demand that they can 'appear'. Wow!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 13:20 GMT
hihihi indeed after rereading and without parano, I agree it's a good idea about Bell's violations, after all the determinism is so so essential.It is the sister of our realism.The newtonian fractalization is rational and finite.But of course we are far of walls.



report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 11:52 GMT

I found myself commenting to the head of an eminent institution recently that the kind of thinking Architecture teaches is that foundations can be an invisible box.

Anyone trying to think 'outside of the box' must first find what and where it's boundaries are and study why they are there, how they were built, and how new knowledge might allow improvement.

If Sir Christopher Wren was given a set of 100 year old foundations to build Saint Paul's, he'd have only been able to come up with some fancy new patches on a 100 year old architecture.

We can't build anything without solid foundations, but foundation design evolves like anything else. We need them to commence construction not to restrict design. I work with the engineer who moves bridges and lighthouses on roller skates, but only when it proves to be the right answer.

Human nature ensures that many in science don't see the invisible box of foundations, or feel insecure without them. It's probably good that some have those instincts, as it's good some cosmology seems to need no link with nature at all.

But what I believe you and I are doing is carefully considering the foundations in context of the overall architecture of nature. I believe we are correct. The point Tom made about non locality is likely to be true if using the foundations Tom finds it essential to live with, but they will never produce St Pauls, and probably won't help us better understand the other 999 thousandths "..of 1% of what nature has revealed to us" (AE), because it obscures observation of the 3rd way to reality, the solution lying one conceptual level up from simply local or absolute.

I'm impressed how many here are now realising there can be local reality, and your essay is a catalyst, for which it earns my own top mark. I hopefully help by exposing the compatibility with empirical evidence, Georgina by reminding all of the difference between what is real and apparent, and others of other aspects. I feel this is the green shoot of science finally regenerating, but it is up to us to nurture it among the mature complexity of the established undergrowth.

The competition results will be interesting, and could aid a spring flourish, but I doubt even a foundational physics site will prove happy facing new foundations! Let's not let it die whatever.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 21:34 GMT

Your comments on foundations do apply to architecture and to physics. I've only read about 2/3 of the essays, but I'm impressed by the variety of approaches to math and physics, and encouraged by the number of essays based on realism. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that non-realism and non-locality is a self-defeating proposition, doomed to mystical, never-provable theories,...

view entire post

Phil Warnell wrote on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 11:17 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

I find this to be a very insightful and thought provoking essay. That is you have thus demonstrated how nature could be considered as both digital and analog and not be a contradiction, yet on the contrary rather a necessity. Now I must admit that my metaphysical center tells me the world can only be explained by way of a dual ontology, which immediately has me to favour physical explanations for its substance(s) and action(s) such as those proposed by deBroglie and Bohm. That is up until the reading of your paper I never considered this could be satisfied with it all beginning with a homogenous field; as rather having a holistic continuum being somehow forcedly invaded (introduced to) by what would be considered discrete entities seemed to me more understandable and natural.

However if I'm taking what your proposing correctly, it suggests that what we find to be discrete entities emerged from the field and thus I find it intriguing that this might satisfy my metaphysical intuition, while lending explanation as to how a singular ontology might evolve into a dual one to have the world as we find it. Never the less what still eludes me, is in asking (how and why) such a system would evolve into the other, as being the impetuous for what has something so seemingly simple and complete, to become so complex, while at the same time appearing as it seeking rather completion (resolution)?



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 18:15 GMT
Dear Phil,

Yours is one of the most rewarding comments I have received. I too spent many years with a dualistic ontology. So I am extremely pleased that you can state: "That is up until the reading of your paper I never considered this could be satisfied with it all beginning with a homogeneous field".

And your question is just as relevant: "asking (how and why) such a system would evolve into the other."

The 'physics' answer is simply that 'symmetry broke'. At the big bang each radial 'ray' of out-flowing energy (hence mass) would induce a circulating C-field about it based on the basic equation, but the perfect symmetry was such that the lefthanded C-field element circulating about one ray was exactly equal and opposite to that induced by a neighboring element, so all of the C-field was suppressed. In this sense, the C-field was 'there' all along, but perfectly 'suppressed' by symmetry. This symmetry broke when a 'quantum fluctuation' occurred, which is a physicist's way of saying "we don't know why it changed."

Hector Zenil has remarked on this on his thread: "Of course one can ask about the cause of the first symmetry breaking just as one can ask about the cause of the Big Bang and the causes of it's causes. I think at the end we will end up giving up on the first cause simply because either there is a first uncaused cause or because we cannot go indefinitely backwards in time looking always for the cause of the cause."

I'm afraid that I can't offer more than Hector did. But if one accepts that at some point an action occurred, (releasing the suppressed C-field energy and initiating 'inflation') then we progress from a seemingly timeless, globally symmetric self-defined scale-invariant universe to a locally asymmetric self-interacting (Yang-Mills) field that either will collapse to an infinitely dense point or will reach a stable configuration, bringing local entities into existence, and as they say, "the rest is history."

Your comment is heartwarming. It is very rewarding to be told that you've opened a view of a unitary ontology in contrast with a dualistic ontology. Thank you for studying my essay to the point that you got something valuable from it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Stefan Weckbach wrote on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 14:24 GMT
Dear Edwin,

i seriously doubt that a C-field can explain the entire evolution of the physical and the spiritual aspects of reality. I have pondered about wether a primordial field like yours could explain all this; the symmetry of your C-field should have been broken at some point far away in the past. The question is, why should it have to be broken at this point and not at another point in the past, for the C-field is assumed to be primordial at its basement. And why should it break its own symmetry at all? As Phil Warnell above suggests, in the latter case the field must have a somewhat primordial in-built duality to do this out of its own. But in that case i arrive at an arbitrary cut between field (timeless) and particles (time-dependent).



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 18:49 GMT
Dear Stefan,

You say: "i seriously doubt that a C-field can explain the entire evolution of the physical and the spiritual aspects of reality."

That's a tough critique. I do believe that I can demonstrate that the C-field does lead to today's physical universe. But when you throw in 'spiritual' the problem gets to be much harder, and is generally considered outside the bounds of...

view entire post

Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 19:33 GMT
Dear Edwin,

thank you very much for your considerations about my question. I also read your answer to Phil Warnell's questions and there i also agree with your answers. Although i have difficulties to think about consciousness as left- and/or righthanded (it would presuppose a kind of space-orientation), i think, that your ansatz is as legitimate as all the others to describe the symmetry-breaking. I now think that we are not so far away from each other's views than i originally thought. Maybe the physically interpreted "left- or righthandedness" of your field becomes another meaning once we arrive at the more complete picture of our spiritual/physical reality. So this handedness does not necessarily presuppose a kind of space-orientation.

Thank you again for your answers,



report post as inappropriate

Peter David Mastro wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 15:37 GMT
Hello Edwin,

Loved the essay. I particularly liked the concept of scale as a model associated with motion and all the unanswered questions in the summary.

I associate scale to fractal structure from an artistic perspective. If you get a chance check out my essay here


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear David,

I'm glad you found my essay interesting. I found your artistic approach to be original and pleasing. I encourage you to continue this approach. I am finding many novel ideas and insights in this fqxi contest, and I suspect you too will find many that will stimulate new ideas for your art.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter David Mastro wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 15:42 GMT

Sorry, the link I put in my message doesn't seem to work.

Here is the address:

Good luck


report post as inappropriate

re castel wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 16:26 GMT

I just read Paul N Butler's essay at This may be good reading for you, too.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 20:26 GMT
On the Universe as Computation:

A number of physicists are focused on the "Universe as a Computer", with comments such as: "[It] may be as simple as to believe that the universe is just computing itself", and, "if someone or something ran the universe code,...".

But it is well to remember that analog computers are based on real elements, connected in such a way that their real physical behavior produces the desired output. In this sense a continuous real field, interacting with itself, is essentially an analog computer.

My essay assumes that initially only one thing exists [the primordial field] such that evolution of the universe can only proceed by self-interaction, leading to our current reality. So this real field, interacting with itself, is essentially an analog computer.

If the field itself is a 'real' analog computer, neither 'program code' nor 'digital computer' concepts are required. David Tong states that "no one knows how to formulate a discrete version of the laws of physics," and also that "no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the Standard Model" and so we cannot simulate the known laws of physics on a computer.

And as I noted in Brian Whitworth's 'VR' essay, if the "computer" is analog, there need be no "program code" since analog computers may simply be designed via the inter-connections.

Tommaso Bolognesi seems to agree when he states that "Perhaps ... there is no actual, physical, Digital Computer that runs it, in the same way as we do not require power for an Analog Computer to run, say, the Navier-Stokes or Einstein equations, under an analog-based understanding of the universe."

The field equations are analog and the field itself is the actual physical 'analog computer' that 'executes' the 'code' for our universe.

It is understandable that those concerned with simulating reality on a digital computer might be concerned with 'algorithmic processes', but I don't believe that the idea of replacing a real analog computer [field] capable of explaining today's reality with an imagined 'digital computer' that exists in some other dimension, if not some other world, is a step forward.

Why ignore an existing analog computer for an imagined digital computer?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John Merryman replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 04:04 GMT

It seems from a practical point of view that there is that analog connectivity, but there still need to be distinctions, otherwise there would only be a featureless equilibrium. The result being a profound dichotomy, as we need the connectivity to perceive the distinctions and the distinctions to give any focus, meaning or definition to the connectivity. A perfect equilibrium would be a big flatline on the universal heart monitor.

The distinctions are information and structure, while the connectivity is the energy manifesting and motivating these defining distinctions. Since the energy is by definition in motion, it's constantly creating new structure and consuming/erasing old structure. So while energy evolves from one configuration to the next, these forms come into being, grow, eventually start losing more energy than they absorb and eventually fade away, as the energy radiates out to other functions. So there is just this kaleidoscope of activity, but it is that relationship between the energy and the information which creates the effect of time, as energy goes from past to future and information goes future to past.

It is bottom up analog, because it is fundamentally energy, but it is top down information, because there is no energy if it cannot be expressed. If the energy exists, it will create information and information cannot exist without the energy to manifest it.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 20:03 GMT

You say, "It seems from a practical point of view that there is that analog connectivity, but there still need to be distinctions,otherwise there would only be a featureless equilibrium."

This may be a problem in your "big-bang-less" universe, but my model produces structure right off the bat. As soon as the perfect symmetry breaks, there is particle creation and complex forces are at play.

What you say of energy is generally correct, but I'm not sure that 'information' has anything to do with it. Information is descriptive in nature and depends upon context. It's not clear to me that information comes into play at the fundamental level I'm discussing. I agree that "information cannot exist without the energy to manifest it" but I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no energy if it cannot be expressed".

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John Merryman replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 02:51 GMT

Say that all there is, is a wave passing though space which is otherwise occupied by random particles. It perturbs them, possibly transferring some energy which is further dissipated as those particles settle back into equilibrium. Presumably the wave and particles define some amount of information. When they interact, it produces a further emergent level of information. While the energy contained in the wave and particles is conserved, even if transferred around the medium, the levels of definition, the waves, particles, their interaction, etc. form, build and then fade away. The energy is. The details come and go.

As of late January, the oldest, furtherest discovered galaxy is 13.2 billion light years away. According to inflation theory, at the very beginning of the expansion was that initial stage that inflated the universe to much larger than is currently visible, which is why it appears flat. Much like a small portion of the earth's surface appears flat. This also means that gravitational sources were rather widely distributed, since it is gravity which causes curvature. So how it is that this much mass energy could coalesce in 500 million years? Think about it for a moment: Inflation flattens gravity out fairly smoothly, presumably even dark matter, as its only effect is gravity. So we are not talking the direct aftereffect of some tightly bound source. There are at most ripples of energy in space. Then they coalesce into a large enough galaxy/galaxy cluster that it is visible 13.2 billion light years away. The Andromeda Galaxy is a million lightyears away and we are talking mass. How long would it take to gravitationally attract some mass object floating around that far away? The earth alone is some 4 billion years old. I'm really not a fan of beating my head against a wall and I seem to do this with Big Bang theory, but it just doesn't come close to adding up.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 02:57 GMT

" but I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no energy if it cannot be expressed"."

How would energy manifest, if it didn't produce any disturbance? What would move? What would interact? How would it be energy, if there was no measurable motion or interaction? The motion/interaction would be the information.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 05:39 GMT

You state: "The motion/interaction would be the information."

It seems to me that you are making up definitions. I don't define "motion/interaction" as "information". Motion and or interaction is just motion and or interaction to me. I don't see any point in bringing another term into the picture when there are already so many people confused about the physical status (or not) of information.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John Merryman replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 02:37 GMT

This brings to mind the title of Julian Barbour's essay, Bit from it. What is information derived from, if not interaction and motion? Spins, polarities, etc. Essentially I'm agreeing with your premise:

"analog computers are based on real elements, connected in such a way that their real physical behavior produces the desired output. In this sense a continuous real field, interacting with itself, is essentially an analog computer."

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 03:58 GMT

I'm glad that you agree that a real physical field can be viewed as an 'analog' computer that "computes" the behavior of the physical world. Many seem to think that some imaginary 'digital' computer (hardware plus program) that exists 'outside of our universe' (in another dimension?) is the source of the physics we observe. Yet if the analog field computes its own behavior, and that...

view entire post

Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 16:20 GMT
Dear Dr. Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thanks for your basically thought provoking essay.On the basis of the conception of your C-field,at the end of the essay you are saying that "A continuous universe evolves to discrete reality, where quantum conditions carve up the continuum, such that analog inputs occasion digital outputs or threshold crossings" and also that "physical reality depends on continuous fields".If analog is the basic concept out of which digitality arises then there must not be any difference between analog and digital nature of reality and that both are "one and the same".If so,where is the dispute between analog and digital nature of reality?But analog is analog and digital is digital and that is how they are viewed.

So I have a different solution to the problem;for this,please,go thro' my essay and your comments are welcomed.

Best regards and good luck in the competition.

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 20:04 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

You say: "If analog is the basic concept out of which digitality arises then there must not be any difference between analog and digital nature of reality and that both are "one and the same".If so,where is the dispute between analog and digital nature of reality? But analog is analog and digital is digital and that is how they are viewed."

You are correct. In my theory I am assigning the term 'digital' to the particles, and yet, I show the particles to be simply a stable configuration of the C-field vortex after passing through a v=c threshold. From that perspective, all that exists is the analog field, in various states.

On the other hand, Planck's constant of action was required as the very first step in order to allow physical interpretation of the derived equations so the quantum nature of the gravity-based universe seems 'built-in' from the beginning. The twin 'thresholds' provided by Planck's constant and the speed of light impart a form of 'separation' that seems to go beyond mere continuity, and therefore adds 'digital' to the inherently analog universe.

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. I plan to read your essay as well, and hope I can give you a meaningful comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Anonymous replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 10:25 GMT
Dear Dr.Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thanks for your reply.In the third para of your reply you say that both analog and digital are present in the universe from the beginning;but you say ,in the same para,that the universe is inherently analog.Why this partiality when your own logic wont allow it?If both are present in the universe from the beginning then both are equally primary.To reconcile both,then you got to look for some other fundamental issue.This is what I have done in my essay.


Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 17:39 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

It is impossible to know exactly when Planck's constant and the speed of light 'appeared', since Planck's constant was not 'observable' until symmetry broke, and the speed of light is difficult to define in a scale invariant universe (ie, before symmetry broke). So if forced to choose, I would probably say that the universe was continuous at the big bang and quantum conditions appeared when symmetry broke. This agrees with my philosophical idea of reality, which is that the universe began as 'one' before realizing 'the many'.

I have not had the opportunity to read your essay yet but will look for this point you make.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Constantin Leshan wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 18:47 GMT
Dear Edwin Klingman,

Welcome to essay contest. You wrote: ''What do minimal length, time, or energy imply? The Planck units of mass, length, and time yield an identity that implies our Quantum Principle'': (then you show the formula 6);

This formula 6 is a game of constants only that prove nothing! In the same way you can obtain any other numbers or constants by choosing the constants.

You wrote: "How is time affected by quantization? So a quantum gravitational gradient implies time dilation".

You forget about the length contraction. In the same way you can say that ''So a quantum gravitational gradient implies length contraction''. Thus, your answer is not complete.

You wrote: ''At root is the nature of particles and fields''. If you are looking for the nature of reality then you must say ''At root is the nature of spacetime, particles and fields. It is a fundamental error that you missed the nature of spacetime. You cannot know the nature of reality without spacetime.

You wrote: ''We need a final assumption: that the curvature of space is limited''. This statement is wrong, please read the Wikipedia Black Hole: At the center of a black hole a spacetime curvature becomes INFINITE. Therefore the next text in your essay based on limited curvature about electrons and quarks also is wrong.

I don't see any central idea in this essay. In general, this essay seems to be a collection of statements and affirmations without any logical connections between them. The most of the information was copied from the textbooks and papers and author's contribution is to comment only; I don't see the original research in the essay. The author's conclusion that the reality is analog, even ''with digital consequences'' is wrong; Conversely, Reality is fundamentally Quantum.



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 21:13 GMT
Dear Constantin Leshan,

You say, "This formula 6 is a game of constants only that prove nothing! In the same way you can obtain any other numbers or constants by choosing the constants."

I think that you have missed the point. I did not choose the 'constants', Nature chose the constants. I simply derived the relation from my Master equation and plugged in nature's constants to show...

view entire post

Peter Mastro wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 14:34 GMT
Hello Edwin,

I enjoyed your essay and give you high marks. What is interesting is in reviewing essays I have come to find reading the comments and dialogues associated with the essays is really where the fun is. You handle interactions very well and your personality comes through.

I am an artist, not a scientist, but I draw a lot of inspiration from scientific inquiry. I wonder if scientists will ever view each others works and theories in the same way artists view the work of another not as right or wrong, but rather a different form or style of self expression.

I guess we will find out when the dust settles and there is a theory of everything. I sense that that day is sooner rather than later.

When that day comes will people say science is dead? Absolutly not. When that day comes science will be just beginning.

Anyway, well done. I wish you luck in your research.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for the kind and interesting remarks. While physics differs from art in that there is (or appears to be) a 'right' and 'wrong', based on measurement data, I do not believe that this prevents scientists from appreciating each others 'style of self expression'. For example Feynman certainly had a unique style that is enjoyed entirely apart from the details of his theories.

I do agree that the comments are at least as enjoyable as the essays, and, as I remarked on your thread, I believe that you will find much in these fqxi essays and in the comments to inspire your own art.

And I hope that your speculation about the 'day being near' is correct.

So welcome to the contest, thanks for your remarks, and good luck in your art!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 14:45 GMT
The "Fly-by" mysteries:

There exist half a dozen or more instances, first noted in 1931 and as recent as 2010, where neither Newton's gravity nor Einstein's general relativity account for the observed accelerations, from NASA satellites, to planets, to stars, to galaxies. These are collectively known as the 'Fly-by' mysteries. These are addressed in my essay.

Elsewhere (Rafael's...

view entire post

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 16:42 GMT
Hi Ed,

I didn't intend for it to sound like a "drive by shooting". Rafael said "P.S. I wonder what the others might say about the above - especially Butler, Klingman, Petkov, Biermans and Benedict..." and I thought that my comment "fit" in the conversation.

Yes - Energy is proportinal to the square of the Amplitude.

Dirac wrote at least a couple of papers about his Large Number "Numerology" Cosmology. It has been a while since I read either, but I think that his argument has about as much basis as does Dark Energy. Dirac's first approach at a Cosmology based on his Large Number didn't exactly pan out, but Dirac didn't know that Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" was ~10^-123 which is the inverse cube of Dirac's Large Number ~10^41. I attribute this coincidence to the geometry of 3 spatial dimensions, rather than the square of an amplitude. Maybe my interpretation is wrong, maybe your interpretation is wrong, maybe the truth is a combination of effects that we have both modelled incorrectly. As you know, I have a completely different interpretation of "Dark Energy" with the Variable Coupling Theory in my book.

I am not opposed to a "C" field (I am convinced that other fields must exist, and that gravity must be more complex), but I suspect that it is very weak in this scale, and is therefore, most important at a larger scale. Unfortunately this implies a Multiverse, and I understand your objections against including God or a Multiverse in our Physics. If I am allowed to explain one point in terms of God or a Multiverse, then I can probably explain all points using similar arguments.

I don't claim to be a prophet who knows all of the answers, but I think that this part of our ideas is at conflict.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 17:15 GMT

You say: "I attribute this coincidence to the geometry of 3 spatial dimensions, rather than the square of an amplitude."

I interpret this to mean "three degrees of freedom". For example Boltzmann's constant is multiplied by 3 for three degrees of freedom:

1/2 mv^2 = (3/2)kT

This is quite different from assuming that 3 spatial dimensions implies a cube root.

Is this what you're saying?

And Ray, the "drive by shooting" was tongue in cheek. I am not upset that you posted a remark where you considered it appropriate at the time, but I would like to have a 'heads up' so I can respond. I do think this 'Fly-by' physics is important validation as I derived the physics long before I had the measured values to compare to.

Of course either of our interpretations may be wrong.

Having fun!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 18:09 GMT
Hi Ed,

I think that three degrees of freedom gives us a factor of three, not the power of three that coincidentally distinguishes the inverse Cosmolgical Constant from Dirac's Large Number.

In my essay, I said that fine-tuning on the order of ~10^41 (or its inverse) is not mathematically probable or philosophically reasonable. I deduce that 10^41 must, therefore, be a number that is mandated by our scale.

What about 10^123 (and its inverse)? Is it the ultimate scale number for our scale, and 10^41 is its cube root? Or is 10^-123 "leakage" from a scale of greater complexergy than ours? [By the way, I did enjoy your reference to Nottale's scales.] If this number was different, say 10^-100, then I would be more willing to accept it as leakage from another scale.

If it has a bill, webbed feet, and quacks, then it might be a duck. The similarity between 10^-123 vs. (10^41)^-3 is too striking to ignore.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 20:13 GMT

I must admit that I don't understand the relevance of what might be entirely accidental numerical relations.

For example, in attempting to calculate the strength of the C-field, I found it 10^31 stronger than Maxwell assumed (he did so for no good reason, just simple symmetry) and recently Tajmar has measured the C-field and found the same factor of 10^31 greater than expected.

Now these numbers are not "exact" but they are very close being the EXACT FOURTH ROOT of 10^123 , that is, (10^31)^4 = 10^124 [close enough for government work].

So it may or may not be legitimate to play the numbers game where there is not real physics to back it up, only theories of scale.

By the way, I owe the use of Nottale in my essay to you. Thanks.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 21:05 GMT
HA! We might both be playing a little bit of numerology - perhaps time will tell if either of us guessed even closely...

report post as inappropriate

re castel wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 21:20 GMT

I have something for you at the scene of the crime. :)

I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look-see.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 00:40 GMT
Dear Rafael,

Thanks for studying my essay sufficiently to ask such good questions. I'll attempt to answer them [both on your thread and here].

We seem to have no disagreements upon the relevance of 'local mass density', which, by the way, General Relativity cannot deal with.

You are correct that I begin with a single field. But my only assumption at the beginning is that...

view entire post

re castel replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 11:08 GMT

I may have a good answer if you take a look at it again at the scene.


report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 18:58 GMT
Physical reality depends on continuous fields.

Informed reality depends upon the existence of thresholds, or universal constants.


Still trying to wrap my brain around the above.

Your distinctions appear to be "givens." My analogue argument seems judgmental in comparison.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 20:41 GMT

Not quite sure what you mean. I begin with a conjecture that only one thing exists in the 'beginning' and that seems to imply a field (which is almost by definition analog.) The logical development of this conjecture leads to a 'threshold' or 'universal constant' and it is this that allows the separation of the universe into two categories, 'above' and 'below' the threshold, and this supports the evolution of 'form' inside the universe, which continues to 'in-form' reality until we reach the universe that you describe in your essay, a reality that "vibrates with life".

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 22:38 GMT
All fqxi participants,

As many of you have indicated, big change is potentially coming, and many essays are focused on new approaches to physics. My GEM theory has for five years predicted no Higgs and no SUSY (Super-Symmetry) and no other particles.

The response from many has been "There has to be SUSY!"

But this week's Nature (3 Mar 2011) claims that, over a year of searching at LHC has failed to find any evidence of super-particles (or the Higgs), and if SUSY is not found by the end of the year, the theory is in serious trouble (although some say already that 'SUSY is dead'.)

The Nature article states that "SUSY's utility and mathematical grace have instilled a "religious devotion" among its followers" some of whom have been working on the theory for thirty years.

The key statement in the article is this:

"This is a big political issue in our field. For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track."

That says it all.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Anonymous replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 15:11 GMT

Perhaps the failure to observe proton decay also means that the standard model is dead? The failure to observe gravity waves means that general relativity is dead?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Positive predictions (e.g., constant speed of light; identical rates of acceleration for objects in a gravity field) within the classical domain have the advantage over negative predictions (no Higgs, no supersymmetry) in the microscopic domain, because we obviously (thank heaven!) live in a low energy world. Don't you have the same difficulty positively predicting the C field?

You know, though, after seeing you and Ray talk about 4th roots, I was reminded of something I wrote for ICCS 2006 about projective geometry, almost as an afterthought. Having derived a specific number to represent least action over the least (i.e. 4 D)hyperspace, I found that the 4th root (1.41489 ...) is only a tad off the square root of 2 (correspondent to Pythagoras's theorem). I concluded "As a first order estimate of the length of hyperspatially projected points to Euclidean space, the value suggests a future algebraic ability to predict the differentiated origin of events in hyperspace that by present methods (tensor calculus, e.g.) are considered undifferentiable from any arbitrarily chosen point of 4-dimensional space-time. (Our technique gives time an independent physical role.)"

The point is that your "numerology" agrees with my numerology. It has to, because we are describing the same 4 dimensional spacetime in two different ways. You speak of field strength measure in a continuous model; I speak of projective measure in a discrete model. The identity between our calculations of roots points to a way in which to constrain the field boundaries -- not to the locally real model that you want, but to a nonlocally real model that quantum mechanics demands (such as that described by Ken Wharton in the essay contest). The Riemannian geometry that supports a four dimensional Pythagorean theorem gives something to us both: a continuous field varying in strength and consistent with general relativity, as well as hyperspatially projected points by which to fix boundary conditions.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 17:01 GMT

If you mean the Standard Model and GR as 'final theories', I agree that they are both dead. But of course, like classical physics, they still have applicability in their appropriate realms. (At least GR does.)

And obviously positive predictions beat negative predictions. But if your prediction is 'no new particles' that's a problem. Yet, since there are almost a dozen new particles predicted, there should be some 'cumulative credit' for being correct on all of them. I "predicted" the C-field for a year before I found out that Tajmar had measured the field and Maxwell had conjectured it and Einstein's GR produced it in the weak field approximation. At about the time I realized that the C-field implies a perfect fluid, the RHIC found it, so my 'prediction' became a 'retrodiction' (or 'explanation'). I predicted the C-field as the explanation of the Fly-by mysteries, but I may not have been first to do so.

I should have predicted the 4% QED discrepancy for muonic hydrogen, but simply didn't think about it, although it's obvious as soon as it was announced. I do have several minor predictions for particle physics that are yet untested, but getting them noticed and tested is not easy for an outsider.

I'm not really into 'numerology' and I was just pointing out to Ray that, if one attaches significance to such, I could derive a 'significant' result different from his, but I do appreciate your last paragraph. You and I completely disagree on physical reality, but we do accept the same mathematics. It's only when one attempts to force mathematical interpretations on physical reality that we part ways.

I'm happy with your last sentence, and it's good to end with an agreement. Thanks for your comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

T H Ray replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 17:40 GMT

I think we two are inverse, rather than orthogonal.

You want a final theory, and I don't think there is such a thing. You want physical intuition, and I don't think there is such a thing.

What we do have in common is a calculational strategy that might constrain boundary conditions for a field continuum and allow an other-than-arbitrary choice of boundaries. That gets to Einstein's essential question (and I mean this as a metaphor, just as Einstein meant it)of whether God had a choice in creating the world as it is. If we have to specify boundary conditions to get continuous functions, was nature also so constrained?


report post as inappropriate

Michael Jeub wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 05:10 GMT
I like your way of thinking about mass length and time. However my views are not having all the left movers in one reality of our local. I formulate time as the most fundamental scalar, a quality space scalar, whereas matter a vector, and length more like a Dirichlet characterization, a tensor, a probability length as a potential across an arbitrary three dimensional volume. As a computer model for population synthesis one would need to make these progressive rather than static constants that are interchangeable? The "analogue in" is always a permanence and the "digital out" is always a variance in mathematical terms, and so from what I have picked up so far there will always be this difference. Call it a difference in sign or whatever. Abstractly, I find that distance is 1.5 times that of mass, and time just half of that. What it takes to produce and instant, a field, a particle, a length, are all different to me, but somehow I do not feel hopelessly lost in this point of view. I believe in the C-field but may have a different feel for it. Could it be that a neutron star at close range after a supernova gave us all of our left mover local reality?

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 07:09 GMT
Dear Michael Jeub,

Thanks, a lot. I'm glad you like my way of thinking. I like your way of writing. I had quickly scanned your paper and dismissed it but your comment caused me to go back and study your little gem, and it is most enjoyable. I generally agree with Georgina, but you serve as a Rorschach test, and obviously touched some deep insecurity in some anonymous reader. I hope that Armin is mistaken and this was not a 'paper generator'. I find it hard to believe that a generator could come up with M-theory 'keeps governments truthful'.

Anyway, thanks for reading my paper and thanks for writing yours.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 11:27 GMT
Dear Edwin

Having just recovered from recent cataract surgery - a comment on my age - I have re-read your paper further encouraged to do so by this remark by Peter Jackson (thank you Peter) "There are a number of consistent essays looking very strong and 'real', currently led by Edwin, which you seem to also be very close to"

I enjoyed yet again your suggestions for physics based on local causality in a magneto-gravitational theory (did I get that right?). You described your ideas by equations beautifully coupled to figures or verbal explanations that helped clarify them. This is great. While not pretending to have your grasp of particle physics and many other topics, I think you will be interested in my approach to a TOE. I have tried to show in my in my earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which my present fqxi paper is based that a universal ether made up of spinning dielectric nodes can be the basis for reconstructing physics practically from scratch.

One item I disagree with you about is Bell's Theorem. In my theory I flatly reject probability as a real property of particles and explain my reasons for this belief. The two photons or electrons therefore are identical in all respects except direction of propagation, and subsequent effects in EQR or Bell's Theorem are the result of random measurement in the sensing devices. I would appreciate your reading my papers and very interested in what you may make of them.

One equation in your paper refers to the partial differential of ro (density?). Would that be equivelant to the density gradient (index of refraction changes due to differing node rotation rates) that I attribute GR effects to?

With best wishes Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 19:14 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for re-reading my essay. I have just done the same to yours. Your figures and your ideas are beautiful. We agree on some points, such as local realism, and I think we view particles in much the same manner. We also take seriously "Roger Penrose' call to 'start all over'." And we agree, I think, on the need for an 'ether' equivalent. And I think we also agree on Bell's Theorem: I too reject "probability as a real property of particles".

We are somewhat complementary in our approaches. If I interpret you correctly, you begin with electro-magnetics and 'derive' gravity therefrom. I begin with only a gravitational field and 'condense' locally real particles, including charged particles, which leads to electro-magnetics. Also, although our particles seem related, you place them on a lattice, whereas mine are embedded in a field. Thus there is overlap between our theories, but also points of divergence.

You ask about one equation that "refers to the partial differential of ro (density?). Would that be equivalent to the density gradient (index of refraction changes due to differing node rotation rates) that I attribute GR effects to?"

I believe the equation is "partial with respect to 'local volume' relating to another partial with respect to distance, a mass density gradient, which may somewhat relate to GR (GR can't deal with local mass density), and may relate to change in index of refraction.

Finally, a remark on your association with Buckminster Fuller. As a teenager growing up in a backwater, all of the 'old people' I knew were 'simple' in that they never said anything that I had not either heard before or thought of before. I concluded that mind, like muscles, degrades with age. One day I saw Buckminster Fuller (age 76) on TV who said a number of things that I had never thought of, and realized that one does not have to become simple and predictable with age.

Keep thinking new thoughts, in honor of Bucky.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 12:10 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I've been reading the last few pages of comment discussion and was pleasantly surprised to read this: We also take seriously "Roger Penrose' call to 'start all over'." I have long held this view which has been highlighted by the prominent author and mathematical physicist. On day-by-day thinking about the novel idea of a mechanical Archimedes screw in empty space representing the force of gravity by gravitons, I have deduced an explanation for the galaxy rotation curve anomaly.

The helical screw model gives matter a new fundamental shape and dynamics which the standard model lacks imo. This non-spherical emission of gravitons is in stark contrast to the Newtonian/Einsteinian acceptance that "all things exert a gravitatinal field equally in all directions". This asymmetry of the gravitational field allows for the stars to experience a greater pull towards the galactic plane, due to their rotation giving more order to the inner fluid matter of the stellar core. Both the structure of the emitter and the absorber of the gravity particles is important. It also has implications for hidden matter at the centre of the galaxies..

I've given the idea some more thought and come to the conclusion that the stars furthest from the galactic centre must have a more 'bipolar nature' than the matter of stars of the inner halo presumably. This is the reason they have wandered towards the galactic plane whilst the halo stars have not. The outer stars' configuration means they experience a greater interaction with the flux pattern of the graviton field. Are the stars of the outer arms simply spinning faster?? We are on the outer edge of a spiral arm and so this would fit with this hypothesis. Our sun could have spin which is higher that that of the average halo star. This relationship between spin and distance from the galactic centre is a fundamental feature which ties in with the suggested mechanism of their creation.

All that is needed is an additional factor of stellar spin speed as well as it's mass and distance from the galactic centre. The relationship should then give calculated values which match those of the observed.

Best wishes,

Alan Lowey

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 18:47 GMT

I'm glad that you agree with Penrose, and those who feel that a fresh start is needed.

If you have a chance to review my essay, you'll find that on page 8 I deal with the problem you discuss and show that the recently reported numbers for these and other 'Fly-by' phenomena match my calculated values based on the gravito-magnetic C-field.

I am impressed by how many various ideas are surfacing in this essay contest, and hope that some of them actually survive and spread into the 'outside world'.

Thanks for the comment and for participating in fqxi. And thanks for the link to the plot of the galaxy rotation curve anomaly. I had not seen that particular data. It's a nice representation.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 10:02 GMT

I've looked back at your essay and see that on page 8 you address the pioneer anomaly as well as fly-by anomlies. I was unable to follow the mathematical details of the rest of the page unfortunately but was pleased that you were concerned with these issues. Interestingly enough, I emailed Slava Turyshev of JPL NASA and was surprised when he replied with an interest in my 'change of gravity field with inclination' idea. This was around a year or more ago incidentally. You're probably too innundated with other people to take this abstract idea to it's full conclusion but thanks for the consideration.

All the best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 19:40 GMT
This is my attitude to supersymmetry

This is my Essay

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 20:20 GMT

Thanks for the comment. I had already looked at your viXra paper which contains several interesting quotes. And while we may disagree on gravity, we probably agree on gravitons.

In that paper you say that "Supersymmetry does not exist in nature."

On another thread TH Ray speaks of "a clear explanation of why super-symmetry plays such an important role in modern physical theory."

But why does supersymmetry play such an important role in modern physics?

Since super-partners have not been observed at the same masses as the Standard Model particles, we know that supersymmetry cannot be an 'exact' symmetry.

When I first tried to understand why SUSY was deemed so important, it seemed that it simply made it easier to cancel undesirable artifacts. And then I found that Schwarz and Seiberg (in the 1999 Review of Modern Physics) state: "Boson-fermion cancellation is at the heart of the applications of supersymmetry", which seems to confirm my interpretation.

Even this is threatened by the fact that LHC has found NO evidence of SUSY. And the important thing is that, even if they do find it in the future, it will imply masses so large that SUSY "will no longer perfectly cancel out the troublesome quantum fluctuations that SUSY was meant to correct." [3 Mar 2011 Nature Vol 471]

So at what point does one admit that SUSY was a 'patch' or 'fix' to a problem (or problems) and that the 'fix' isn't there? And that it is a sign of much deeper problems with current theory.

This is why Nature says: "This is a big political issue in our field. For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track."

Yuri, thanks for the viXra reference. It's looking like your view of SUSY is correct.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 23:01 GMT
Hi Ed,

Within your own model, you have 4 fundamental particles (times 3 generations) and 4 fundamental fields (times 3 spatial dimensions?). How can you unify these distinctly different kinds of phenomena (particles behave discretely, fields are continuously differentiable) within the same framework?

I have suggested that particles and fields may be reciprocally-related lattices and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 01:20 GMT

That's a lot to respond to, but here goes.

We probably can't get too far on your first question of "How can you unify these distinctly different kinds of phenomena (particles behave discretely, fields are continuously differentiable) within the same framework?" The answer has to do with the Calabi-Yau manifold nature of the particle 'condensation', which I am in process of...

view entire post

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 15:11 GMT
Dear Edwin,

As a supporter of the results in my essay I want you to be among the first to know! Using the same ideas in my essay I am now able to mathematically prove the following proposition. I will be posting this result as soon as I have a clean write-up of it.


All the best, and thanks again for your support! It doesn't look, however, that my essay will make it to the final group. Right now it's ranked 37th. That's too bad, as I was hoping to get these results reviewed by the 'panel of experts'. The only motivation for entering the contest!


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 20:06 GMT

Thanks for your support also, and I look forward to reading your new work.

When I looked, it appears that you are now close to thirty, so I hope you get these results reviewed as you wish. Things are still fluid, so you can move up or down.

Good luck,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 05:01 GMT
Dear Edwin,

As promised:

”What is the Matter with de Broglie Waves?”


“If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”

These are very short! I could have combined them into one. But I wanted both titles!

Best wishes,


P.S. It now seems that I will not get these results reviewed by the panel after all. I am ranked 38 and likely not to do any better in the next 4 days. Too bad! But the struggle continues. I appreciate all your support in this effort.

report post as inappropriate

John Gadway wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 16:18 GMT

Note: I have posted this comment as a response to your generous comments on my essay [#902], but since my comment has as much or more to do with the topic of your essay, I am re-posting it here as well. Your readers may find my essat at

I re-read your essay with mounting interest and frustration with my limited fluency in math. I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 19:58 GMT

Thanks for the extensive response.

I replied on your thread. I regret the math frustration you experienced, but the book "Atheist and God Particle" focuses on your interests and is non-mathematical.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

dead parrot wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 21:37 GMT
To FQXi community,

This paper is hopelessly flawed. How is it this paper is so far at the top, even holding first place sometimes?

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 22:07 GMT
'E's not dead, 'E's just sleeping.

And who expects parrots, dead or not, to understand physics. Physics is about strings and extra dimensions, exotic symmetries, multi-verses, and many worlds, and Higgs and SUSY and axions, dilatons, gravitons, anyons, inflatons, etc etc, and about the computers-in-the-sky (or another dimension), about 'holography' and 'information' that produces physical reality and about non-local, non-real non-sense, none of which has ever been seen (most of which is not even seeable) and none of which fits together, even mathematically. So yes, by all means judge this paper to be flawed, in light of the wonderful alternative theories that exist in today's establishment physics.

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 10:15 GMT
Dear Dead Parrot.

Our time with you was fun, and you may be just resting, but Rest in Peace - as the graveyards of history are full of indispensable physics. The overgrowth is now being cleared as it seems at last more space will be needed.

Dear Edwin

Although we are very close on the rankings I confirm I have scored you the ten your essay richly deserves. If you could have extra points for bravery you'd have those too.

Best of luck.


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 02:21 GMT
dead parrot wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 21:37 GMT

"To FQXi community,

This paper is hopelessly flawed. How is it this paper is so far at the top, even holding first place sometimes?"


How? Just check the above two respondents' very powerful PR campaigns conducted on the many many different (present) essay's pages and you will understand why.

report post as inappropriate

Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 14:42 GMT

Thanks for the comment on my essay.

I read you essay early when you sent it, while I was writing my essay. I was dealing with expressing my idea that when we classify things they become digital. (digital is something that can be expressed with digits) Your essay title and first diagram were very enlightening. So when I first rated some essays, I thought yours was one that deserved consideration (and a lot of points):

So, in that sence you already got all I can give:

"You rated this essay on Mar 11, 2011. If you have any questions, please contact FQXi. "

My position about the essay question: is reality digital or analog? Can be summarized this way:

Reality is what we perceive of the universe, and universe is what it is. When we understand things they become digital. As you say "analog in - digital out".

The rest of my essay is pure speculation.

In this essay contest I have read several positions on which is the basic component of universe.

You say it is a field. Others identify it with space-time. Others identify it as a stochastic process, etcetera. Well, I say it's a particle.

My background forces me to be near to algorithms and computation complexity. I still do some programing in java(image processing) and most of the work on my essay and this comment were done on my iPhone at night, while my wife is sleeping. So this little touch keyboard makes me condense my thought in to little writing.

Have fun


(to everyone: the offer is still in place)

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 15:45 GMT

Thanks for your gracious remarks and for the early vote.

And thanks for considering that the universe, if it computes anything, may be an analog computer, based on connectivity rather than 'stored program code'.

As you point out, there's no shortage of ideas as to what is the basic component of the universe.

I also recall that your previous essay was concerned with consciousness, and was written with a light style and some humor. My essay in that contest was also on consciousness.

So thanks again Juan, for the vote, the comment, and your participation in fqxi.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 00:25 GMT

You don't need my rating but you have it.



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 00:58 GMT
Thank you Jim. It's appreciated.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear Edwin,

First of all, thanks a lot for taking the time to read my essay and your gentle comments.

I printed out your essay already 3 weeks ago, started to read and stopped because I thought it was too difficult for a non physicist to understand, however I became intrigued by the posts you sent to other participants , I like to read an essay a day (keeps the doctors away) and in all the comments you gave I got a fair idea of what you stand for, and that intrigued me even more, after your discussion with Peter Jackson and his Local C (velocity) I became aware that behind all those formula's you propose a whole new way of thinking that perhaps can take away a lot of fuzziness, weirness, spooky things etc. Peter is also on that way,, through him I understood only now why two photons approaching each otherdo not exeed c.

So what I did this sundaymoring is taking up again your essay and now I read it two times, second time everything became clear, only one thing I want to ask you :

I think you apply Calabi : "curvature makes matter without gravity possible", if you apply that to your C-Field, you can indeed easily let "condense" particles. That curvature is limited is logically nececerry I think, untill now okay, but on page 6 you mention that the electron and the photon each have a pilot wave, this I do not quite understand is this pilot wave a residue of the condensate of the C-field, is it a special effect of the C-field when there is condensated a particle or a photon, or is has this pilot wave his origin in the particle/photon ?

On the article Choas Consciousness and the Cosmos, I reacted (11 march) to the post of Carmen Putrino, as a reaction on PEAR research from the Princeton University, in this post I mentioned your C-Field,(which also can mean Consciousness Field) and named it without your consent (sorry for that) the KLINGMAN-FIELD, I hope you can forgive me.

I am starting to print now your Fundamental Physics of Consciousness, sure that I will encounter there a lot points of interest.

best regards


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 20:26 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I am glad that I read your essay, because I'm always happy to find another who believes that physics must, in the end, take consciousness into consideration. And also that my comment caused you to re-attempt my essay. Thank you for doing so, and for your comment here.

The key, as you stated, is to read it at least twice. That is simply how complicated things must be handled, by you or me or anyone. I did not understand Peter's paper until the second time through. And I was also influenced by others comments as well. Unfortunately we have the time to read only a small percentage of papers twice, so that calls for judgment. Thank you for re-reading mine.

You have made the critical connection to Calabi, and your follow-on question is excellent. "I do not quite understand is this pilot wave a residue of the condensate of the C-field, is it a special effect of the C-field when there is condensated a particle or a photon, or is has this pilot wave his origin in the particle/photon?"

The initial condensation process is that of a vortex in a very strong C-field (at the big bang, or in the LHC collider, etc) and the particles represent a limiting case topological change (of the vortex wall) to a very stable configuration. The particle then has 'lumped' or 'locally concentrated' mass, as opposed to the 'distributed' mass associated with the C-field energy through E=mc^2. But, according to the equations, moving mass (momentum) induces a new, local C-field circulating around the momentum vector (denoted 'p') in the same fashion that electro-magnetic field circulation is induced by moving electric charge (current). It is this 'induced C-field circulation' (that always accompanies momentum) that plays the part of the pilot wave for the particle or the photon, because the particle and photon both have momentum. So it is not a residue of the condensate, but has its origin in the particle/photon.

As I said, excellent question. If my answer is not clear, ask again and I'll try again.

As for the name of the field, better you than me!

I hope you enjoy the Consciousness essay, and look forward to any questions or comments you might have. Thanks for participating in fqxi

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Anthony DiCarlo wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 16:10 GMT

It had taken a bit of time for me to grasp your essay, and, I now believe I can give an opinion. First and foremost, your comment outlined below is being “thought” restrictive. You are confining your thoughts to lie in a "box," a box that will be defined below.

You state:

“Laws of Physics: Physics should never accept anything “outside time and space”, such...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 21:03 GMT
Dear Anthony DiCarlo,

Thank you for putting in the effort to grasp my essay, and then giving me your opinion.

Your first problem seems to be with my 'starting rules', which are: 'don't go outside of reality' for your building blocks and/or concepts, specifically God, a mathematical (Platonic) universe, 'laws' of physics, or more than four dimensions. Had I known the trend that has...

view entire post

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 16:54 GMT

Have you read Dr Lucian Ionescu's essay. I believe you need to. It seems to provide the precise and brilliant mathematical and logical reasoning for what my DFM concept facilitates and your C field mechanism constructs.


report post as inappropriate

Irvon Clear wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 20:13 GMT

I read you essay and it is by far the strongest statement that expresses a shared concern: the sensible explanation for existence requires a simple observation that is in turn the foundation for a simple model. Yours is elegant and requires one simple assumption. But I think the assumption should be slightly modified. A primordial field has never initially existed. Its initial state was as an object that could exist but did not exist. Actual existence required some interaction with something to evolve it from zero to one. Meaningfulness is derived from understanding how the primordial field was first created as an object that could exist but did not exist and then how it actually evolved into existence. This modification pushes your assumed initial state back to nothingness. Everything has evolved from nothingness.

Constantinos Ragazas in "A World Without Quanta" refers to nothingness as a property less ether that fills space. My point of view would modify this statement to an ether that has one property: the potential for existence.

Your essay stands on its own as a significant view of existence. I hope it is regarded with serious merit by the judges.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 21:30 GMT
Dear Irvon,

Thank you for your comment and good wishes.

I found very interesting your use of zero and one to signify 'coming into existence'.

You say above, "Actual existence required some interaction with something to evolve it from zero to one. Meaningfulness is derived from understanding how the primordial field was first created as an object that could exist but did not exist and then how it actually evolved into existence. This modification pushes your assumed initial state back to nothingness. Everything has evolved from nothingness."

Obviously, this is the key unanswered question of existence. It is a meta-physical more than physical issue, but that should not stop us from attempting to extend our ideas from physical reality back to 'pre-physical reality' and you do so in what seems an original manner. Where we touch, my essay begins with the initial 'zero' becoming 'one' AND ONLY ONE! And from this potential evolved the world we live in today.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Joel Mayer wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 20:50 GMT
Dear Professor Klingman- I read your essay, THE ANALOG IN, DIGITAL OUT UNIVERSE. I must say, you have a complete mastery of your subject and you are completely fluent with the matrix algebras. My intution tells me that if you looked at my entry: IS REALITY DIGITAL OR ANALOG? You probably came away with the idea that my 'style' of mathematics is outside of the mainstream. In remedy, I'm going to send you a copy of one of my longer papers: NEOPLASIA MATHEMATICS. Hopefully, this will lead you to conclude that my methods are spot on in application to the knotty problem of cell duplication rates. Good luck in the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 21:13 GMT
Dear Joel H Mayer, MD,

Thank you for your comment. But you have misjudged my appreciation of your essay. If you review your thread you will find that on March 9th I left the following comment on your thread:

Dear Joel H Mayer,

I very much enjoyed your essay, and was impressed by your use of the fqxi questions I-VIII as an organizing framework. All of your points are interesting and very well presented (except for the annoying tendency to replace a comma with a period, prematurely ending the sentence.)

You chose a unique but very relevant example to make a number of points, several of which I learned from. You deserve a much higher ranking.

By the way, I was happy at the end to see that you really do honor Maxwell appropriately. He was a giant, but you do well to remind us that nobody's perfect.

Thanks for a wonderful, enlightening essay.

[Today's note: I did rank you highly and have recommended your essay to several other people. I think it is one of the better essays submitted.]

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 12:06 GMT

I just posted an excellent quantum computing analogue to my approach on my string, which I believe remains consistent with your field aspect, from Ionescue's paper, which has gone largely unnoticed as it's so "Dense" Christi called it, but it isn't too long.

It follows the DFM conceptual logic, and, with the other views here possibly completes the first approximation of the full paradigm shift mechanism!.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 19:37 GMT
To all,

Good news on the C-field front!

The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to light passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.

The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.

From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsibnle for observable effects.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Chris Kennedy wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 18:12 GMT

Thanks very much for your support and congrats on your extremely high rank! I have really enjoyed reading your essay and the interesting discussions on your thread. A further discussion on the core of the neutron being negative is just one of many that we could have in the coming weeks.

Good luck with phase two.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 22:17 GMT
To all fqxi'ers,

Thank you for your support that led to a theory of local realism placing high in the community ratings. I've enjoyed reading your essays and discussing various points with many of you.

And thank you fqxi for providing these worthwhile events.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John Merryman wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 23:41 GMT

Congratulations. Good luck in the finals.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 01:34 GMT
Congratulations Edwin! Well deserved!

Now that this time consuming phase of the contest is over, and if you are so inclined, I'd like your reflections on my two most recent posts:

”What is the Matter with de Broglie Waves?”


“If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”

Both of these are very short and easy read. It will take you no more than a minutes each to read, but much longer I hope to reflect!

In the first post I derive the de Broglie equations and give these a more sensible and totally consistent meaning as all my previous papers. I also derive the exponential of energy that I have used to obtain Planck's Law in my essay. In the second short post I show that the CSL hypothesis of SR contradicts the Photon Hypothesis. I again used the 'prime physis quantity eta' as a starting point.

Is it true that the top three community rated essays get published in Scientific America? That is great! No matter what happens with the panel vote. Good luck!


report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 16:38 GMT
Dear Edwin

Not bad isn't it, congratulations,5I dont understand why the community gave such low ratings, was the top a 6 then everything is okay).

I reread your essay "Fundamental Physics of Consciuosness" and I am still digesting it, the thought is wholy new to me, I am aware of your formulation of consciousness and free will, so alltogether I have to accept a

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 02:04 GMT
John Merryman,

Thanks a lot and thanks for your discussions.

Constantinos Ragazas,

I've read both of those and will reflect on both.

Wilhemus de Wilde,

I think essays receive high awards if approved of, but I suspect some also receive low awards if the reader thinks the approach is mistaken. Since my essay is based on local realism, and that is currently out of favor, I probably got a number of low ratings for this reason. And, people being people, at the end there may well be 'strategic voting' to move individuals up or down. If the scores reflect these and other motivations, they may be understandable.

I'm pleased that you found both of my essays worth re-reading.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Emmanuel Moulay wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 17:03 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Sorry to have not commented on your essay before, but I am so busy with my research and the current research grant. Even if my viewpoint is different from yours and closer than the one of Jason Wolfe, I agree totally with your sentence “Thus analog or digital reality questions can’t be answered mathematically—the answer must be found in a physical universe.” Do you know the book of the mathematician Peter Woit “Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law” about the current relation between Mathematics and Physics. I work with mathematicians and nuclear physicists but I see that it is very difficult to exchange with theoretical physicists. I think that theoretical physics is in crisis and is very nervous due to the current problems of masses with the Higgs boson, dilation with the dilatons, gravitons and superparticles needed for quantum gravity and the unknown dark matter and dark energy. As you, I think that we need a new radical approach. But I think like Jason that the solution is in the subtle relation between matter and light. Good luck for the end of the contest.



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 01:54 GMT
Dear Emmanuel Moulay,

Thanks for the comment. Yes, I've read Woit's work, and also Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics". I do agree with you that physics is in crisis, for reasons that I've laid out in these comments.

This competition, and several of the essays here, have caused me to pay more attention to the interaction of the C-field with photons, and I have been pleasantly surprised by the relations that I am discovering.

There were so many new and original ideas and new insights into current physics, that everyone who seriously attempted to study these essays and comments should have benefited significantly. I know I did.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 12:04 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved high placing. You seem to be inexhaustable so I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to Daniele btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 17:26 GMT

Maxwell took Faraday's idea of fields and made it rigorous, and added the concept that fields have energy. But the community had a more mechanical understanding, so he tried to build a mechanical picture of fields to ease their transition to the new ideas.

I don't know whether you are attempting a 'mechanical analogy' or whether you propose a 'mechanical reality'. A mechanical analogy is interesting, whereas mechanical reality (Archimedes screw as graviton) is highly unlikely. If you believe this should be pursued, you should start working simple problems (like the Earth-Moon system) and showing how you get correct answers, then work harder problems (like the ocean's tides), etc. This is the way to convince physicists to pay more attention.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 10:50 GMT

thanks for the added clarification. I'm certainly proposing a mechanical reality and not just an analogy. Interestingly I have solved, in principle, a solution to the Earth-Moon system which includes a non-uniform gravity field, with the gravity field increasing towards the plane of rotation of the Earth and also of the Sun. It's a perfect fit when this 'inclination model' is used in combination with these two papers Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity and The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change. The adjustment will bring the lunar cycle of maximum tide raising forces to the infamous 1,470 year cycle seen in physical data Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock. It's a shame we don't see eye-to-eye on this one. Nevermind.

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Emmanuel Moulay wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 16:45 GMT
Dear Edwin,

You say "Now Maxwell, noticing that Newton's equation and Coulomb's equation had identical form, if we replace G by E and mass by charge, postulated that one could perfom this replacement in ALL of Maxwell's field equations". I agree that the Newton's equation and the Maxwell's equation are similar. But in the 20th century, gravitation and electromagnetism followed two different ways: gravitation led to the General Relativity which is a continuous nonrenormalizable theory, whereas electromagnetism led to the QED which a discrete renormalizable theory. Do you think that the C-field can reconcile these two different theories? To my mind, I think that the link is the photon, as particle it leads to the QED and as wave I think that it leads to the notion of space and time when interacting with matter. But it is possible that there is a relation between photons and your C-field...



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 17:49 GMT

General Relativity and QED both have limited domains of application. Relativity does not handle mass density, nor is is useful for molecular physics, while QED is of little use in the analysis of Black Holes. I believe Doug Sweetser's diagram (in my essay) shows the basic connection between these two approaches. His mathematics attempts to combine the two using quaternions. I am not convinced that his approach will be fruitful, but I do think he has illuminated the problem.

In my early career I needed to solve an equation dealing with shock phenomena that had an analytic solution in the region where the variable of interest was small, a series solution in the region where the variable was large, and 'no' solution in the mid-region. This in some ways resembles GR and QED problems.

Although there are recent criticisms of renormalizable theory that I need to study, my approach is based more on understanding the problems with GR and QED than it is on reconciling the two. It does appear that the C-field is a major factor for spinning black holes, and also a possible factor for large bio-molecules. And as I said, I am working on the interaction of the C-field with photons and finding interesting results.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Emmanuel Moulay wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 09:28 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I think I begin to understand your work about the gravitomagnetism and its analogy between gravitation and electromagnetism for the Newtonian approximation. Actually, I have worked on this analogy but at the level of the General Relativity. I am trying to explain the problem below. The Einstein field equation describes the evolution of the 10 components of the Ricci tensor. The General Relativity says that gravitation is modeled by the Riemann tensor of the spactime that has 20 components. Where are the other 10 components? The 10 components of the Ricci tensor describe the local action of the energy. The other components describe the non local action of the matter and are given by the Weyl tensor. This formalism has been developed for instance by Stephen Hawking and Georges Ellis in their book “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time”. There is an analogy between the Ricci and Weyl tensors and the Maxwell equations, see for instance the papers “Une histoire qu'on cherche à écrire : la relativité générale en termes d'équations du premier ordre” (in French) or the article “Gravitoelectromagnetic analogy based on tidal tensors”. For instance, the Weyl tensor describes the gravitational waves at the level of the General Relativity. The standard cosmology supposes that the Weyl tensor is zero. Actually, the Weyl tensor is non zero but it is negligible due to the fact that in a strong gravitational field the Ricci tensor dominates. I think that things can be different for the weak gravitational field. I have written a paper on arxiv about this problem This paper only suggests that there is a time dilation in a weak gravitational field due to the Weyl tensor. In a weak gravitational field, the Ricci tensor becomes very weak and I think that the variations between weak gravitational fields (given by the Weyl tensor because it models the tidal force) can become more important than the gravitational field itself (given by the Ricci tensor). I give you a naïve example (without any link with the reality): if a variation of a number is between 10000000000 and 10000000000.000001 it is negligible. But if the variation is between 0.000001 and 0.000002 then the variation is 0.000001 which is of the same order than the number itself. Thus, I wonder if it is always possible to neglect the Weyl tensor, even for the weak gravitational field. If not, I think that it is a possible explanation for the dark matter in the theory of the General Relativity. Indeed, the problem in the galaxies is that you have weak gravitational field far away for the center and also important variations. There is a first work in this direction; this is the paper “Exact vacuum solution to conformal Weyl gravity and galactic rotation curves” (The Astrophysical journal 1989).


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 19:29 GMT
Dear Emmanuel,

I am very pleased that you make the effort to understand my essay, and further to translate it into terms that you have expertise in. I will look at your referenced arXiv paper, at the 'Tidal Tensors' article, and perhaps at Hawking and Ellis' book.

I came to the C-field independently, then became aware that Martin Tajmar's measurements agreed with my preliminary calculations, and finally learned that Maxwell and Einstein (as well as Heaviside, Lorentz and others) had worked on the C-field in various forms. My investigation initially focused on the 'Fly-by mysteries', the so-called 'axis of evil', and cosmological jets. As most of the universe is 'flat', I simply ignored black holes and other phenomena that require a general relativistic treatment, and used the linearized equations for 'fly-by', etc. As I became more familiar with C-field physics I realized that the Yang-Mills non-linearity, combined with a dependence on local mass density, actually had particle physics ramifications, and most of my efforts for a few years was working out the details of these. Only recently, due to stimulation I received in this essay competition, have I begun working on the interaction of the C-field with photons. Other than deriving the FLRW equation in terms of the C-field, I have done very little with General Relativity. Since Einstein failed in his attempt to derive the proper relativistic description of the gravito-magneto-static dipole, I assumed that it is beyond my meager GR skills. And you are correct that I have ignored the Weyl tensor and any non-local action of matter.

For this reason I am especially pleased that you are looking at these aspects of the C-field, and that you have responded as above. I believe that Florin was concerned about the 'strong force' with regard to photons. I believe that the C-field addresses this concern in novel fashion, and I tend to agree with your answer: "I think that symmetries are a consequence of the need of stability and not the inverse". Most of my C-field concern with GR has been at the level of the weak field approximation. If you can extend C-field theory beyond that approximation, that would be very good.

Thanks again for your efforts, and best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 20:01 GMT
"that the curvature of space is limited.".

Curvature of space really limited if space 2D+1 for Bosons and 2D+1 for Fermions.

Negative curvature for Bosons.

Positive curvature for Fermions.

See my essay.

report post as inappropriate

basudeba wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 06:59 GMT
Dear Sir,

Mr. Peter Jackson, one of the finalists had asked us some clarifications. We think it may be of interest to you. Hence we post the reply to him below your Essay.

First let us answer to your question regarding how direct observation could be different. Since you are fond of spectroscopy, we will give you an example from that branch. Look at the mechanism behind the emission...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 10:27 GMT
Dear Dr. Edwin,

Congrats for standing second in the contest.If you have succeeded it is because of your indepth knowledge and masterful handling of the subject.The way you responded to your viewers is simply professional as you have originality in your thinking and a basic theory to base your views to boost.

Thanking you.



report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 22:24 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for these very kind remarks.

It is nice to receive such from another independent researcher who is also interested in the fundamentals and philosophy of physics. We are fortunate that fqxi provides a platform that welcomes independent researchers.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 22:25 GMT

I posted this where you are more likely to see it. You may wish to respond here on my thread.

My essay analyzes Anton Zeilinger's logic and concludes that his logic fails if the state of one or more of the entangled particles changes en route from the source to the detector. On other threads, I was asked "why would the state of the photon change?" and explained that in my C-field model photons can interact with mass en route, disturbing the entanglement.

I de-emphasized this argument after becoming aware of Joy Christian's work implying Bell's calculations are in error, but, assuming Joy is wrong (which I do not) my argument still applies.

Yesterday I received Phys Rev Lett 106, 080404 (25 Feb 2011) Antonelli, Shtaif, and Brodsky's paper titled "Sudden Death of Entanglement Induced by Polarization Mode Dispersion" in which they note that the relation between the violation of non-locality and the sudden disappearance of entanglement are due to CHANGES OCCURRING EN ROUTE! The changes are due to the optical birefringence associated with the optical fibers over which the photons travel. They claim that understanding this relation to non-locality is of utmost importance and say "the arbitrary birefringence characterizing fiber-optic transmission produces a PREVIOUSLY UNOBSERVED combination of physical effects" [my emphasis].

They conclude that "The ultimate limits imposed by fiber birefringence to applications based on non-local properties of polarization entanglement were shown to be intriguingly related with the phenomenon of entanglement sudden death."

Without vouching for their calculations, I would point out that the concept of "change en route" as an argument against Zeilinger's (and others') logic is exactly what I proposed in my essay.

Although Phys Rev Letters was designed specifically to get new ideas out fast, I find it interesting that fqxi presented my arguments two months prior to their appearance in PRL. Non-locality is probably the most 'foundational' question that exists today. In my opinion fqxi is very close to achieving the goals for which it was designed.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 22:16 GMT
Again, in the interests of keeping all things C-field in one place, I include the following excerpts from comments on another thread.

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 04:39 GMT

Dear Edwin,

I located the paper on the archive and I read it. I believe it got accepted to PRL not because of Entangelment Sudden Death-ESD (which was already known) but due to the fact of...

view entire post

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 22:18 GMT
Dear Florin,

"Bell's theorem, together with the experiments of Aspect et al., shows that the theoretical idea to use hidden classical variables to replace quantum theory is certainly a lost cause, and has been for forty years."

First, that requires that you believe Bell's theorem. I know you claim that Joy is wrong, but I haven't seen your proof and I reserve judgment.


view entire post

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 12:02 GMT

I'm sure you're watching the blogs, but just in case,just posted the below; (I forgot to also mention that geometrically this also explains the failure of the Law of Refraction between co-moving media, and reversal of time averaged Poynting vectors).


Thanks. The 'transient evolution' viewpoint v 'sudden death' of entanglement was interesting. If we consider the QED view and a Q-bit as a photon, in atomic scattering the energy is continually absorbed and re-emitted (at LOCAL 'c') so a string of 3 Q-bits may not only end up different distances apart (between moving media - [equiv to Doppler shift]) but are of course 'different' Q-bits each time, as, when emitted, their polarisation and path depends on the electron (PMD and birefringence). Looked at in another way this is equivalent to saying that (in macro classic terms) lots of quantum sudden deaths of entanglement may equal a gradual evolutionary death, in a process equivalent to 'diffraction'.

If a string of 3 Q-bits arrives at 'c' but the electron absorbing and emitting the energy is part of another dielectric moving towards the incident medium, the arrival rate will be faster than the emission rate. We therefore have inertial frame transition, maintaining 'c' in the new medium (or c/n subject to PMD) without needing a Lorentz transformation. So now, the gradual death of entanglement gives sudden death of the LT to allow SR with it's paradoxes exchanged for a logical quantum mechanism! And suddenly we have something that meets ALL observation, and the SR postulates! Hmmm.

It's called the discrete field model(DFM) Did you read the essay?; A few have grasped it but it but it really isn't easy. And let's toast Alain Connes and his famous toast ... "The Universe" (well.. our current real local one anyway!).

I look forward to your Blog post. And yes, if you'd like to see the Chromatic Dispersion paper mail me at the Email address on the essay.

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 13:18 GMT

I took your advice and looked up QED for the first time. I was relieved to see the end in sight, for there in plain english was what I had been looking for. I've copied this over from my own thread:

[quote]"QED in Wikipedia states repeatedly that Feynman himself was unhappy with "dippy process" of renormalisation as a 'fudge factor'. New imagery is needed imo. Loops and fractal-like geometry is exactly what I've been drawing and talking about. There's no need for infinites or ad infinitums, reality tends to zero on a decreasing scale of size and amount. It's the simulation model that is needed to understand what's going in this kind of detail.

A new picture of the matter loop: a toroid made of braids, 2 pairs of opposite helical radiating structures. Both attractive and repulsive Archimedes screw graviton configurations emitted. Twists give two plaiting techniques and geometry a different effect on the junction area."[end quote]

The fine-structure constant combined with the larger helical framework geometry is the 'real' picture of reality just under the surface, waiting to be discovered.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 19:01 GMT

I was not aware that "Feynman himself was unhappy with "dippy process" of renormalisation as a 'fudge factor'", but that is exactly how I have interpreted it, along with the 'radiative corrections' attributed to virtual particles. Dirac was also very unhappy with QED.

As for the helix, I believe I mentioned before that the figure on page 6 of my essay is helical in nature. The 'P' stands for momentum, mass times velocity, so that the particle or photon is moving in the direction of the arrow. As it moves it induces the C-field circulation (left-handed red 'loop') which traces out a helix.

The toroidal particle shown at the bottom of page 5 represents a self-induced C-field circulation (Chern Class 0) that may also be pictured as a helix. If the particle is charged (all but photon or neutrino) then the magnetic circulation may be considered a second toroid, compatible with the description, "made of braids, 2 pairs of opposite helical radiating structures."

In The Chromodynamics War I derive the Fine Structure Constant from the process of creating the toroid. I do not believe that any other theory can derive this constant.

When you first proposed your picture, I believed you were thinking too mechanically. It appears that your idea is evolving in the right direction. The 'real picture of reality' has been discovered. It's just waiting to be accepted. This fqxi competition is helping.

Congratulations, and thank you for the above comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 12:59 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Thanks for the post and info. I need to go throught it all in more detail yet. Note that the quote marks are a bit misleading and are not direct from Wikipedia, but from my own quick summary. That said, the QED Wikipedia entry is fascinating, and often reminds the reader of the many problems encountered with the theory in the early days. It hints of a reworking being needed imo.



report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 16:40 GMT

I forgot to mention that if you think you have a t.o.e in the making, I want to know whether it can explain the mystery of the ice ages. That's what my Astronomy lecturer told me when I was an undergraduate, and he was right. If your working model doesn't have an inclination over eccentricity hypothesis then it ain't as good as mine one is..

Cheers, all the best


report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 19:43 GMT

Fine-structure constant can be 25!!!

Getting Its from Bits 397, 303-306 (January 1999).

If grand unification happens.

See also


Yuri Danoyan

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 22:24 GMT
Sorry for inconveince

report post as inappropriate

John Gadway wrote on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 14:17 GMT

After a break I was able to bet back to my hobby--reading about physics and thinking about fundamental questions--and stumbled across a comment by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner [Quantum Enigma] reminding me that Henry Stapp had re-derived and extended Bell's theorem without using the reality assumption. How does Joy's discovery of a flaw in Bells math affect Stapp's work? I like Rosenblum and Kuttner's comment that Stapp result "wold leave reality as an open question." Oh, yeah!

Thanks again for your comments on my essay, which I read again to find the link to yours.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 18:10 GMT

Good to hear from you again.

I am unaware of Stapp's treatment and will try to find out about it.

Florin has said that he will post more on Joy Christian's work soon. I believe that he disagrees with Joy.

If you recall my essay notes that 'changes en route' will conflict with Zeilinger's logic, as laid out in 'Dance of the Photons', without in any way implying non-reality or non-locality. Last week the Physical Review Letters published an article that describes how fiber optic channels introduce changes en route. The comments above, beginning Mar. 24, 2011 @ 22:25 GMT discuss this aspect of the problem.

Although it may sound contradictory, I, like most others I know, am aware of the "intense personal experiences" that lead humans to wonder about 'non-locality' at the level of human consciousness. I do not feel that this requires the current 'non-local' treatment of physical particles, and my model of such particles is based on local realism.

Welcome back,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 20:09 GMT
Dear Edwin

What is your opinion about Marinov experiment?

All the best


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 00:38 GMT

Thanks for the above references. I am looking at these, but there is a lot of information there, so I am presently scanning the articles you mentioned, and others you mention on your thread.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 20:26 GMT
Dear Edwin,

You are a shining example to the physics community; there are of course others who push the envelope as well.

Neutrinos are mysterious enough that they should catch the attention of curious thinkers.

Tom mentioned a few times that it's all just geometry. Yet, I still think that space-time geometry is the observable quality of something that cannot be seen. Otherwise, why would gravity exist at all? Planetary orbits are described by ellipses. I guess the explanation of a space-time continuum is too mysterious. I'm looking for a way to interface with and control gravity. I do not understand why the GR experts feel so threatened by such pursuits.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 00:14 GMT
Dear Anonymous/(Jason?),

Thanks for your compliment. There are others on the thread we came from who do not agree.

You say, "Neutrinos are mysterious enough that they should catch the attention of curious thinkers."

That is true in so many ways that I won't even try to go there in this comment.

As for their claim that "it's all just geometry", there are those who believe in a Platonic world where math 'lives' simultaneously in another dimension that is as real as our world, and apparently some who seem to believe that our world is just a 'manifestation' of math. I think they are very confused, but they have a right to their beliefs. Like you, I believe that "space-time geometry is the observable quality of something that cannot be seen." There seems to be a basic choice: chaos or order. With chaos there would be no stable, lasting relationships. With order it would appear that geometry is an inevitable consequence, not a cause.

You say, "I'm looking for a way to interface with and control gravity." Did you find the Science paper I mentioned to you last week? If not, I will make a copy and mail it to you. It is definitely relevant to your earlier work on 'shift photon generation' [without implying that the result will do what you want it to do. You've said elsewhere, "By reproducing what gravity does to photons (frequency shifting) it should be possible to reproduce a gravity field." If you reach up and pull an apple off a tree, you are in some ways reproducing what gravity does to apples, but have you reproduced a gravity field?

When you say "I do not understand why the GR experts feel so threatened by such pursuits." you are dealing with people's self-concepts and ideas of self-worth, not to mention paychecks and status. It's not really surprising that some don't handle this well. There are even religious aspects involved, since, according to a major player in the 'Landscape' theory, the motivation was to find an alternative to the implication that there is a 'Designer' responsible for the fine tuning of our universe, no matter how un-physical this multiverse might be. So it's complicated, but unlikely to change for the better.

I do like your ideas and your questions, especially the one that kicked off the other long thread, "the impression that the gravity field ... is a static extended object." That is very much the concept that my essay begins with.

Thanks again for your opening comment,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 02:28 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Yes, it's Jason. The fact that there is disagreement about the ultimate source or cause of physics (Platonitic/mathematical absolutes? Some quasi-existent wave-function? God-bricks?); such disagreement is proof that, collectively, we don't understand what is causing space-time or the laws of physics.

Now, if it were me, I would just ask. I would yell are talk loudly while driving my truck down the freeway. I would just ask for what I was looking for.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 06:02 GMT

You say, "such disagreement is proof that, collectively, we don't understand what is causing space-time or the laws of physics."

Of course we don't. But there's always a priesthood who claims to, and derives status and power from these claims. They're usually not very friendly with challengers. Some things never change. Recall that Planck said, "Physics advances funeral by funeral." They only relinquish their theories in death.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 06:14 GMT

E: "You say, "I'm looking for a way to interface with and control gravity." Did you find the Science paper I mentioned to you last week? If not, I will make a copy and mail it to you."

They were charging money for that paper. If you have it, please email it to I would really like to know how close they are coming to my shift photon idea. My idea is to repeat rapidly the sequence of frequencies; they are like a stair case from lowest frequency to highest frequency. In the same way that the appearance of motion is produced by a motion picture film, I am hoping that a gravity field will be produced by the rapidly repeating sequence of frequencies; a repeating stairway if you like.

If it works, everybody wins.

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 12:09 GMT

I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg


Yuri Danoyan

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 09:28 GMT
Thanks Yuri,

Winterberg is a genius!


report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 16:47 GMT
I agree....


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 19:16 GMT
If physics was chess, I think that they know how the basic rules work. However, the conservative physics community is just not very bold at trying new strategies.

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 20:27 GMT
Reply for Jason...

Everything new is old again.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 19:39 GMT

I was reading those articles that you attached. While my heart still longs for gravity beams, the use of five different frequencies might have applications in data transmission; huge bandwidths of data could be signaled using five different lasers. I'm just kind of thinking about it.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 15:11 GMT

Just to continue from our discussion about the origins of QED, I came across this amazing picture.

[quote]Descartes believed magnetic attraction was caused by the circulation of tiny helical particles, "threaded parts" (shown), which circulated through parallel threaded pores in magnets, in through the South pole (A), out through the North pole (B), and then through the space around the magnet (G, H) back to the South pole. Oppositely threaded particles circulated in the opposite direction[end quote]

I can't believe it, 1644, one of the first drawings of the field lines of a magnet. The thing is, I've just been re-drawing this basic assumption of field lines based on the scattering of iron filings. I have a feeling that the standard diagram is misleading and misrepresents the actual dynamic geometry involved. I'm working on a simple new theory to explain these field lines. Watch this space..


report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 09:49 GMT

It implies that the atomic nucleus dipole emits both gravitons and anti-gravitons and that all modern physics based on Newton's equation are simple incorrect, despite Einstein's attempt to rectify the situation (he just made it worse in fact, oh dear(!)).

I've done a quick doodle which shows how the gravitons/anti-gravitons should have been travelling in straight lines and that it's the combination of the forces which gives the resultant field lines seen in iron filings.

attachments: 1_Simple_Dipole.jpg, 1_Simple_Dipole_Magnet.jpg

report post as inappropriate

re castel wrote on Apr. 3, 2011 @ 16:07 GMT
Eugene and all ye folks,

I somehow finished and got my essay entry submitted to the Gravity Research Foundation Competition. It is hard for me to believe that it will get a place, just as hard as it was for me to believe that my ideas will get accepted by the FQXi community. But, in any case, as it is about the origin of gravity, you folks might be interested in reading it.

You just might appreciate the 3-D gedanken I put forth instead of just the 2-D gendanken that Einstein put forth regarding the inertial and gravitational equivalence.

Eugene, I've argued with you somewhat regarding the origin of the fundamental field (i.e., the gravitational field)... My paper includes my explanation regarding the origin of gravity and shows why I've been inclined to believe in an infinitely hierarchical cosmos. The infinitely hierarchical cosmos is the only way I can explain the origin of gravity and I've explained it a bit in this essay on gravitation.

My essay paper is at You can download the PDF.

I hope you guys will enjoy reading it.



report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 04:30 GMT
Dear Rafael

Have you read comment in my essay about 2-D space?



report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 04:37 GMT

Have you read this book?


Yuri Riverton(Utah)

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 18:29 GMT
New Measurement of the Earth’s Absolute Velocity with the Help

of the “Coupled Shutters” Experiment

report post as inappropriate

re castel replied on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 00:50 GMT

I haven't read

I read/browsed just now.

I have a simpler view regarding the measurable motions. I have the following at my website - Measuring Motion Transformations in the Aether.

I think that the measurements of the 2-D translations in absolute space are not that relevant, because the 2-D translations resolve into the 3-D tranlations.

The measurements of the 3-D translations are more relevant since they signify the gravitational translations that result in the mass-energy formation process for the various gravitational domains.

The 3-D translations are more definitive since they signify the absolute translations of the grav domains. And the resolved 3-D translations signify an accelerative process that feeds the grav domains according to the 3-D relativistic mass genesis formula.

But my ideas are a hard sell, as indicated by both results of the FQXi community and public ratings that I garnered.

My only consolation is that my work somehow got published - in spite of the fact that even my peers didn't give me a public rating, except for a few.

My ideas can hardly get through peer-review obviously because my ideas have a rather wide-range of exclusion effect on a lot of the popular theories.

I am hoping that you guys will still rate my essay with higher public ratings so that my work can be considered by FQXi.

I hope you read my essay on gravitation that can be downloaded from


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 02:23 GMT
This comment was posted on Florin's "Clothes for the Standard Model Beggar":

Christi, it has been a pleasure to read your comments. Thanks for providing so much clarity and enlightenment. You and earlier commenters and the rich collection of comments on this thread represent the best of FQXi in my opinion.

John, as you know, the Galilean transformation is perfectly correct...

view entire post

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 23:21 GMT
Dear Edwin

This article close to your ideology

All the best


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 05:10 GMT

You are correct that I do not believe in point particles. Thanks for providing the link to an article dealing with this issue. I will look at it.


Edwin Eugene Klingman

John Gadway wrote on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 14:46 GMT

I have begun reading your The Chromodynamics War [through p. 168] with some difficulty and considerable interest.

Are your familiar with work by Brent Herbert? Today I stumbled on him on the Internet, but do not not have time for it today. What do you think? He seems to want to derive the gravitational field from the EM field. Here's the link [or address--I don't know how to embed links directly here] to what I found by accident just now.

I hope to correspond with you directly after finishing your book. I agree that our ideas, coming from totally different career paths, are closer than I might have thought. I am encouraged, at this point, at least, that Brent Herbert is willing to address people like me, with little math sophistication, directly.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 22:24 GMT

Thanks for the note. I'm glad you're reading 'Chromo War' and will be happy to correspond with you. The math is reasonably heavy and the focus is strictly on particle physics. The 'math-free' version that focuses on an overview, including consciousness, is "The Atheist and the God Particle" and the 'medium math' version of this, including cosmology, is "Gene Man's World".

I followed your link and have only begun to look at Brent Herbert's ideas. It may seem a small point, but deriving gravity from the EM field is very different from deriving EM from the gravity field, which is the case in my model.

I look forward to your remarks.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John Gadway replied on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 13:17 GMT

I am able to get enough of the math in Chromodynamics War to follow the drift of the argument, but it's frustrating to be able to see it only through a glass darkly. I also appreciate your perspective and comments on the standard model, which I am trying to understand to the extent that a layman can understand it.

Since posting the note about Brent Herbert I found a bit of time to look into his writing. After about an hour of reading I let it go, sensing a lack of rigor in his arguments. There's so much else to look at!

After finishing your Chromodynamics war [in a week, perhaps] I'll check out the other two,and then probably return to the more technical one. Then perhaps we can have a real exchange of ideas.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 20:19 GMT
Particle/wave vs Particle-plus-wave and Quantum Incompleteness


I have extracted the logic of my Apr. 11, 2011 @ 02:23 GMT comment as follows and invite anyone to expose the fault in my logic:

Bohr's "complementarity principle", the basis of the Copenhagen interpretation, refers to wave/particle duality.

Einstein: "In a complete theory there is an element corresponding to each element of reality."

deBroglie-Bohm theory posits a 'particle plus pilot wave', which is TWO elements of reality.

Quantum mechanics offers only ONE element of reality, the 'wave function' which corresponds only to the 'pilot wave'.

The wave-function does NOT correspond to the particle.

Instead a 'superposition' of wave functions uses Fourier mathematics to 'construct' a particle.

John Bell points out that this wave-packet 'disperses', and only the extremely ugly GRW 'stochastic collapse' currently 'solves' this problem [a true 'patch' in John's sense of the word].

Einstein: "Maxwell's equations are laws representing the *structure* of the field."

Maxwell/Einstein's generalization of these laws to include gravito-magnetism enlarges the set of possible field structures.

[Assume that] these field equations can, in a Yang-Mills, Calabi-Yau-compatible sense, incorporate stable particles.

Superposition of linear wavefunctions can never manage to create 'stable' particles.

Therefore, if, as John Bell preferred, reality is best described by Bohm's 'particle plus wave' rather than as Bohr's 'particle/wave', then the quantum mechanics wave function corresponds only to the 'wave' element of reality and quantum mechanics is incomplete.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 04:13 GMT
Arguments on other threads refuse to get beyond the mention of Bohm, and have therefore not addressed my arguments. This has caused me simplify still further:

1. "In a complete theory there is an element corresponding to each element of reality."

2. QM has ONE element of reality, the wavefunction.

3. QM addresses 'particle/wave' physics, which has ONE element of reality.

4. 'Particle plus wave' physics has TWO elements of reality.

5. QM cannot address BOTH elements, 'particle plus wave', with the wavefunction.

6. If reality consists of 'particle plus wave', then QM is incomplete.

7. If reality is 'particle plus wave', then QM arguments against it are irrelevant.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 05:17 GMT
I remembered on this occasion, the following quote:

"Everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle.(Dyson)



report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 21:12 GMT

Close idea

All the best


report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 03:12 GMT

What is your opinion about Nobel laureate paper?


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 17:47 GMT

Although I was unaware of that particular paper, I have known that Gerard t' Hooft does not accept the current nonsense of non-real, non-local interpretations of quantum mechanics. I say nonsense not as an insult but as a fact. No one can make physical sense of reality as currently interpreted, with strings and branes, many-worlds, a multiverse, 9-to-26 dimensions, supersymmetry, over a dozen 'particles' that have not been detected (and, I predict, won't be), as well as the 'holographic principle' and literally hundreds of 'quantum fields' for which there is no support.

t' Hooft is only one of many physicists who rejects this nonsense. Last week at the Hofstadter Lecture at Stanford University several professors admitted that they had qualms about quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, while t' Hooft, and Murray Gell-Mann can afford to challenge the orthodoxy, the politico-social pressure to fall in line is greater than many can resist.

As for the specifics, t' Hooft was wrong about 'massless neutrinos', but neutrinos in my model do have mass. I do share his preference for a classical continuity underlying reality without believing, as he does, that we need to go to the Planck scale for this. t'Hooft believes that "certain versions of hidden variable theories can--and must-- be revived." Also, unlike the current religiously held beliefs that "information is never lost", he believes that "dissipation of information plays an essential role." And unlike most attempts, he begins with strictly continuous and differentiable classical field theories and shows that an effective Hilbert space emerges from a statistical description of the solutions. Quantum states are simply mathematical devices in his theory.

t' Hooft's earlier attempts led to space time and matter being discrete. In my theory only 'action' is discrete, and QM can be derived from classical physics. t' Hooft claims that in order to make information dissipate in continuous theories it may be necessary to add discrete degrees of freedom. In my theory this may correspond to Planck's constant as the 'unit' of free will to act locally.

Additionally, he models an example four-state system with a deterministic evolution law as quantum states in a manner similar to my treatment in 'The Automatic Theory of Physics'.

So I got a lot out of reviewing his paper, and thank you for the link.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 21:14 GMT
Can you read last comments in my essay?

To my opinion Planck's constant, only constant.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 22:44 GMT

I assume that you mean: "Maybe h only dimensionful constant of Nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged."

If you read my essay, you will see that the first constant to "fall out of" my theory is Planck's constant. That it is truly "constant" is demanded by the theory, in order to make sense. The other constants are then introduced as scale factors in my theory, and may or may not need to be truly constant, as long as relation (6) on page 3 is preserved.

Interesting point.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 23:45 GMT

23 = 'dark matter'

72 = 'dark energy'


It is temporary situation in the cosmological history.

It is not eternal ratio.


that the curvature of space is limited


You are right, but 2D curvature negative or positive.

Depend … boson or fermion

See my essay

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 23:53 GMT

I agree that the current ratio, (23 = 'dark matter'/72 = 'dark energy') is probably a temporary situation in the cosmological history, not an eternal ratio. But that makes little difference to the C-field interpretation of dark matter and energy.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John Gadway wrote on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 23:52 GMT

One of your generous comments on my essay—that our ideas were not as far apart as a reading of your essay might suggest [I’m not quoting you here]—prompted me to acquire and read your The Chromodynamics War. I finished it this morning, having put some other projects on the back burner to create space for the endeavor

It’s been decades since I’ve read a book from a library because I won’t read a book I cannot engage by underlining and making marginal notes. The notes are often critical.

I underlined your book a lot. Most of the notes are simple, either “Yes.” Or “Yes!”

Perhaps my knowledge of math and physics is not sufficient to identify the places where I should have written “No.” I found my mind racing to accept your ideas. A number of the authors you cited, Wilczek, Smolin and Woit, for example, represent recent additions to my layman’s library of books on physics.

The intuitive nature and the physicality of your model made the math much easier for a layman to deal with. Refreshing view of the Standard Model and symmetry, and the sociology of academia!

I hope you get some of the low-hanging fruit! I’m watching the news out of Geneva!

I don’t think you quoted Bernard Haish, but I’m sure you must be familiar with his work. Any comment on his The God Theory? How about Lisa Randall’s popular work, Warped Passages?


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 00:34 GMT
Dear John,

Your's is the kind of comment every author hopes to receive. It sounds like you read the way I do. I read as if I owned stock in a company that makes yellow liners.

It was a considerable investment of time and effort to write the book, and I know it takes time and effort to read the book, so I'm very glad you found it worthwhile. Because I try to put the theory in the context of current theory and history, there's a lot of info to absorb. The math is there for those who require such, but as you indicated, the theory is 'physical' enough to grasp it from discussions and diagrams. A few nuclear physicists accept my model but few professionals are ready to commit to a new theory from one outside the academy, so I'm biding my time and extending the theory. This latest fqxi essay competition has stimulated a number of new realizations, and I'm in process of working out the details.

Thanks for your wish on the low-hanging fruit. I too am watching Geneva (have been for years!)

I have not read Lisa Randall, as I am not a subscriber to strings, branes, or extra dimensions. And I haven't yet checked out Bernard Haisch. I get enough flack from writing about consciousness, and the use of the word God is so loaded for so many physicists, I simply avoid it. Those who take consciousness seriously (as opposed to believing it just 'happened' when the Lego blocks fell together in the right order) have their own understanding of God, so I focus on consciousness. An Amazon review of Haisch's book says "He believes that consciousness is our connection to God, who, or which, is the source of all consciousness". Who could argue with that?

I look forward to further exchanges with you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John Gadway replied on Apr. 22, 2011 @ 15:51 GMT

As you might guess from a careful reading of my essay, for years I have been trying to formulate something I call the Perfect Anthropic Principle in a way that would withstand the scrutiny of professional physicists. Hence my library of books on physics by physicists for non physicists. Your book has helped me sort through the material enormously. After finishing it I picked up...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 17:36 GMT
Dear John,

I encourage you to continue your work on consciousness. We learn best by writing and teaching. You mention interest or belief in a 'force of will' that is a real physical force to which the world responds. I began with just such an assumption; either one separates consciousness entirely from the physical world, or else consciousness must interact with the physical world. It was this idea that led me to my basic force equations, although I later discovered that others had derived the same equations from other starting points. As mentioned elsewhere, 'Gene Man's World' is the story of the search for the equations and their interpretation and significance for physics, and 'Atheist and God Particle' is largely an equation-free comparison of the reductionist world view with a holistic world view.

We live in exciting times. Times in which I think the reductionist world view is self-destructing.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 17:49 GMT
Yesterday morning I received my latest Phys Rev Lett in the mail. The following quotes from Physical Review Letters 106 (1 April 2011) tend to agree with the theory or predictions of the C-field theory summarized in my essay:


"Indeed, most results we have at present about entanglement resource theory rely on two unrealistic (and very strong) assumptions."


"We report results from a reanalysis of data from the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS II). ...These estimates indicate that we can claim no evidence for a WIMP signal." [and "exclude interpretations of the DAMA/LIBRA signal..." and "are also incompatible with a low-mass WIMP explanation for low-energy events see in CoGENT"]


"[In the first LHC search for supersymmetry] no excess above the Standard Model background expectation is observed" and "These ATLAS results exceed previous limits set by other experiments."

#132501 NUCLEONS

"After decades of experimental and theoretical efforts, the internal structure of the nucleon remains one of the defining problems of nuclear physics."

To summarize, based upon the above peer-reviewed statements, my theory claims a new model for nucleon structure, as the decades old model is problematical. My theory claims no SUSY exists, and that agrees with the latest LHC search and all previous searches. The latest report on Dark Matter finds nothing, as predicted by my essay, and entanglement is seen to rely on two very strong but unrealistic assumptions. Week by week, things keep going as my model predicts.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 19:33 GMT
It seems to me very interesting


report post as inappropriate

John Gadway wrote on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 14:29 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

I am reading your essay for a third time this morning as a very interested non-expert.

I think what originally got me interested in quantum physics back in the early 1980s was reading—or reading about—David Bohm. When I hear the phrase ‘pilot wave’ I think of him, but on page 6, where you talk about Local Realty, you mention by name only DeBroglie, Schrödinger, Einstein and Dirac. I understand they were all realist, opposed to the Bohr/Heisenberg Cophenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but what about Bohm? How does your theory, which I find most interesting, relate to his pilot wave?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 00:20 GMT
Dear John Gadway,

First let me thank you for reading it a third time. I have found for decades that to understand any really complex paper I had to read it again and again and...

And each time through I learned something new.

You are correct that 'pilot wave' is often referred to as 'deBroglie-Bohm'. But I referred to it in this manner on another blog thread (Florin's latest) and it basically stirred up a hornet's nest. To the physicists who responded, Bohm carries a lot of baggage and they attempted to place some of this baggage on my back. I am becoming more aware that many ideas that have been fought out over decades will trigger so many false associations that it is better to avoid them, sadly. I had hoped to use the reference as a 'summary overview' of what is meant by 'pilot wave' but instead it was treated as implying all of Bohm's ideas, and subsequent 'disprovals'. I was even told that "Their disgrace rubs onto your theory as well and does your idea a diservice..."

But despite such foolishness, I think that Bohm implied a non-local [end-to-end?] 'quantum field' [whatever a 'quantum field' is] while the C-field is a real classical field that is locally induced by the particle (and hence inseparable from the particle) and that happens to be described by a QM-compatible wavefunction [top of page 6].

Please continue to comment on any matter you deem appropriate.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 4, 2011 @ 18:33 GMT
To all,

In a response to Tom on another thread, I noted that the "facts" that were used to argue with me were highly selective and that "The anomalies addressed at the end of my essay don't seem to bother you or other physicists."

Today I need to modify that. I received the 15 April 2011 issue of Physical Review Letters, Vol 106 in which letter 153001 appears, titled "Proton Size Anomaly", which is one of the anomalies I listed in my essay as support for my theory.

Recall the problem is that the 'dozen place accuracy' of quantum electrodynamics (QED) is threatened by the 'one place accuracy' resulting from a measurement of muonic hydrogen, which is the atom formed by replacing the electron in hydrogen by a muon. The QED calculation of the radius of the proton, based on energy measurements, differs by 4 per cent from electronic hydrogen, a severe anomaly.

In "Proton Size Anomaly" the authors postulate the existence of a new interaction between muons and nucleons and study its nature. This exploration is done in terms of "new scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, and tensor-conserving non-universal interactions [that] may be responsible for the discrepancy." They consider exotic particles that, among leptons, "couple preferable to muons and mediate an attractive nucleon-muon interaction." In doing so they find that the many constraints from low energy data "disfavor new spin-0, spin-1, and spin-2 particles as an explanation." although "there are ways to relax some of the bounds at the expense of introducing complication." [Aren't there always?]

To summarize, the first published analysis of the 'proton size anomaly' finds no explanation in terms of standard QED approaches to the problem. This leaves my C-field explanation as a potential solution to this very important problem.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 4, 2011 @ 18:35 GMT
Some Phys Rev Letters are almost a waste of time, but some are jewels.

The 15 April 2011 issue, Vol 106 also contains an article, #151101, on "Frame-Dragging Vortexes .. [and] the Curvature of Space-time". Note that 'Frame-dragging" is another name for gravito-magnetism, aka the C-field. To quote:

"When one splits spacetime into space plus time, the spacetime curvature (Weyl tensor) gets split into an "electric" part, epsilon(jk) and a "magnetic" part, beta(jk), that describes differential dragging of inertial frames."

The authors report simulations of these effects in colliding, spinning, black holes, and then remark that "Making this heuristic description quantitative, or disproving it, is an important challenge." They conclude that "...the nonlinear dynamics of curved spacetime appears to be dominated by (i) the transfer of spin-induced frame-drag vortexes [aka C-field vortices] from the initial holes to the final merged hole...".

They state, "We conjecture that there is no other important dynamics in the merger and ringdown of BBH."

Slowly, slowly, the C-field is being recognized as central to relativity.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 5, 2011 @ 20:43 GMT
One more proof of C-field:

"The longest-running project in NASA's history has completed its mission. Gravity Probe B has finally confirmed that the Earth drags spacetime around as it rotates like a spoon twisting in a jar of honey, mission scientist announced at a May 4 NASA press briefing."

"Other experiments had already confirmed this "frame-dragging" effect, predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 13, 2011 @ 20:53 GMT
On May. 13, 2011 @ 08:07 on another thread Eckard Blumschein wrote:

Dear Edwin,

While you called my essay refreshing, I am not sure whether or not you carefully checked my arguments and arrived at the same admittedly heretical conclusions.

What about my attempt to understand your gravito-magnetic field and Peter Jackson's claims, I have to admit that only the latter is not trustworthy to me. Admittedly I did not take the effort to read all of the nearly 400 related posts, and I am pretty sure you didn't read the 400 concerning my essay.

Maybe, we can nonetheless support each other by critical remarks. I was a bit deterred by the title of your essay and the introductory figures. Maybe, you shoehorned an alternative to theories that are leading from mere speculations to even more unbelievable speculations into the given topic.

Can you please guide non-physicists like me to an easily understandable explanation of your idea? It could begin with revelations where and why accepted theories might be wrong or at least incomplete, and it should end with at least exemplary indication of consequences. Most important to me is a compelling chain of logic arguments, if necessary supported by means of convincing figures.

It might be exciting for you if newly reported results of scientific research fit into your argumentation. However, those like me who are not familiar with the matter cannot decide whether the offered interpretation is correct. Almost anything could be turned into a confirming evidence for God, Lorentz contraction, or the final victories of Wehrmacht and communism.



As Eckard notes, there are at least a thousand comments scattered around on my theory and on his theory, both in our own threads and on others. I will try to respond to his suggestion in a meaningful way, and I thank him for the above comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 14, 2011 @ 01:20 GMT

You rightly point out that experimental results can be used as "proof" of a number of unlikely things, and ask me to coherently summarize recent results that I claim support my theory.

On these threads I've been challenged by those who have very fixed ideas about reality, including: 1) QM proves reality is 'non-real' and 'non-local', based on Bell's inequality, 2) GR proves...

view entire post

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 17, 2011 @ 01:19 GMT
In a conversation with Georgina Parry on her thread, I said:


I have some idea of the distinction you make between 'objective' reality and 'perceived' reality. I do not see these as incompatible aspects of reality, so when you speak of "Two realities, what is and what is observed", I interpret this is a conservative expression allowing for the possibility that what is...

view entire post

Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 24, 2011 @ 01:30 GMT
Hi Edwin,

#13 caught my eye.

"13) Peter Jackson and others have caused me to focus on the interaction of the C-field with photons. I have discovered a number of fascinating things, including the implications that it is the C-field that exhibits length contraction and mass increase in relativistic particles, and time dilation in gravity gradients."

The C-field does this by holding the speed of light constant between two points (two reference frames); the emitter, locally along the "transmission line", and the observer.

I thought that referring to transmission lines (telegrapher's equation) might be helpful; the idea is to try to express the existence of a something that exists between two reference frames, something that can reproduce Maxwell's equations, provide the infrastructure for light to maintain constant c, and something that will reproduce relativity, time dilation, length contraction, the space-time continuum and gravity.

It is unfortunate that this "something", which you referred to as the C-field, is so subtle that it generally goes unnoticed.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 5, 2011 @ 20:51 GMT
New evidence of "particle AND wave' versus 'particle OR wave':

On several threads I posted Seven Step Logic claiming that QM is based on 'particles AND waves' instead of the standard interpretation 'particles OR waves'.

It appears that a new two-slit experiment based on Aharonov's 'weak measurements' suggest that I am right on this:

From the article:

Explains Steinberg. "Our measured trajectories are consistent, as Wiseman had predicted, with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie,"

"The double slit experiment heavily influenced the principle of complementarity devised by Niels Bohr. Complementarity states that observing complementary variables, such as the particle-like trajectories and the wave-like interference in the double-slit experiment, depends on the type of measurement made -- the system cannot behave as both a particle and wave simultaneously."

"Steinberg's recent experiment suggests this doesn't have to be the case -- the system can behave as both."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 5, 2011 @ 21:04 GMT
Corrected link to article.

Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 09:14 GMT

I'm developing a theory that the reason extra galactic life forms are avoiding our search for intelligent life, yet buzzing around in our skies, may be for a good purpose. They're checking on whether we've developed enough for it to be safe for our science to move on, and will ensure it can't until we are able to handle it.

It would seem we are not. And I must say I do sympathise. If any one of the judges were 'allowed' the vision to see the implications of the C field and the DFM in advancing our understanding of nature, the cat would be out of the box! We couldn't uninvent the bomb, which may still be our downfall, and we couldn't 'herd the cat' back into the box, - perhaps that would be an even bigger problem!

Your omission from the results by secret judging after justly earning 2nd place by the community was a travesty. The point I'm making is that there is a possibly logical reason, but I admit it is rather far fetched! Nevertheless there are still lessons to be learned. And don't be bitter, forgive them as they know not a lot of what they do- and it may not be their fault!


report post as inappropriate

Matlock wrote on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 22:39 GMT

You should try to find out how many judges there were. I know they won't say who they were (maybe they don't know either - for all we know they might have worn hoods to the super secret meeting)but they could at least disclose how many so you could calculate their average that sent you Plummeting.

Unfortunately it wouldn't take much since the difference between you and #18 was about half a point.

And speaking of secret - did FQXi announce ahead of time the exact time and place of their "public" announcement at the World Science Fair - excuse me I mean Festival? What "public" attended???

Anyway - you did a lot for this site during the contest and got a lot of good discussions going, in addition to having an interesting essay. Just wanted to say thanks for your efforts.

report post as inappropriate

Bashir Yusuf wrote on Jun. 7, 2011 @ 18:24 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene klingman

I think you are one of most rational thinkers in current physics society.

I read your essay and saw your discussion in some threads including "breaking the universe speed limit". I would like to read that Seven Step Logic you posted claiming that reality is based on 'particles AND waves' instead of the standard QM interpretation: 'particles OR waves'.please tell me which thread or copy to here.

I realy appreciate the way you and very few friends think about the nature and the reality. I laso discussed with Eckard and pointed out some important basic problems.

The case of the duality, I believe that the photon is a particle and the light is the wave due to the particle's garavitatial force (two different terms).

Does it sound real?

For more, you can find my essay at:

Best wishes.


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 23, 2011 @ 02:21 GMT
I wish to thank those who awarded me a high community score and those who have argued for my essay.

FQXi is based on the recognition of severe problems in physics. Either these problems will find resolution within the current framework of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, or not. If not, then we need a new theory, ideally starting from first principles, 'downward compatible' with GR and QM, and explaining today's physics anomalies. My essay attempted to tie my theory to real physical anomalies and to suggest physical experiments that can actually guide physics beyond 'expert opinion'.

I'm grateful that FQXi provides a platform on which one can record theories, predictions, explanations of current anomalies and suggestions for experiments. Unless one believes that we are in a stasis which will never change, then we can expect the LHC to find evidence of the Higgs (or not, as I predict) and others to find evidence supporting "particle AND wave' (as I claim) versus 'particle OR wave'.

For example, less than a month after being informed that I was 'bringing disgrace on my theory' by even mentioning de Broglie and Bohm, a beautiful new experiment by Steinberg shows "Our measured trajectories are consistent ... with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie,"

And in the 9 June 2011 issue of Nature, Lundeen et al. describe the "Direct Measurement of the Quantum Wavefunction". Most of those who have argued against me in these forums seem to perceive a 'mystical' wavefunction and argue against my contention that the wavefunction is a real field (based on the C-field).

Such physical evidence is piling up and will either vindicate my theory or show me to be wrong. For six years my predictions have been coming true and I believe (and certainly hope) this will continue to be the case. FQXi provides an 'audit trail' that I value highly.

I'm happy to participate in a forum where so many intelligent people invest their efforts to inform their peers and I feel honored that my co-authors, all of whom are pushing their own competing theories, saw fit to reward me a high place in the community.

Thanks to my supporters and to my sincere opponents, whose arguments make me work harder.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 14:54 GMT
Good morning Mr Edwin,

It was a pleasure to have a look at your compsoition on this interesting topic.

Is reality digital or analog?

As a PicoPhysicst (see I have an opinion on the same. The reality is 'Space contains energy (KNERGY)'. KNERGY is digital while Space is analogue. Existence of KNERGY in space, binds the occupied space.

The universe encomapses both both space and KNERGY. It is therefore 5-dimensional. I have participated in 2012 competition with an essay '5-Dimensional Universe'. This is available at

May I request your comments and evaluation of my essay as an author and intellectual with shared interest.

Thanks and best regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

galeri gps wrote on Oct. 21, 2017 @ 10:36 GMT
Thanks for the information

This article is very good for my knowledge going forward

Produk Obat Kuat

Obat Kuat Viagra

Obat Kuat Levitra

Obat Kuat Cialis

Obat Kuat Nangen

Obat Kuat Maxman

Procomil Spray


view entire post

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.